HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-01 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
October 1, 2012
7:00 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 October 1, 2012
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Call to Order
Special Orders of the Day
1. Presentation From Raania Mohsen, Executive Director for Cities
Association of Santa Clara County
2. Acknowledgement of Recipients of Mayor's "Green Leader Business
Award"
City Manager Comments
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
3. Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Ratifying the Resource
Adequacy Transfer Agreement Transferring a Portion of the City’s
Resource Adequacy Capacity from the High Winds Energy Center to
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, in 2013 and 2014
4. Approval of Contract with Muzak, LLC, in the Amount of $201,992 for
Media Broadcast System for the Mitchell Park Library and Community
Center (CIP PE-09006)
5. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an
Agreement for the Sale of System Resource Adequacy Electricity
Capacity to NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC, for Calendar Year
2013
2 October 1, 2012
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.
6. Approval of a Final Map to Create Six New Residential Condominium
Units at 382 and 384 Curtner Avenue
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of
the public have spoken.
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be
limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
7. Response to Colleague's Memo on Employee Benefits
8. Public Meeting: Approval of the Retention of the Charleston
Road/Arastradero Road - Phase II Trial Restriping Improvements
between El Camino Real and Gunn High School
9. Policy and Services Committee Recommendations for Annual Council
Priority Setting Process
10. Colleagues Memo From Mayor Yeh and Council Member Holman
Requesting Council to Pass a Resolution of the City Council of Palo Alto
in Support of Proposition 34 (The SAFE California Act)
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the
Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the
table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very
helpful.
3 October 1, 2012
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Supplemental Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Finance Committee Meeting
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
City of Palo Alto’s Energy Risk Management Report for the Third
Quarter, Fiscal Year 2012
Conflict of Interest Biennial Notice
Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3089)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/1/2012
Summary Title: Approval of NextEra Capacity Transfer Agreement
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Ratifying the Resource
Adequacy Transfer Agreement Transferring a Portion of the City’s Resource
Adequacy Capacity from the High Winds Energy Center to NextEra Energy
Resources, LLC, in 2013 and 2014
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution, ratifying the City Manager’s
signing of the Resource Adequacy Transfer Agreement, which transferred to NextEra Energy
Resources, LLC (NextEra), on August 13, 2012, a portion of the City’s local resource adequacy
capacity rights derived from the High Winds Energy Center for the months of January to April
and September to December of 2013 and 2014.
Executive Summary
The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) requires the City to provide or make
available assets, including capacity rights, to ensure electric transmission system reliability in
California. The City partly meets that obligation with its renewable energy contracts’
commitments, including one contract for the High Winds Energy Center (High Winds) in Solano
County. Although the City normally needs to buy additional energy resources to meet the
CAISO’s requirements, unusual circumstances provided the City with an opportunity to sell a
small amount of its capacity resources and receive a significant amount of revenue (about
$200,000 net) for the City’s Electric Fund without materially and adversely impacting the City’s
ability to meet its obligations to CAISO. NextEra expressed a strong desire in the City’s rights to
High Winds project capacity in order to fulfill its contract obligations relating to a nearby large
wind project with another utility. As a result, NextEra was prepared to pay the City well above
market rates for this product, provided the City could make a contractual commitment during
the Council’s summer recess. The City will need to replace the capacity involved in this
transaction with a similar product, but the amount of capacity involved in the NextEra
transaction is relatively small compared to the City’s capacity needs that arise during those
months; therefore, this transaction will have little impact on the City’s capacity purchasing
needs.
Discussion
Since 2008, the CAISO has allocated to load serving entities, such as the City, the responsibility
for maintaining sufficient local generation capacity to maintain transmission grid reliability.
Like all load serving entities, the City is required to own or contract for local capacity every year
in an amount equivalent to about 50% of its summer peak load from generation resources
located in one of the CAISO-designated load pockets (such as the San Francisco Bay Area,
Stockton, or the Greater Fresno area) or be subject to an allocation of CAISO’s backstop
procurement costs to compensate for any shortfall in capacity to be procured by load serving
entities.
The City was recently presented with the opportunity to participate in a transaction that will
generate a significant amount of revenue (about $200,000 net) for the City’s Electric Fund.
NextEra expressed strong interest in rights to capacity derived from the City’s share of the High
Winds project for two eight–month periods of the year falling in 2013 and 2014, as it needed to
fulfill a contractual obligation to another utility related to a new nearby wind project. As a
result, NextEra agreed to pay well above market rates (about six times the current rates) for
this product. The total revenue that the City will receive from NextEra through this transaction
is $245,000, while the cost of replacing the capacity sold to NextEra is expected to be about
$40,000.
In the unlikely event that the City is unable to obtain capacity to replace the amount being sold
through this transaction and thus will be exposed to the CAISO’s backstop procurement costs,
the maximum expected charge that could be incurred as a result of that deficiency would be
about $80,000, or about one-third of NextEra’s compensation to the City. Of the $245,000
NextEra is obligated to pay the City, NextEra paid $185,000 (76%) soon after execution of the
agreement. The balance of $60,000 will be paid in four equal installments of $15,000 in April
and December of 2013 and 2014.
Under the City’s Energy Risk Management Policy, the City Manager has the authority to enter
into contracts for electric commodity purchases and sales for terms of up to three years with
counterparties with whom the City has an existing Electric Master Agreement. The current
transaction is with a counterparty with which the City does not currently have an Electric
Master Agreement in place, hence, the Council’s approval is required.
Because NextEra needed to obtain financing for its new wind project near the High Winds
project, NextEra was highly motivated to negotiate and execute this transaction with the City
on an expedited basis. That occurred during the Council’s summer recess. Staff informed
NextEra of the requirement to secure the Council’s ratification of the transaction.
Prior to this transaction, the City was already short 6 to 17 megawatts (MW) of local capacity
for the months January to April and September to December of 2013 and 2014. The sale
transaction with NextEra increased the deficit by a small amount (0.5 to 2.0 MW/month) such
that the transaction will have minimal impact on the City’s plan to purchase local capacity to
meet the CAISO’s requirements in the future.
Resource Impact
Without this transaction, local resource adequacy capacity purchases were expected to cost the
City approximately $2.0 million in calendar year 2013, and $3.0 million in calendar year 2014.
Net revenue received through this transaction reduces those cost estimates by approximately
$100,000 per year.
Policy Implications
This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan to ensure
a high level of system reliability in a cost-effective manner.
Environmental Review
Support of the recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the NextEra resource
adequacy capacity transfer agreement does not constitute a project for the purposes of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Approving Transfer of RA Capacity (PDF)
Attachment B: RA Transfer Agreement (PDF)
Prepared By: James Stack, Resource Planner
Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
*NOT YET APPROVED*
120910 dm 00710085 1
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Sale
of Local Resource Adequacy Electricity Capacity Products to NextEra Energy
Resources, LLC, for Calendar Years 2013 and 2014
A. The California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) adopted a Resource
Adequacy (“RA”) program to ensure the reliability of electric service in California by requiring all
Load Serving Entities (“LSEs”) to file a resource adequacy plan with the CPUC, demonstrating
sufficient capacity resources (“RA Capacity”), including reserves needed to serve its aggregate
system load on a monthly basis.
B. High Winds, LLC, an affiliate of NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (“NextEra”), operates the 162 MW wind generation facility located in
Birds Landing, Solano County, CA (“High Winds Generation Facility” or “HW”), which meets the
CPUC’s requirements as a source of RA Capacity.
C. The City holds a 20 MW portion of output from HW, including but not limited to
the RA Capacity from HW for 2013 and 2014, pursuant to the “Long-Term Power Purchase
Agreement (Wind Power) made between PPM Energy, Inc., as Seller and The City of Palo Alto,
as Purchaser dated November 9, 2004” (“PPA”).
D. NextEra desires to obtain this HW RA Capacity from the City for the months of
January through April and September through December of both 2013 and 2014 (the “Transfer
Period”).
E. The Parties intend that the actions contemplated by this Agreement shall not
have an adverse impact on the High Winds Generation Facility in calendar year 2013 and 2014
or thereafter. NextEra and the City further acknowledge that the amount of RA Capacity as
determined by the CAISO for HW for calendar years 2013 and 2014 will be variable and
determined by future events unrelated to this Agreement.
F. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc. (“Iberdrola”) is the successor in interest to PPM
Energy, Inc. in regard to the PPA.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby resolve, as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves and ratifies the agreement between the City
and NextEra transferring the City’s HW RA Capacity to NextEra for the Transfer Period in
exchange for a total payment of two hundred forty-five thousand dollars ($245,000.00).
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
120910 dm 00710085
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the
definition of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
California Public Resources Code Section 21065, and therefore, no environment assessment is
required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Utilities
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3082)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 10/15/2012
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Mitchell Park Library/CC Media Broadcast System
Title: Approval of Contract with Muzak, LLC, in the Amount of $201,992 for
Media Broadcast System for the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
(CIP PE-09006)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1.Approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the
attached contract (Attachment A) with Muzak, LLC, in the amount of
$201,992 for a broadcast media system for the Mitchell Park Library &
Community Center Project (PE-09006).
2.Authorize the City Manager or designee to negotiate and execute one or
more change orders to the contract with Muzak, LLC for related additional
but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value
of which shall not exceed $20,000.
Background
The Mitchell Park Library & Community Center (MPLCC) is currently under
construction. Discussions began in January 2011 regarding the desirability of
adding broadcasting capabilities to the Mitchell Park Library & Community Center
(MPLCC). The addition of this service in the multi-purpose room in the
Community Center will allow for an instructor or students at a remote location to
City of Palo Alto Page 2
view or broadcast story times, author visits, talent shows, musical productions,
public meetings, etc. A similar system was also installed in the Downtown Library
and has been used for a number of public meetings and other events.
Discussion
The addition of broadcasting capabilities in the multi-purpose room in the
Community Center will allow for an instructor or students at a remote location to
view or broadcast story times, author visits, talent shows, musical productions,
public meetings, etc. There was no anticipation of this scope during the design,
estimating, or bidding phases of the MPLCC project therefore it was not included
it in the plan set that was advertised for construction bids, nor in the original
Measure N bond estimate. A similar system was also installed in the Downtown
Library and has been used for many public meetings and other events proving
both desirable and successful. A media broadcasting system for the Main Library
is being incorporated into its design.
The contract will provide for equipment and installation of cameras, tuner,
speakers, amplifiers and touch panels. Staff is recommending approval of the
base bid and one add alternate. The add alternate allows the City the option of
upgrading the projector to a high-definition projector.The low bid of $201,992 is
37 percent above the engineer's estimate of $147,000. Although the City sent the
Invitation for Bids (IFB) to 16 audio visual (AV) firms, one builders’ exchange and
posted the IFB on their website, only one bidder attended the non-mandatory
pre-bid conference and only two bids were received. The City consultant who did
the design of the media broadcast system informed City staff that this is a very
busy time for AV firms with many school projects under construction and was
therefore not surprised at the lack of response or in the bids being higher than
estimated. Staff contemplated rebidding the project in an attempt to obtain
lower bids, but was not confident in being successful and, more importantly, felt
that the construction schedule could not accommodate the delay. A bid summary
is provided in Attachment B.
Bid Name IFB Number 146496 Mitchell Park Library and Community Center
Media Broadcast System
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Proposed Length of Project 165 calendar days
Number of IFBs Mailed to
Contractors
16
Number of IFBs Mailed to
Builder’s Exchanges
1
Total Days to Respond to Bid 28
Non-mandatory Pre-Bid
Meeting?
Yes
Number of Company Attendees
at Pre-Bid Meeting
1
Number of Bids Received:2
Base Bid Plus Add Alt Price Range From a low of $201,992 to a high of $291,442
Staff has reviewed the bids submitted and recommends that the bid of $201,992
submitted by Muzak, LLC, be accepted and that Muzak, LLC, be declared the
lowest responsible bidder. Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License
Board that the contractor has an active license on file.
An Operations Plan is under development for Mitchell Park L&CC which will
identify the entity (or entities) that will be resourced and trained to broadcast
public meetings. The Media Broadcast System (MBS) is a complex system
requiring significant dedication of time for training and operation of the system.
For City Council meetings this function is outsourced to the Media Broadcast
Center and Interweave (a Consulting firm) and this option will be considered for
the Mitchell location. The Operations Plan will identify the types and frequency of
meetings to be broadcast so that resources can be estimated. The Plan will also
include the Downtown Library location where a separate system has already been
installed.
Resource Impact
Funding for this work is available in the Capital Improvement Program project PE-
09006 Mitchell Park Library and Community Center.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Policy Implications
Approval of this contract is consistent with Council’s previous direction on the
library projects and will further the projects identified in Measure N. The cost of
the media broadcast system was not included in the original Measure N bond
estimate, but was added at a later date and does not represent a change in City
policy.
Timeline
The MPLCC is currently under construction and is expected to be opened to the
public in the spring of 2013. Broadcast media hardware will be installed at
various times between now and the end of the construction. Award of the
contract now will allow enough time to coordinate Muzak’s installation with
Flintco’s ongoing work at the MPLCC and to get cabling in before the ceilings are
installed.
Environmental Review
On July 21, 2008, the Council confirmed the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s approvals of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the MPLCC.
Attachments:
·A -Contract Broadcast Media Center(PDF)
·B -MP media broadcast bids (XLS)
1 Rev. May 1, 2012
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
Contract No. S13146496
City of Palo Alto
and
Muzak LLC
PROJECT
“Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Media
Broadcast System”
2 Rev. May 1, 2012
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS……………………………….. ....................5
1.1 Recitals ................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................... 5
SECTION 2. THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………..............................5
SECTION 3. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS…………………………………………………………. .........................5
3.1 List of Documents …………………………………………………………………………………………......5
3.2 Order of Precedence ……………………………………………………………………………................6
SECTION 4. THE WORK …………………………………………………………………………………..............................6
SECTION 5. PROJECT TEAM …………………………………………………………………………...............................7
SECTION 6. TIME OF COMPLETION …………………………………………………………………............................7
6.1 Time Is of Essence........................................................................................……… 7
6.2 Commencement of Work..................................................................................... 7
6.3 Contract Time....................................................................................................... 7
6.4 Liquidated Damages............................................................................................. 7
6.4.1 Entitlement……………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
6.4.2 Daily Amount…………………………………………………………………………………………. 8
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
6.4.4 Other Remedies…………………………………………………………………………………... 8
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time........................................................................... … 8
SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR………………………………………………………………………... 8
7.1 Contract Sum ………………………………………………………………………………………………………8
7.2 Full Compensation …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work …………………………………………………………….9
7.3.1 Self Performed Work…………………………………………………………………………………9
7.3.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………….9
SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE...................................................................................................9
SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION......................................................................................................10
9.1 Hold Harmless ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
9.2 Survival ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
SECTION 10. NONDISCRIMINATION ..............................................................................................10
SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ..........................................................................................10
SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS..........................................................................11
3 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 13. NOTICES....................................................................................................................11
13.1 Method of Notice ………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
13.2 Notice Recipients ................................................................................................. 11
13.3 Change of Address ............................................................................................... 12
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes........................................................................... 12
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ............................................................................... 12
14.2.1 Non‐Contract Disputes …………………………………………………………………………………….12
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election …………………………………………………………...........................13
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute …………………………………………………………………………..13
14.3.1 By Contractor …………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
14.3.2 By City ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process...............................................................…… 13
14.4.1 Direct Negotiation…………………………………………………………………………………….13
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ………………………………………………………………… 14
14.4.3 Mediation …………………………………………………………………………..14
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ………………………………………………………………..15
14.5 Non‐Waiver …………………………………………………………………………………………………………16
SECTION 15. DEFAULT...................................................................................................................16
15.1 Notice of Default.................................................................................................. 16
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default ................................................................................ 16
SECTION 16. CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES..................................................................................16
16.1 Remedies Upon Default ....................................................................................... 16
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services …………………………………………………………...........................16
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold ……………………………………………………………………………. 16
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract ………………………………………………………….16
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default ……………………………………..17
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond ………………………………………………………………….17
16.1.6 Additional Provisions ……………………………………………………………………………….17
16.2 Delays by Sureties................................................................................................ 17
16.3 Damages to City................................................................................................... 17
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default …………………………………………………………………………..17
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses ………………………………………………………………………….17
16.5 Suspension by City for Convenience..................................................................... 18
16.6 Termination Without Cause ................................................................................. 18
16.6.1 Compensation ………………………………………………………………………………………….18
16.6.2 Subcontractors …………………………………………………………………………………………18
16.7 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination................................................................. 19
SECTION 17. CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES...................................................................19
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies......................................................................................... 19
4 Rev. May 1, 2012
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage …………………………………………………………………………………..19
17.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment …………………………………………………………………………… 19
17.2 Damages to Contractor ........................................................................................ 19
SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS............................................................................................19
18.1 Financial Management and City Access..........................................................……. 19
18.2 Compliance with City Requests ........................................................................ …. 20
SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES.............................................................................................20
SECTION 20. NUISANCE.................................................................................................................20
SECTION 21. PERMITS AND LICENSES............................................................................................20
SECTION 22. WAIVER....................................................................................................................20
SECTION 23. GOVERNING LAW .....................................................................................................20
SECTION 24. COMPLETE AGREEMENT ...........................................................................................21
SECTION 25. SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT..........................................................................................21
SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES..................................................................................................21
SECTION 27. NON APPROPRIATION ..............................................................................................21
SECTION 28. GOVERNMENTAL POWERS........................................................................................21
SECTION 29. ATTORNEY FEES........................................................................................................21
SECTION 30. COUNTERPARTS........................................................................................................22
SECTION 31. SEVERABILITY ...........................................................................................................22
5 Rev. May 1, 2012
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on October 1, 2012 (“Execution Date”) by and between the
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and Muzak LLC Limited Liability
Company ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following:
R E C I T A L S:
A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of
California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the
State of California and the Charter of City.
B. Contractor is a Limited Liability Company duly organized and in good standing in the State of
Delaware, Contractor’s License Number 971747. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State
of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set
forth in this Construction Contract.
C. On June 28,2012, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Mitchell Park Library
& Community Center Media Broadcast Systems (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a
bid.
D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other
services as identified in the Bid Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows:
SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS.
1.1 Recitals.
All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
1.2 Definitions.
Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the
General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and
in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail.
SECTION 2 THE PROJECT.
“The Project is the construction of the “Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Media Broadcast
Systems” ("Project").
SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
3.1 List of Documents.
The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist
of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
1) Change Orders
6 Rev. May 1, 2012
2) Field Change Orders
3) Contract
4) Project Plans and Drawings
5) Technical Specifications
6) Special Provisions
7) Notice Inviting Bids
8) Instructions to Bidders
9) General Conditions
10) Bidding Addenda
11) Invitation for Bids
12) Contractor's Bid/Non‐Collusion Affidavit
13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents
14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and
updated from time to time
15) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005
and updated from time to time
16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements
17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations
18) Notice Inviting Pre‐Qualification Statements, Pre‐Qualification Statement, and Pre‐
Qualification Checklist (if applicable)
19) Performance and Payment Bonds
20) Insurance Forms
3.2 Order of Precedence.
For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the
provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the
preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City
shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best
interests of the City.
SECTION 4 THE WORK.
The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other
things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without
7 Rev. May 1, 2012
limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable
Code Requirements.
SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM.
In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide
professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project requires
that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of
the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project.
SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION.
6.1 Time Is of Essence.
Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents.
6.2 Commencement of Work.
Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed.
6.3 Contract Time.
Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be
completed
X not later than June 30, 2013.
within calendar days ( ) after the commencement date specified in City’s
Notice to Proceed.
6.4 Liquidated Damages.
6.4.1 Entitlement.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and
satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of
Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and
impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to:
(i) Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants.
(ii) Loss of public use of public facilities.
(iii) Extended disruption to public.
8 Rev. May 1, 2012
6.4.2 Daily Amount.
City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual
damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the
entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all
other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event
Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the
Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per
day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor
achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is
not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City
will suffer by delay in completion of the Work.
6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy.
City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall
be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve
Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.4.4 Other Remedies.
City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where
City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve
Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time.
6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time.
The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to by
Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR.
7.1 Contract Sum.
Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the
Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Two Hundred One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety‐Two
Dollars ($201,992).
X [This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates $201,992.]
9 Rev. May 1, 2012
7.2 Full Compensation.
The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor
and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover
all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen
difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until
its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to
suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change
Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work.
The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving
Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by
City:
1. Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor,
which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and
Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section.
2. A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable
Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance
with this Section.
3. Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups
applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section.
Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full
amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is
attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors
and Sub‐subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment methodology, Contractor
Markup and Subcontractor/Sub‐subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be
computed as follows:
7.3.1 Markup Self‐Performed Work.
10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by Contractor with its own forces.
7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors.
15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be
performed by a first Tier Subcontractor.
SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE.
Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well‐supervised
personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a
manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in
providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.
10 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION.
9.1 Hold Harmless.
To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its
City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City,
from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to
any of, the following:
(i) Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐
subcontractors, of any tier;
(ii) Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐
subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents;
(iii) The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors, of
any tier, either on the Site or on other properties;
(iv) The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or
Sub‐subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and
(v) Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with
the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐
subcontractors of any tier, of the Work.
However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses
resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor
shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract
Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor
against City or any other Indemnitee.
9.2 Survival.
The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract.
SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION.
As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of
this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color,
gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status,
familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands
the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.
On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance
and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions.
Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract.
11 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS.
City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of the
Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign,
hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by
operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or
transfer without said consent shall be null and void.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor
is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co‐tenancy shall result in changing the control of
Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than
fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.
SECTION 13 NOTICES.
13.1 Method of Notice.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in
writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following:
(i) On the date delivered if delivered personally;
(ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and
addressed as hereinafter provided;
(iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission;
(iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or
(v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail.
13.2 Notice Recipients.
All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City
shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be
addressed to City at:
To City: City of Palo Alto
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Copy to: X City of Palo Alto
Public Works Administration
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: Debra Jacobs
Or
12 Rev. May 1, 2012
City of Palo Alto
Utilities Engineering
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn:
In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided
to the following:
Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, California 94303
All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.
All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to:
Muzak LLC
3318 Lakemont Blvd.
Fort Mill, SC. 29708
13.3 Change of Address.
In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the change
of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any
individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided.
SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this
Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged
by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process
set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such
Contract Disputes.
14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes.
14.2.1 Non‐Contract Disputes.
Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following:
(i) Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a
governmental agency;
(ii) Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to
any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub‐subcontractors
of any tier;
(iii) False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.;
(iv) Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to
Contractor;
(v) Stop notices; or
(vi) The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel
performance of any provision of the Contract Documents.
13 Rev. May 1, 2012
14.2.2 Litigation, City Election.
Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not
be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the
right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes.
Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such
dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including,
without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final
determination until after Final Completion of the Work.
14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute.
14.3.1 By Contractor.
Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written
response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the
General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as
set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of
Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a
timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and
binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of
perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the
Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract
Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate
supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a
Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the
following:
(i) All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the
Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the
Contract Time and
(ii) A detailed, event‐by‐event description of the impact of each event on
completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Dispute
involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following:
(a) A detailed cost breakdown and
(b) Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and
other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for
submission of Change Order Requests and Claims.
14.3.2 By City.
City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time
following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute.
City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor.
A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or
circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the
damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events.
14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process.
The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution
Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good
faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall
be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the
process.
14.4.1 Direct Negotiations.
Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not
later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good
14 Rev. May 1, 2012
faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be
represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of
the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations,
and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to
City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed
settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim
by a Subcontractor or Sub‐subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn
being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass‐Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor
or Sub‐Subcontractor shall also have a
representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as
described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not
resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare
negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all
documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and
privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152.
14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes.
Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all
unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project,
subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract
Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that
have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time
after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract
Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract
Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the
provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved
Contract Disputes until after Final Completion.
14.4.3 Mediation.
If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph
14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non‐binding mediation before a
mutually acceptable third party mediator.
.1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who
is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in
public works construction contract law and in mediating public works
construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20)
hours of formal training in mediation skills.
.2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating
mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party
of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a
mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then
the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in
accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules.
.3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City.
The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator
shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute
and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the
mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation
shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code
Sections 1119 and 1152.
15 Rev. May 1, 2012
14.4.4 Binding Arbitration.
If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the
Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California
Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be
final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such
arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
.1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in
arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to
California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5.
.2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties.
The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years
of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public
works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least
twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties
cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract
Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the
qualifications required herein.
.3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of
City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator,
be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or
continuance.
.4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good
cause shown.
.5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a
certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and
Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award.
.6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance
with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided,
however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following:
(i) Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per
party.
Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of
permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for
purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an
expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in
accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including
initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as
evidence.
.7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear
dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards.
16 Rev. May 1, 2012
.8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a
jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4.
Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors
who provide any portion of the Work.
14.5 Non‐Waiver.
Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise
any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the
rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by
Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without
limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests
for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting
documentation of Claims.
SECTION 15 DEFAULT.
15.1 Notice of Default.
In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to
perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any
provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the
manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract.
15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default.
Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under
the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require)
after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such
time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as
City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to
completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after
receipt of such written notice.
SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
16.1 Remedies Upon Default.
If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth
above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including,
without limitation, the following:
16.1.1 Delete Certain Services.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the
Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.2 Perform and Withhold.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the
Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and
withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself
all rights to Losses related thereto.
16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract.
City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights
to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as
17 Rev. May 1, 2012
long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which
event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall
have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work.
16.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default.
City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon
the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 15. City’s
election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by
giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of
notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by
City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein.
16.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond.
City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all
rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.
16.1.6 Additional Provisions.
All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and
shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity.
Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive
the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to
terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the
Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has
been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of
its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on
all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice
any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract
Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover
all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.
16.2 Delays by Sureties.
Without limiting to any of City’s other rights or remedies, City has the right to suspend the
performance of the Work by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following:
(i) The sureties’ failure to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure
full compliance with the Construction Contract within the Contract Time;
(ii) The sureties’ abandonment of the Work;
(iii) If at any time City is of the opinion the sureties’ Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably
delaying the Work;
(iv) The sureties’ violation of any terms of the Construction Contract;
(v) The sureties’ failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or
(vi) The sureties’ failure to follow City’s instructions for completion of the Work within the
Contract Time.
16.3 Damages to City.
16.3.1 For Contractor's Default.
City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of
Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents.
16.3.2 Compensation for Losses.
In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract
Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor
until Final Completion of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default,
then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the
amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or
18 Rev. May 1, 2012
its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed
the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall
promptly remit same to City.
16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience.
City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to
suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an
aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as
a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s
expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the
Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if
any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered
by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume
and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the
Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order
shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work.
16.5 Termination Without Cause.
City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or
in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under
this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such
termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not
limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential,
direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause.
16.5.1 Compensation.
Following such termination and within forty‐five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from
Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay the
following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work :
.1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion
of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination,
less sums previously paid to Contractor.
.2 For Close‐out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors and
Sub‐subcontractors for:
(i) Demobilizing and
(ii) Administering the close‐out of its participation in the Project (including,
without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including
attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days
after receipt of the notice of termination.
.3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the
Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.
16.5.2 Subcontractors.
Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other
contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are
consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery
against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section.
19 Rev. May 1, 2012
16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination.
Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the
notice directs otherwise, do the following:
(i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice;
(ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities,
except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not
discontinued;
(iii) Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the
notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are
outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes,
payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of
the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or
modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine
necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to
terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract;
(iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions
thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms
reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof,
that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and
(iii) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already
in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in
transit thereto.
SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.
17.1 Contractor’s Remedies.
Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the
following:
17.1.1 For Work Stoppage.
The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any
Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of
an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of
government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This
provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension
notice issued either for cause or for convenience.
17.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment.
If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of
notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a
second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract.
17.2 Damages to Contractor.
In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided
for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive
compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not
limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential,
direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.
SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS.
18.1 Financial Management and City Access.
Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary
for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally
20 Rev. May 1, 2012
accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business
hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take‐offs, cost reports,
ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase
orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these
documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution
of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by
law.
18.2 Compliance with City Requests.
Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a condition
precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City
and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many
enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred
to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent
mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such
court, without the necessity of oral testimony.
SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES.
Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’
of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or
its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth.
SECTION 20 NUISANCE.
Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in
connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract.
SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES.
Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall
provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government
jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses
for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation
shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non‐City inspectors or conditions set
forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies.
SECTION 22 WAIVER.
A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition
contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW.
This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of
California.
21 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all
prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended
only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties.
SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT.
The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction
Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment
obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect
after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract.
SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES.
This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the
performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered
city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the
exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is
funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION.
This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds
for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a
conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 28 AUTHORITY.
The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and
authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES.
Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the
claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2,
the prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provision of this Agreement may recover its
reasonable costs and attorney’s fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys
employed by it as well as any attorney’s’ fees paid to third parties.
SECTION 30 COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties,
constitute a single binding agreement.
22 Rev. May 1, 2012
SECTION 31 SEVERABILITY.
In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity,
legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the
date and year first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
___________________________
Public Works Director
MUZAK LLC
By:___________________________
Name:_________________________
Title:________________________
Attachment B
Engineer's Estimate $137,000 $10,000 $147,000
% above/below
Bidder Base Bid Add Alt 1 Bid Amount Eng. Est.
Muzak $181,599 $20,393 $201,992 37% above
ICS $266,600 $24,842 $291,442 98% above
Base Bid (3 items)
Add Alternate #1 (upgrade projector)
S:PWD/Eng/KB Projects/CIPs/Libraries & Comm Cntr/Mitchell Park Specific/Contract others/Media broadcast/MP media broadcast bids
BID SUMMARY
IFB #146496
Mitchell Park Library & Community Center Media Broadcast System
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3159)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/1/2012
Summary Title: System Capacity Sales Agreement with Nextera
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an
Agreement for the Sale of System Resource Adequacy Electricity Capacity to
NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC, for Calendar Year 2013
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing the City
Manager, or his designee, to execute an agreement for the sale of System Resource Adequacy
Capacity to NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC coming from a portion of the City’s system
resource adequacy capacity rights from the Calaveras Hydroelectric Project (Calaveras) for the
months of May 2013 through September 2013.
Executive Summary
The City and other Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) members jointly own the
Calaveras project, which provides 250 megawatts (MW) of capacity. The City’s share in
Calaveras is roughly 23% of the project or 57 MW. Calaveras provides value to the City through
the generation of carbon-free electricity and through its ability to provide ancillary services and
system resource adequacy capacity products (system capacity) to meet load requirements,
which are normally in excess of the City’s requirements. NCPA manages Calaveras within the
month to extract the most value for all of its owners, however, NCPA does not have the ability
to sell products associated with Calaveras for terms greater than one month. Palo Alto,
however, retains the right to sell certain products associated with Calaveras for terms that are
greater than one month. NextEra, like the City, has an obligation to carry system capacity to
meet certain load requirements and to meet its requirements, NextEra Energy Power
Marketing has offered to buy 10 to 56 MW of capacity from the City for the months of May
2013 through September 2013. The system capacity is in excess of the City’s and other NCPA
members’ needs and, if sold to NextEra, would provide a one-time revenue to the City’s Electric
Fund of approximately $364,000.
Discussion
Since 2008 the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) has allocated responsibility to
load serving entities to maintain sufficient generation capacity for transmission grid reliability.
Like all load serving entities, the City is required on both on an annual and monthly basis to
demonstrate its ability to cover 115% of its monthly peak capacity with qualifying system
capacity resources. For 2013, the City is able to fully meet both the annual and monthly system
capacity requirement through several of its resources and is projected to be surplus in all
months.
On September 13, 2012, NextEra Energy Power Marketing provided an unsolicited offer to City
staff to purchase a portion of the City’s excess system capacity related to the Calaveras project
at a price of $2,000 per megawatt-month (MW-month) for varying quantities as shown in
Table 1. The price of $2,000 per MW-month represents a high price relative to market price
indicatives obtained by staff and NCPA and is higher than the NCPA Commission-approved-
price of $1,250 per MW-month for system capacity transactions between NCPA members.
Table 1: System Capacity Volumes and Revenue from NextEra Transaction for 2013
Sales
Volume
(MW)
Price
($/MW-month)
Revenue
($000)
May 10.0 2,000 20
June 40.0 2,000 80
July 56.0 2,000 112
August 56.0 2,000 112
September 20.0 2,000 40
Total 182 2,000 364
As the system capacity is surplus to the City’s needs, the transaction will not require that staff
replace the capacity to meet the City’s requirements. The City’s system capacity resources
compared to the system capacity requirements are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Palo Alto’s 2013 System Capacity Balance and NextEra Transaction Volumes
Under the City’s Energy Risk Management Policy, the City Manager has the authority to enter
into contracts for electric commodity purchases and sales for terms of up to three years with
counterparties with whom the City has an existing Electric Master Agreement. Additionally,
under the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Section 2.30.210), the City Manager has authority to enter
into wholesale commodity transactions for a maximum annual transaction amount of $250,000.
The City does not have an Electric Master Agreement with NextEra Energy Power Marketing
and the sales transaction exceeds the City Manager’s transaction authority under the Municipal
Code. In order to meet the CAISO’s deadline of October 2012 for load serving entities to
demonstrate their ability to meet the compliance requirements, staff is requesting Council’s
authorization to execute the transaction under the Western States Power Pool (WSPP)
agreement, subject to the requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Section 2.30.340) for
contracts for wholesale utility commodities. A draft of the transaction confirmation is attached
and linked is the WSPP agreement http://www.wspp.org/current_effective_agreement.php.
Resource Impact
Without this transaction, resource adequacy capacity purchases were expected to cost the City
approximately $2.0 million in calendar year 2013. Net revenue received through this
transaction would reduce this cost estimate by $364,000.
Policy Implications
This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan to ensure
a high level of system reliability in a cost-effective manner and to maximize the value of existing
generation assets.
Environmental Review
Support of the recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the NextEra Energy Power
Marketing resource system capacity sales agreement does not constitute a project for the
purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Attachments:
Attachment A: RESO NextEra Energy Power Marketing LLC System RA Sale (PDF)
Attachment B: Draft System Capacity Sale Agreement to NextEra (PDF)
Prepared By: Monica Padilla, Sr. Resource Planner
Department Head: Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
120926 dm 00710059
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Sale
of System Resource Adequacy Electricity Capacity to NextEra Energy Power
Marketing, LLC, for Calendar Year 2013
A. The California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) adopted a Resource
Adequacy (“RA”) program to ensure the reliability of electric service in California by requiring all
Load Serving Entities (“LSEs”) to file a resource adequacy plan with the California Independent
System Operator (“CAISO”), demonstrating sufficient system resource adequacy electricity
capacity resources (“System Capacity”), including reserves needed to serve its aggregate system
load on a monthly basis.
B. The City of Palo Alto (“City”), as an LSE, jointly built and owns with other
Northern California Power Agency (“NCPA”) members the Calaveras Hydroelectric Project
(“Calaveras”) located in Calaveras County, California. Calaveras is a 250 MW power plant, of
which the City’s ownership share is 57 MW. Calaveras is capable of producing electricity,
ancillary service products and system RA Capacity.
C. The City has sufficient system RA Capacity to meet its current load obligations on
an annual and monthly basis and in all months has excess system RA Capacity, which may be
attributed to Calaveras.
D. NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC (“NextEra”) desires to enter into a
contract to purchase from the City a portion of the City’s excess System Capacity associated
with Calaveras in quantities ranging from 10 MW to 56 MW for the months of May through
September 2013 at a price of $2 per kilowatt-month.
E. The City and NextEra are both members of Western State Power Pool (“WSPP”)
and therefore may use the WSPP agreement to engage in electric wholesale commodity
transactions. Under Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 2.30.340, the City may use the WSPP
agreement to negotiate energy and capacity transactions.
G. NextEra currently does not have an energy master purchase and sale agreement
with the City, therefore, the City Manager is not authorized by the Municipal Code to enter into
transactions in excess of $250,000 per year.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby resolve, as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute
an agreement under the WSSP contract form or substantially similar form between the City and
NextEra for the sale of System Capacity associated with Calaveras to NextEra in exchange for a
total payment to the City of three-hundred, sixty-four thousand dollars ($364,000.00).
//
//
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
120925 dm 00710059
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the
definition of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
California Public Resources Code Section 21065, and therefore, no environment assessment is
required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
____________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Utilities
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
RA Capacity
1
MASTER POWER PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
CONFIRMATION LETTER
BETWEEN
NEXTERA ENERGY POWER MARKETING LLC
AND
CITY OF PALO ALTO
This confirmation letter ("Confirmation") confirms the Transaction between the City of Palo Alto, California
(“Seller”) and NextEra Energy Power Marketing, LLC (“Buyer”), each individually a “Party” and together
the “Parties”, dated as of ____________ (the "Confirmation Effective Date") in which Seller agrees to
provide to Buyer the right to the Product, as such term is defined in Article 2 of this Confirmation. This
Transaction shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Western System Power Pool Agreement,
as updated April 23, 2012 (the “Master Agreement”). The Master Agreement and this Confirmation shall
be collectively referred to herein as the “Agreement”. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in
this Confirmation have the meanings ascribed to them in the Master Agreement, or the Tariff (defined
herein below).
DEFINITIONS
1.1 "Applicable Laws" means any law, rule, regulation, order, decision, judgment, or other legal or
regulatory determination by any Governmental Body having jurisdiction over one or both Parties
or this Transaction, including without limitation, the Tariff.
1.2 “Availability Incentive Payments” has the meaning set forth in the Tariff.
1.3 “Availability Standards” has the meaning set forth in the Tariff.
1.4 "CAISO" means the California Independent System Operator or any successor entity performing
the same functions.
1.5 “Capacity Attributes” means any and all current or future defined characteristics, certificates, tags,
credits, or accounting constructs, howsoever entitled, including any accounting construct counted
toward any resource adequacy requirements, attributed to or associated with the Units throughout
the Delivery Period.
1.6 "Capacity Flat Price" means the price specified in the Capacity Flat Price Table in Section 4.1.
1.7 "Capacity Replacement Price" means the market price for the quantity of Product not provided by
Seller under this Confirmation as determined in the manner upon which market prices are
determined under Section 5.2 of the Master Agreement. For purposes of Section 1.51 of the
Master Agreement, “Capacity Replacement Price” shall be deemed the “Replacement Price” for
this Transaction.
1.8 "Contract Price" means, for any Showing Month, the product of the Capacity Flat Price and the
Price Shape for such period.
1.9 "Contract Quantity" has the meaning set forth in Section 2.5.
1.10 "CPUC Decisions" means CPUC Decisions 04-01-050, 04-10-035, 05-10-042, 06-04-040, 06-06-
064, 06-07-031, 07-06-029, 08-06-031, 09-06-028, 10-06-036 and any other existing or
subsequent decisions, resolutions, or rulings related to resource adequacy, as may be amended
from time to time by the CPUC.
1.11 “CPUC Filing Guide” is the annual document issued by the CPUC which sets forth the guidelines,
requirements and instructions for LSE’s to demonstrate compliance with the CPUC’s RA
program.
1.12 "Delivery Period" has the meaning specified in Section 2.4.
1.13 "GADS" means the Generating Availability Data System, or its successor.
RA Capacity
2
1.14 "Governmental Body" means any federal, state, local, municipal or other government; any
governmental, regulatory or administrative agency, commission or other authority lawfully
exercising or entitled to exercise any administrative, executive, judicial, legislative, police,
regulatory or taxing authority or power; and any court or governmental tribunal.
1.15 “Local Capacity Area” has the meaning set forth in the Tariff.
1.16 "Local RA Attributes" means, with respect to a Unit, any and all resource adequacy attributes or
other locational attributes for the Unit related to a Local Capacity Area, as may be identified from
time to time by the CPUC, CAISO or other Governmental Body having jurisdiction, associated
with the physical location or point of electrical interconnection of the Unit within the CAISO
Control Area, that can be counted toward a Local RAR, but exclusive of any RA Attributes.
1.17 "Local RAR" means the local resource adequacy requirements established for LSEs by the
CPUC pursuant to the CPUC Decisions, or by any other Governmental Body having jurisdiction.
Local RAR may also be known as local area reliability, local resource adequacy, local resource
adequacy procurement requirements, or local capacity requirement in other regulatory
proceedings or legislative actions.
1.18 "Local RAR Showings" means the Local RAR compliance showings (or similar or successor
showings) an LSE is required to make to the CPUC (and, to the extent authorized by the CPUC,
to the CAISO) pursuant to the CPUC Decisions, or to any Governmental Body having jurisdiction.
1.19 "LSE" means load-serving entity.
1.20 "Monthly Payment" has the meaning specified in Section 4.1.
1.21 "NERC" means the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, or its successor.
1.22 "NERC/GADS Protocols" means the GADS protocols established by NERC, as may be updated
from time to time.
1.23 “Net Qualifying Capacity” has the meaning set forth in the Tariff.
1.24 “Non-Availability Charges” has the meaning set forth in the Tariff.
1.25 "Outage" means any disconnection, separation, or reduction in the capacity of any Unit, other
than a Planned Outage but including, without limitation, any such disconnection, separation or
reduction in capacity that is designated as either forced or unplanned pursuant to the Tariff or the
NERC/GADS Protocols.
1.26 "Planned Outage" means, subject to and as further described in the CPUC Decisions, a CAISO-
approved planned or scheduled disconnection, separation or reduction in capacity of any Unit that
is conducted for the purposes of carrying out routine repair or maintenance of such Unit, or for the
purposes of new construction work for such Unit.
1.27 "Price Shape" means the Price Shape specified in the Monthly Payment Price Shape Table in
Section 4.1.
1.28 "Product" has the meaning specified in Section 2.1.
1.29 "RA Attributes" means, with respect to a Unit, any and all resource adequacy attributes, as may
be identified from time to time by the CPUC, or other Governmental Body having jurisdiction, that
can be counted toward RAR, exclusive of any Local RA Attributes.
1.30 "RAR" means the resource adequacy requirements established for LSEs by the CPUC pursuant
to the CPUC Decisions, or by any other Governmental Body having jurisdiction.
1.31 "RAR Showings" means the RAR compliance showings (or similar or successor showings) an
LSE is required to make to the CPUC (and/or, to the extent authorized by the CPUC, to the
CAISO), pursuant to the CPUC Decisions, or to any Governmental Body having jurisdiction.
1.32 "Replacement Capacity" has the meaning specified in Section 5.2.
1.33 "Replacement Unit" means a generating unit meeting the requirements specified in Section 5.1.
RA Capacity
3
1.34 "Resource Category" shall be as described in the annual CPUC Filing Guide for System and
Local Resource Adequacy (RA) Compliance Filings, as such may be modified, amended,
supplemented or updated from time to time.
1.35 “Scheduling Coordinator” or “SC” has the meaning set forth in the Tariff.
1.36 “Showing Month” shall be the calendar month that is the subject of the RAR Showing, as set forth
in the CPUC Decisions. For illustrative purposes only, pursuant to the CPUC Decisions in effect
as of the Confirmation Effective Date, the monthly RAR Showing made in June is for the Showing
Month of August.
1.37 “Substitute Capacity” has the meaning set forth in Section 10.1.
1.38 “Substitution Rules” has the meaning set forth in Section 10.2.
1.39 "Supply Plan" has the meaning set forth in the Tariff.
1.40 "Tariff" means the tariff and protocol provisions, including any current CAISO-published
“Operating Procedures” and “Business Practice Manuals,” as amended or supplemented from
time to time, of the CAISO.
1.41 “Term” shall have the following meaning: The “Term” of this Transaction shall commence upon
the Confirmation Effective Date and shall continue until the later of (a) the expiration of the
Delivery Period or (b) the date the Parties’ obligations under this Agreement have been satisfied.
1.42 "Unit" or "Units" shall mean the generation assets described in Appendix A (including any
Replacement Units), from which Product is provided by Seller to Buyer.
1.43 “Unit NQC” means the Net Qualifying Capacity set by the CAISO for the applicable Unit. The
Parties agree that if the CAISO adjusts the Net Qualifying Capacity of a Unit after the
Confirmation Effective Date, the Unit NQC shall be deemed the lesser of (i) the Unit NQC as of
the Confirmation Effective Date, or (ii) the CAISO-adjusted Net Qualifying Capacity.
1.44 "Unit Quantity" means the amount of Product (in MWs) provided by Seller to Buyer by each
individual Unit identified in Appendix A subject to reductions as outlined in Section 3.2.
ARTICLE 2
TRANSACTION
2.1 Product
The RA Attributes, Local RA Attributes and Capacity Attributes of the Unit(s) identified in Appendix A
(collectively, the “Product”). Product does not include any right to the energy or ancillary services from
the Unit.
Any change by the CAISO, CPUC or other Governmental Body that defines new or re-defines existing
Local Capacity Areas that result in a decrease or increase in the amount of Local RA Attributes provided
hereunder will not result in a change in payments made pursuant to this Transaction. In addition, the
Parties agree that, under this Confirmation, if the CAISO, CPUC or other Governmental Body defines new
or re-defines existing Local Capacity Areas whereby the Units qualify for a Local Capacity Area, the
Product shall include such Local RA Attributes.
2.2 Firm RA Product
Seller shall provide Buyer with the Product from the Units in the amount of the Contract Quantity. If the
Units are not available to provide the full amount of the Contract Quantity for any reason, including
without limitation any Outage or Planned Outage or any adjustment of the RA Attributes, Local RA
Attributes and Capacity Attributes of any Unit, Seller shall provide Buyer with Replacement Capacity from
one or more Replacement Units pursuant to Section 5.1 hereof. If Seller fails to provide Buyer with
Replacement Capacity from Replacement Units pursuant to Section 5.1, then Seller shall be liable for
damages and/or to indemnify Buyer for penalties or fines pursuant to the terms of Article Five. The
Parties agree that Section 3.2 shall not apply if this Section 2.2 has been elected.
RA Capacity
4
2.3 Contingent Firm RA Product
Seller shall provide Buyer with the Product from the Units in the amount of the Contract Quantity. If the
Units are not available to provide the full amount of the Contract Quantity, Seller may elect to provide
Buyer with Replacement Capacity from one or more Replacement Units pursuant to Section 5.1. In such
case, if Seller elects to provide Replacement Capacity pursuant to Section 5.1 and fails or if Seller elects
not to provide such Replacement Capacity, then Seller shall be liable for damages and/or shall indemnify
Buyer for penalties or fines pursuant to the terms of Article Five. If the Units provide less than the full
amount of the Contract Quantity in the event of a Planned Outage or a reduction to Unit NQC, Seller is
not obligated to provide Buyer with Replacement Capacity and shall not be liable for damages or
obligated to indemnify Buyer for penalties or fines pursuant to Article 5 hereof.
2.4 Delivery Period
The Delivery Period shall be: May 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013, inclusive, unless terminated
earlier in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
2.5 Contract Quantity
Contract Quantity equals the total sum of each Unit Quantity identified in Appendix A. As of the
Confirmation Effective Date, the Contract Quantity is as follows:
Contract Quantity (MWs)
Showing
Month 2013
May 10
June 40
July 56
August 56
September 20
ARTICLE 3
DELIVERY OBLIGATIONS
3.1 Delivery of Product
Subject to any reductions set forth in Section 3.2 (if Section 2.3 above is selected), Seller shall provide
Buyer with the Contract Quantity of Product for each Showing Month consistent with the following:
(a) Seller shall, on a timely basis, submit, or cause each Unit's SC to submit, Supply Plans to identify
and confirm the Unit Quantity provided to Buyer so that the total amount of Unit Quantity
identified and confirmed equals the Contract Quantity, unless specifically requested not to do so
by the Buyer.
(b) Seller shall cause each Unit’s SC to submit written notification to Buyer, no later than fifteen (15)
Business Days before the relevant deadline for any applicable RAR or Local RAR Showing, that
Buyer will be credited with the Unit Quantity for the Delivery Period in the Unit’s SC Supply Plan
so that the total amount of Unit Quantity credited equals the Contract Quantity.
3.2 Adjustments to Contract Quantity
In the event that Section 2.3 is applicable, then:
RA Capacity
5
(a) Seller’s obligation to deliver the Contract Quantity of Product for any Showing Month
may be reduced if any portion of the Unit(s) is scheduled for a Planned Outage
during that month; provided, Seller notifies Buyer, no later than fifteen (15) Business
Days before the relevant deadline for the corresponding RAR Showing or Local RAR
Showing applicable to that month, the amount of Product from each Unit Buyer is
permitted to include in Buyer’s RAR or Local RAR Showing applicable to that month
as a result of such Planned Outage.
In the event Seller is unable to provide the Contract Quantity of Product because of a
Planned Outage of a Unit, Seller has the option, but not the obligation, to provide Product
from Replacement Units; provided, Seller provides and identifies such Replacement Units
consistent with Section 5.1. In addition, if Seller chooses not to provide Product from
Replacement Units and a Unit is on a Planned Outage for the applicable Showing Month,
then, the Contract Quantity shall be revised in accordance with any applicable
adjustments stipulated by the CPUC Filing Guide or CAISO guidelines in effect for the
applicable Showing Month in which the Planned Outage occurs.
(b) Reductions in Unit NQC: In the event the Unit experiences a reduction in Unit NQC as
determined by the CAISO; Seller has the option, but not the obligation, to provide the Unit
Quantity from the same Unit; provided the Unit has sufficient remaining and available
Product.
3.3 Buyer’s Re-Sale of Product
Buyer may re-sell all or a portion of the Product hereunder.
ARTICLE 4
PAYMENT
4.1 Monthly Payment
In accordance with the terms of Article Six of the Master Agreement, Buyer shall make a Monthly
Payment to Seller for each Unit, after the applicable Showing Month, as follows:
Monthly Payment = (A x B x 1,000)
where:
A = applicable Contract Price for that Showing Month
B = Unit Quantity provided pursuant to and consistent with Section 3.1
for the Showing Month
The Monthly Payment calculation shall be rounded to two decimal places.
CAPACITY FLAT PRICE TABLE
Contract
Year
RA Capacity Flat Price
($/kW-month)
May 2013 – September 2013 $2.00
The respective monthly Price Shape, set forth in the Monthly Payment Price Shape Table below, shall
apply throughout the entire Delivery Period.
RA Capacity
6
MONTHLY PAYMENT PRICE SHAPE TABLE
Showing Month Price Shape
(%)
May 100%
June 100%
July 100%
August 100%
September 100%
4.2 Allocation of Other Payments and Costs
(a) Seller shall retain any revenues it may receive from and pay all costs charged by the
CAISO or any other third party with respect to any Unit for (i) start-up, shutdown, and
minimum load costs, (ii) capacity revenue for ancillary services, (iii) energy sales, and (iv)
any revenues for black start or reactive power services.
(b) Buyer shall be entitled to receive and retain all revenues associated with the Contract
Quantity of Product associated solely with Seller’s ownership share of the Unit during the
Delivery Period (including any capacity revenues from RMR Agreements for any Unit,
Capacity Procurement Mechanism (CPM), or its successor, and Residual Unit
Commitment (RUC) Availability Payments, or its successor, but excluding payments
described in Section 4.2(a)(i)-(iv)).
(c) In accordance with Section 4.1 of this Confirmation and Article Six of the Master
Agreement,
(i) all such Buyer revenues described in this Section 4.2, but received by Seller, or a
Unit’s SC, owner, or operator shall be remitted to Buyer, and Seller shall pay
such revenues to Buyer if the Unit’s SC, owner, or operator fails to remit those
revenues to Buyer. If Seller fails to pay such revenues to Buyer, Buyer may
offset any amounts owing to it for such revenues pursuant to Article Six of the
Master Agreement against any future amounts it may owe to Seller under this
Confirmation. In order to verify the accuracy of such revenues, Buyer shall have
the right, at its sole expense and during normal working hours after reasonable
prior notice, to hire an independent third party reasonably acceptable to Seller to
audit any documents, records or data of Seller associated with the Contract
Quantity; and
(ii) all such Seller, or a Unit’s SC, owner, or operator revenues described in this
Section 4.2, but received by Buyer shall be remitted to Seller, and Buyer shall
pay such revenues to Seller if the Unit’s SC, owner, or operator fails to remit
those revenues to Seller. If Buyer fails to pay such revenues to Seller, Seller
may offset any amounts owing to it for such revenues pursuant to Article Six of
the Master Agreement against any future amounts it may owe to Buyer under this
Confirmation.
(d) If a centralized capacity market develops within the CAISO region, Buyer will have
exclusive rights to offer, bid, or otherwise submit the Contract Quantity provided to Buyer
pursuant to this Confirmation for re-sale in such market, and retain and receive any and
all related revenues.
(e) Seller agrees that the Unit is subject to the terms of the Availability Standards, Non-
Availability Charges, and Availability Incentive Payments as contemplated under Section
40.9 of the Tariff. Furthermore, the Parties agree that any Availability Incentive Payments
RA Capacity
7
are for the benefit of the Seller and for Seller’s account and that any Non-Availability
Charges are the responsibility of the Seller and for Seller’s account.
ARTICLE 5
SELLER'S FAILURE TO DELIVER CONTRACT QUANTITY
5.1 Seller’s Duty To Provide Replacement Capacity
Subject to any adjustments made pursuant to Section 3.2(a) (if Section 2.3 above is selected), if Seller is
unable to provide the full Contract Quantity of Product for any Showing Month, then:
(a) Seller may, at no cost to Buyer, provide Buyer with replacement Product from one or
more Replacement Units, such that the total amount of Product provided to Buyer from all
Units and Replacement Units equals the Contract Quantity; and
(b) Seller shall identify Replacement Units meeting the above requirements no later than
fifteen (15) Business Days before the relevant deadline for Buyer's RAR Showing and/or
Local RAR Showing.
provided, that the designation of any Replacement Unit by Seller shall be subject to Buyer’s prior written
approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Once Seller has identified in writing any
Replacement Units that meet the requirements of this Section 5.1, any such Replacement Unit shall be
automatically deemed a Unit for purposes of this Confirmation for that Showing Month.
5.2 Damages for Failure to Provide Replacement Capacity
If either Section 2.2 or 2.3 is selected above and Seller fails to provide Buyer any portion of the Contract
Quantity (as adjusted pursuant to Section 3.2) from Replacement Units for any Showing Month as
required by Section 5.1, then the following shall apply:
(a) Buyer may, but shall not be required to, replace any portion of the Contract Quantity not
provided by Seller with capacity having equivalent RA and Local RA Attributes as the
Product not provided by Seller ("Replacement Capacity"). Buyer may enter into purchase
transactions with one or more parties to replace the portion of Contract Quantity not
provided by Seller. Additionally, Buyer may enter into one or more arrangements to
repurchase its obligation to sell and deliver the capacity to another party, and such
arrangements shall be considered the procurement of Replacement Capacity. Buyer
shall act in a commercially reasonable manner in procuring any Replacement Capacity.
(b) Seller shall pay to Buyer at the time set forth in Section 4.1 of the Master Agreement, the
following damages in lieu of damages specified in Section 4.1 of the Master Agreement:
an amount equal to the positive difference, if any, between (i) the sum of (A) the actual
cost paid by Buyer for any Replacement Capacity, including any transaction costs and
expenses incurred in connection with such procurement, plus (B) each Capacity
Replacement Price times the amount of the Contract Quantity neither provided by Seller
nor purchased by Buyer pursuant to Section 5.2(a), and (ii) the Contract Quantity not
provided for the applicable Showing Month times the Contract Price for that month. If
Seller fails to pay these damages, then Buyer may offset those damages owed it against
any future amounts it may owe to Seller under this Confirmation pursuant to Article Six of
the Master Agreement.
5.3 Indemnities for Failure to Deliver Contract Quantity
Subject to any adjustments made pursuant to Section 3.2(a), Seller agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless Buyer from any penalties, fines or costs assessed against Buyer by the CPUC or the CAISO,
resulting from any of the following:
RA Capacity
8
(a) Seller’s failure to provide any portion of the Contract Quantity, if Seller fails to replace the
shortfall in Contract Quantity from Replacement Units in accordance with Section 5.1;
(b) Seller’s failure to provide notice of the non-availability of any portion of the Contract
Quantity as required under Section 3.1; or
(c) A Unit’s SC’s failure to timely submit Supply Plans that identify Buyer’s right to the Unit
Quantity purchased hereunder.
With respect to the foregoing, the Parties shall use commercially reasonable efforts to minimize such
penalties, fines and costs; provided, that in no event shall Buyer be required to use or change its
utilization of its owned or controlled assets or market positions to minimize these penalties and fines.
Seller will have no obligation to Buyer under this Section 5.3 in respect of the portion of Contract Quantity
for which Seller has paid damages for Replacement Capacity. If Seller fails to pay those penalties, fines
or costs, or fails to reimburse Buyer for those penalties, fines or costs, then Buyer may offset those
penalties, fines or costs against any future amounts it may owe to Seller under this Confirmation.
ARTICLE 6
CAISO OFFER REQUIREMENTS
Subject to Buyer’s request under Section 10.1, during the Delivery Period, except to the extent any Unit is
in an Outage or Planned Outage, Seller shall either schedule or cause the Unit’s SC to schedule with, or
make available to, the CAISO the Unit Quantity for each Unit in compliance with the Tariff, and shall
perform all, or cause the Unit’s SC, owner, or operator, as applicable, to perform all obligations under the
Tariff that are associated with the sale of Product hereunder. Buyer shall have no liability for the failure of
Seller or the failure of any Unit’s SC, owner, or operator to comply with such Tariff provisions, including
any penalties, charges or fines imposed on Seller or the Unit’s SC, owner, or operator for such
noncompliance.
ARTICLE 7
PLANNED OUTAGES
Upon the Confirmation Effective Date, thirty (30) days before the applicable year-ahead showing, and no
later than January 1, April 1, July 1 and October 1 of each calendar year thereafter until the end of the
Term, Seller shall submit, or cause the Unit's SC to submit to Buyer, the portion of each Unit's schedule of
proposed Planned Outages ("Outage Schedule") for the following twelve (12) month period or until the
end of the Delivery Period, whichever is shorter. Within twenty (20) Business Days after its receipt of an
Outage Schedule, Buyer shall notify Seller in writing of any reasonable request for changes to the Outage
Schedule, and Seller shall, consistent with Good Utility Practices, accommodate Buyer's requests
regarding the timing of any Planned Outage. Seller or the Unit's SC shall notify Buyer within five (5)
Business Days of any change to the Outage Schedule.
RA Capacity
9
ARTICLE 8
OTHER BUYER AND SELLER COVENANTS
8.1 Seller’s and Buyer’s Duty to Take Action to Allow the Utilization of the Product
Buyer and Seller shall, throughout the Delivery Period, take all commercially reasonable actions and
execute any and all documents or instruments reasonably necessary to ensure Buyer's right to the use of
the Contract Quantity for the sole benefit of Buyer's RAR and Local RAR, if applicable. The Parties
further agree to negotiate in good faith to make necessary amendments, if any, to this Confirmation to
conform this Transaction to subsequent clarifications, revisions, or decisions rendered by the CPUC,
FERC, or other Governmental Body having jurisdiction to administer RAR or Local RAR, to maintain the
benefits of the bargain struck by the Parties on the Confirmation Effective Date.
8.2 Seller’s Represents, Warrants and Covenants
Seller represents, warrants and covenants to Buyer that, throughout the Delivery Period:
(a) Seller owns or has the exclusive right to the Product sold under this Confirmation from
each Unit, and shall furnish Buyer, CAISO, CPUC or other Governmental Body with such
evidence as may reasonably be requested to demonstrate such ownership or exclusive
right;
(b) No portion of the Contract Quantity has been committed by Seller to any third party in
order to satisfy RAR or Local RAR or analogous obligations in any CAISO or non-CAISO
markets, other than pursuant to an RMR Agreement between the CAISO and either
Seller or the Unit’s owner or operator;
(c) Each Unit is connected to the CAISO Controlled Grid, is within the CAISO Control Area,
and is under the control of CAISO;
(d) Seller shall, and each Unit’s SC, owner and operator is obligated to, comply with
Applicable Laws, including the Tariff, relating to the Product;
(e) If Seller is the owner of any Unit, the aggregation of all amounts of Local RA Attributes
and RA Attributes that Seller has sold, assigned or transferred for any Unit does not
exceed the Unit NQC for that Unit;
(f) Seller has notified the SC of each Unit that Seller has transferred the Unit Quantity to
Buyer, and the SC is obligated to deliver the Supply Plans in accordance with the Tariff;
(g) Seller has notified the SC of each Unit that Seller is obligated to cause each Unit’s SC to
provide to the Buyer, at least fifteen (15) Business Days before the relevant deadline for
each RAR or Local RAR Showing, the Unit Quantity of each Unit that is to be submitted
in the Supply Plan associated with this Agreement for the applicable period; and
(h) Seller has notified each Unit’s SC that Buyer is entitled to the revenues set forth in
Section 4.2, and such SC is obligated to promptly deliver those revenues to Buyer, along
with appropriate documentation supporting the amount of those revenues.
ARTICLE 9
CONFIDENTIALITY
Notwithstanding Section 10.11 of the Master Agreement, the Parties agree that Buyer may disclose the
Contract Quantity under this Transaction to any Governmental Body, the CPUC, the CAISO in order to
support its Local RAR or RAR Showings, if applicable, and Seller may disclose the transfer of the
Contract Quantity under this Transaction to the SC of each Unit in order for such SC to timely submit
accurate Supply Plans; provided, that each disclosing Party shall use reasonable efforts to limit, to the
extent possible, the ability of any such applicable Governmental Body, CAISO, or SC to further disclose
RA Capacity
10
such information. In addition, in the event Buyer resells all or any portion of the Product to another party,
Buyer shall be permitted to disclose to the other party to such resale transaction all such information
necessary to effect such resale transaction.
The Disclosing Party shall be solely responsible for taking whatever legal steps are necessary to protect
information deemed by it to be Confidential Information and to prevent release of information to the
Requestor by the Receiving Party. If the Disclosing Party takes no such action, after receiving the
foregoing notice from the Receiving Party, the Receiving Party shall be permitted to comply with the
Requestor’s demand and is not required to defend against it.
ARTICLE 10
UNIT SUBSTITUTION
10.1 Substitute Capacity
No later than five (5) Business Days before the relevant deadline for each RAR or Local RAR Showing,
Buyer may request that Seller not list, or cause each Unit’s SC not to list, a portion or all of a Unit’s Unit
Quantity on the Supply Plan. The amount of Unit Quantity that is the subject of such a request shall be
known as “Substitute Capacity” and, for purposes of calculating a Monthly Payment pursuant to Section
4.1, be deemed Unit Quantity provided consistent with Section 3.1.
10.2 Seller’s Obligations With Respect to Substitute Capacity
If Buyer makes a request for Substitute Capacity, Seller shall (a) make such Substitute Capacity available
to Buyer during the applicable Showing Month in order to allow Buyer to utilize the substitution rules
found in Section 40.9.4.2.1 of the Tariff (“Substitution Rules”); and (b) take all action, or cause each Unit’s
SC to take all action, to allow Buyer to utilize the Substitution Rules, including, but not limited to, ensuring
that the Substitute Capacity will qualify for substitution under the Substitution Rules and providing Buyer
with all information needed to utilize the Substitution Rules.
Seller agrees that all Substitute Capacity that is utilized under the Substitution Rules is subject to the
requirements identified in Article 6 as if the capacity had been included on the Supply Plan.
10.3 Failure to Provide Substitute Capacity
If Seller fails to provide Substitute Capacity or Buyer is unable to utilize the Substitute Capacity under the
Substitution Rules, then Seller shall pay for any and all Non-Availability Charges incurred by Buyer for
such failure or inability to utilize the Substitution Rules; provided, that if Seller fails to provide Substitute
Capacity or Buyer is unable to utilize the Substitution Rules, in each case, because the Substitute
Capacity does not qualify for substitution under the last sentence of Section 40.9.4.2.1(1) of the Tariff or
under the last sentence of Section 40.9.4.2.1(2) of the Tariff, or a Planned Outage coincides with the
substitution request, then Seller shall not be responsible for any such Non-Availability Charges described
in this Section 10.3 associated with such inability. If Seller fails to pay any Non-Availability Charges
under this Section 10.3, then Buyer may offset those charges owed it against any future amounts it may
owe to Seller under this Confirmation pursuant to Article Six of the Master Agreement.
ARTICLE 11
MARKET BASED RATE AUTHORITY
Seller agrees, in accordance with FERC Order No. 697, to, upon request of Buyer, submit a letter of
concurrence in support of any affirmative statement by Buyer that this contractual arrangement does not
transfer “ownership or control of generation capacity” from Seller to Buyer as the term “ownership or
control of generation capacity” is used in 18 CFR § 35.42. Seller also agrees that it will not, in any filings,
if any, made subject to Order Nos. 652 and 697, claim that this contractual arrangement conveys
ownership or control of generation capacity from Seller to Buyer.
RA Capacity
11
ARTICLE 12
COLLATERAL REQUIREMENTS
12.1 Credit Terms
The Parties agree that the credit and collateral provisions of the Master Agreement shall govern this
Transaction. In addition, Buyer agrees to provide Seller, within five (5) Business Days after the execution
date set forth below, a parental guaranty issued by NextEra Energy Capital Holdings, Inc., in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit A, in the amount of $364,000.
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO AS OF________________:
NextEra Energy Power Marketing LLC Seller City of Palo Alto, California
By: By:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
RA Capacity
12
APPENDIX A
UNIT INFORMATION
Name: Collierville Hydro Unit 1 & 2 Aggregate
Location: Calaveras County
CAISO Resource ID: COLVIL_7_PL1X2
Unit NQC (as of the Confirmation Effective Date): 246.86
Unit Quantity: See Contract Quantity
Resource Type: Dispatchable Hydro
Resource Category (1, 2, 3 or 4): 4
Point of interconnection with the CAISO Controlled Grid ("Substation"): Bellota Substation
Path 26 (North, South or None): North
Local Capacity Area (if any, as of Confirmation Effective Date): Not Applicable; System Capacity
Deliverability restrictions, if any, as described in most recent CAISO deliverability assessment: None
Run Hour Restrictions:None
RA Capacity
13
Exhibit A
GUARANTY
THIS GUARANTY (this “Guaranty”), dated as of _____, ____ (the “Effective Date”), is made by
NEXTERA ENERGY CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC. (“Guarantor”), in favor of THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO, CALIFORNIA (“Counterparty”).
RECITALS:
A. WHEREAS, Counterparty and Guarantor’s indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary NEXTERA
ENERGY POWER MARKETING, LLC (“Obligor”) are members of, or concurrently herewith
are entering into membership of WSPP, Inc. and have agreed to transact under that certain WSPP
Agreement as filed with and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissoin (the
“Underlying Agreement”); and
B. WHEREAS, Counterparty and Obligor may from time to time enter into one or more transactions
pursuant to and subject to the terms of the Underlying Agreement (the “Transactions”), which
Tranactions would be evidenced by one or more confirmations entered into by Obligor and
Counterparty in accordance with the Underlying Agreement (which documentation shall, together
with the Agreement, collectively be referred to hereinafter as the “Agreement”; and
C. WHEREAS, Guarantor will directly or indirectly benefit from the Transactions to be entered into
between Obligor and Counterparty pursuant to the Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and as an inducement for Counterparty’s
execution, delivery and performance of the Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Guarantor hereby agrees for the benefit of
Counterparty as follows:
* * *
1. GUARANTY. Subject to the terms and provisions hereof, Guarantor hereby absolutely
and irrevocably guarantees the timely payment when due of all obligations owing by Obligor to
Counterparty arising pursuant to the Agreement on or after the Effective Date (the “Obligations”). This
Guaranty shall constitute a guarantee of payment and not of collection. The liability of Guarantor under
this Guaranty shall be subject to the following limitations:
(a) Notwithstanding anything herein or in the Agreement to the contrary, the maximum aggregate
obligation and liability of Guarantor under this Guaranty, and the maximum recovery from
Guarantor under this Guaranty, shall in no event exceed three hundred sixty-four U.S. Dollars
(U.S. $364,000) (the “Maximum Recovery Amount”).
(b) The obligation and liability of Guarantor under this Guaranty is specifically limited to payments
expressly required to be made under the Agreement, as well as costs of collection and
enforcement of this Guaranty (including attorney’s fees) to the extent reasonably and actually
incurred by the Counterparty (subject in all instances, to the limitations imposed by the Maximum
Recovery Amount as specified in Section 1(a) above). In no event, however, shall Guarantor be
liable for or obligated to pay any consequential, indirect, incidental, lost profit, special,
exemplary, punitive, equitable or tort damages.
RA Capacity
14
2. DEMANDS AND PAYMENT.
(a) If Obligor fails to pay any Obligation to Counterparty when such Obligation is due and owing
under the Agreement (an “Overdue Obligation”), Counterparty may present a written demand to
Guarantor calling for Guarantor’s payment of such Overdue Obligation pursuant to this Guaranty
(a “Payment Demand”).
(b) Guarantor’s obligation hereunder to pay any particular Overdue Obligation(s) to Counterparty is
conditioned upon Guarantor’s receipt of a Payment Demand from Counterparty satisfying the
following requirements: (i) such Payment Demand must identify the specific Overdue
Obligation(s) covered by such demand, the specific date(s) upon which such Overdue
Obligation(s) became due and owing under the Agreement, and the specific provision(s) of the
Agreement pursuant to which such Overdue Obligation(s) became due and owing; (ii) such
Payment Demand must be delivered to Guarantor in accordance with Section 9 below; and (iii)
the specific Overdue Obligation(s) addressed by such Payment Demand must remain due and
unpaid at the time of such delivery to Guarantor.
(c) After issuing a Payment Demand in accordance with the requirements specified in Section 2(b)
above, Counterparty shall not be required to issue any further notices or make any further
demands with respect to the Overdue Obligation(s) specified in that Payment Demand, and
Guarantor shall be required to make payment with respect to the Overdue Obligation(s) specified
in that Payment Demand within five (5) Business Days after Guarantor receives such demand.
As used herein, the term “Business Day” shall mean all weekdays (i.e., Monday through Friday)
other than any weekdays during which commercial banks or financial institutions are authorized
to be closed to the public in the State of Florida or the State of New York.
3. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. Guarantor represents and warrants that:
(a) it is a corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Florida and
has the corporate power and authority to execute, deliver and carry out the terms and provisions
of the Guaranty;
(b) no authorization, approval, consent or order of, or registration or filing with, any court or other
governmental body having jurisdiction over Guarantor is required on the part of Guarantor for the
execution and delivery of this Guaranty; and
(c) this Guaranty constitutes a valid and legally binding agreement of Guarantor, enforceable against
Guarantor in accordance with the terms hereof, except as the enforceability thereof may be
limited by the effect of any applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or
similar laws affecting creditors' rights generally and by general principles of equity.
4. RESERVATION OF CERTAIN DEFENSES. Without limiting Guarantor’s own
defenses and rights hereunder, Guarantor reserves to itself all rights, setoffs, counterclaims and other
defenses to which Obligor is or may be entitled arising from or out of the Agreement, except for defenses
(if any) based upon the bankruptcy, insolvency, dissolution or liquidation of Obligor or any lack of power
or authority of Obligor to enter into and/or perform the Agreement.
RA Capacity
15
5. AMENDMENT OF GUARANTY. No term or provision of this Guaranty shall be
amended, modified, altered, waived or supplemented except in a writing signed by Guarantor and
Counterparty.
6. WAIVERS AND CONSENTS. Subject to and in accordance with the terms and
provisions of this Guaranty:
(a) Except as required in Section 2 above, Guarantor hereby waives (i) notice of acceptance of this
Guaranty; (ii) presentment and demand concerning the liabilities of Guarantor; and (iii) any right
to require that any action or proceeding be brought against Obligor or any other person, or to
require that Counterparty seek enforcement of any performance against Obligor or any other
person, prior to any action against Guarantor under the terms hereof.
(b) No delay by Counterparty in the exercise of (or failure by Counterparty to exercise) any rights
hereunder shall operate as a waiver of such rights, a waiver of any other rights or a release of
Guarantor from its obligations hereunder (with the understanding, however, that the foregoing
shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver by Guarantor of any rights or defenses which
Guarantor may at any time have pursuant to or in connection with any applicable statutes of
limitation).
(c) Without notice to or the consent of Guarantor, and without impairing or releasing Guarantor’s
obligations under this Guaranty, Counterparty may: (i) change the manner, place or terms for
payment of all or any of the Obligations (including renewals, extensions or other alterations of the
Obligations); (ii) release Obligor or any person (other than Guarantor) from liability for payment
of all or any of the Obligations; or (iii) receive, substitute, surrender, exchange or release any
collateral or other security for any or all of the Obligations.
7. REINSTATEMENT. Guarantor agrees that this Guaranty shall continue to be effective
or shall be reinstated, as the case may be, if all or any part of any payment made hereunder is at any time
avoided or rescinded or must otherwise be restored or repaid by Counterparty as a result of the
bankruptcy or insolvency of Obligor, all as though such payments had not been made.
8. TERMINATION. Guarantor may terminate this Guaranty by providing a written
termination notice to Counterparty specifying the date upon which such termination will take effect
(provided that no such termination shall take effect prior to 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Prevailing Time) on the
fifth (5th) Business Day after the termination notice has been delivered to Counterparty in accordance
with Section 9 hereof). Upon the effectiveness of such termination, Guarantor shall have no further
liability hereunder, except as may pertain pursuant to the last sentence of this paragraph. No such
termination shall affect Guarantor's liability with respect to any Obligations arising under any
Transactions entered into prior to the time such termination is effective, which Obligations shall remain
subject to this Guaranty.
Unless terminated earlier, this Guaranty and the Guarantor’s obligations hereunder will terminate
automatically and immediately at 11:59:59 Eastern Prevailing Timeon the second anniversary of the
Effective Date; provided, however, that no such termination shall affect Guarantor's liability with respect
to any Obligations arising under any Transactions entered into prior to the time the termination is
effective, which Obligations shall remain subject to this Guaranty.
9. NOTICE. Any Payment Demand, notice, request, instruction, correspondence or other
document to be given hereunder (herein collectively called “Notice”) by Counterparty to Guarantor, or by
RA Capacity
16
Guarantor to Counterparty, as applicable, shall be in writing and may be delivered either by (i) U.S.
certified mail with postage prepaid and return receipt requested, or (ii) recognized nationwide courier
service with delivery receipt requested, in either case to be delivered to the following address (or to such
other U.S. address as may be specified via Notice provided by Guarantor or Counterparty, as applicable,
to the other in accordance with the requirements of this Section 9):
TO GUARANTOR: * TO COUNTERPARTY:
NEXTERA ENERGY CAPITAL
HOLDINGS, INC.
700 Universe Blvd.
Juno Beach, Florida 33408
Attn: Treasurer
__________________
__________________
__________________
Attn: _________
[Tel: (561) 694-6204 -- for use in
connection with courier deliveries]
[Tel: (___) ___-___ -- for use in
connection with courier deliveries]
* (NOTE: Copies of any Notices to Guarantor under this Guaranty shall also be sent via
facsimile to ATTN: Contracts Group, Legal, Fax No. (561) 625-7504 and ATTN: Credit
Department, Fax No. (561) 625-7642. However, such facsimile transmissions shall not
be deemed effective for delivery purposes under this Guaranty.)
Any Notice given in accordance with this Section 9 will (i) if delivered during the recipient's normal
business hours on any given Business Day, be deemed received by the designated recipient on such date,
and (ii) if not delivered during the recipient's normal business hours on any given Business Day, be
deemed received by the designated recipient at the start of the recipient's normal business hours on the
next Business Day after such delivery.
10. MISCELLANEOUS.
(a) This Guaranty shall in all respects be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the law of
the State of New York, without regard to principles of conflicts of laws thereunder (other than
Sections 5-1401 and 5-1402 of the New York General Obligations Law).
(b) This Guaranty shall be binding upon Guarantor and its successors and permitted assigns and inure
to the benefit of and be enforceable by Counterparty and its successors and permitted assigns.
Guarantor may not assign this Guaranty in part or in whole without the prior written consent of
Counterparty. Counterparty may not assign its rights or benefits under this Guaranty in part or in
whole without the prior written consent of Guarantor.
(c) This Guaranty embodies the entire agreement and understanding between Guarantor and
Counterparty and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings relating to the subject
matter hereof.
(d) The headings in this Guaranty are for purposes of reference only, and shall not affect the meaning
hereof. Words importing the singular number hereunder shall include the plural number and vice
versa, and any pronouns used herein shall be deemed to cover all genders. The term "person" as
used herein means any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, association, joint-stock
company, trust, unincorporated association, or government (or any agency or political subdivision
thereof).
RA Capacity
17
(e) Wherever possible, any provision in this Guaranty which is prohibited or unenforceable in any
jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective only to the extent of such prohibition or
unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof, and any such prohibition
or unenforceability in any one jurisdiction shall not invalidate or render unenforceable such
provision in any other jurisdiction.
(f) Counterparty (by its acceptance of this Guaranty) and Guarantor each hereby irrevocably: (i)
consents and submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, or if that court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County
(without prejudice to the right of any party to remove to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York) for the purposes of any suit, action or other proceeding arising
out of this Guaranty or the subject matter hereof or any of the transactions contemplated hereby
brought by Counterparty, Guarantor or their respective successors or assigns; and (ii) waives (to
the fullest extent permitted by applicable law) and agrees not to assert any claim that it is not
personally subject to the jurisdiction of the above-named courts, that the suit, action or
proceeding is brought in an inconvenient forum, that the venue of the suit, action or proceeding is
improper or that this Guaranty or the subject matter hereof may not be enforced in or by such
court.
(g) COUNTERPARTY (BY ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THIS GUARANTY) AND GUARANTOR
EACH HEREBY IRREVOCABLY, INTENTIONALLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES THE
RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY WITH RESPECT TO ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING BASED ON,
OR ARISING OUT OF, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH, THIS GUARANTY OR THE
AGREEMENT, OR ANY COURSE OF CONDUCT, COURSE OF DEALING, STATEMENTS
(WHETHER VERBAL OR WRITTEN) OR ACTIONS OF ANY PERSON RELATING
HERETO OR THERETO. THIS PROVISION IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO
GUARANTOR’S EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THIS GUARANTY.
* * *
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Guarantor has executed this Guaranty on _____________, 20__, but it is
effective as of the Effective Date.
NEXTERA ENERGY CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.
By:
Name:
Title:
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3110)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/1/2012
Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning
Summary Title: Curtner Final Map
Title: Approval of a Final Map to Create Six New Residential Condominium
Units at 382 and 384 Curtner Avenue
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed Final Map for 382 and 384 Curtner
Avenue for the creation of six residential condominium units on a 0.3 acre site.
Background
On June 11, 2012 the City Council approved a Record of Land Use Action for a Tentative Map
merging two single family lots into a 0.3 acre parcel for condominium subdivision into six
residential units, located at 383 and 384 Curtner Avenue.
Discussion
The purpose of the Final Map is to merge the two parcels into a 0.3 acre parcel for
condominium subdivision into six residential units. The Final Map and the recorded Record of
Land Use Action approved by the Council for the Tentative Map are attached. The Planning and
Public Works Departments have reviewed the Final Map and have determined that it is
consistent with the approved Tentative Map. The City’s discretion on a Final Map is limited to
determining that it complies with the design and conditions of the Tentative Map. The map
satisfies all the approval conditions for the Tentative Map (Attachment A), including consistency
with the previously approved architectural review project, and therefore staff recommends
approval.
Policy Implications
The City Council found the project to be consistent with the land use designation and policies
and programs of the Comprehensive Plans stated in the Record of Land Use Action for the
tentative map (Attachment A).
Environmental Review
This project is categorically exempt from CEQA review under CEQA Guideline section 15332
Attachments:
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (PDF)
Attachment B: Final Map (hardcopies to Councilmembers, Libraries and Dev. Ctr. only)
(TXT)
Prepared By: Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
6219.txt
Note only.
Page 1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3164)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 10/1/2012
Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning
Summary Title: Retention of the Arastradero Road Trial Restriping
Title: Public Meeting: Approval of the Retention of the Charleston
Road/Arastradero Road - Phase II Trial Restriping Improvements between El
Camino Real and Gunn High School
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the permanent retention of Phase 2 of the Charleston-
Arastradero Corridor Re-Striping Project, with additional street modifications outlined in this
report.
Executive Summary
The Charleston Road-Arastradero Road corridor is a residential arterial on the City’s school
commute corridor network. The corridor serves numerous residential neighborhoods, eleven
public and private schools, five public parks, and the future Mitchell Park Library. Arastradero
also provides southern access to the Arastradero Preserve, the Research Park district, and
recreational bicycling destinations and residential areas in the western hills. The corridor
serves as one of the few east-west through connections across Palo Alto, in addition to such as
University Avenue, Embarcadero Road, Oregon Expressway, and San Antonio Road.
In 2003, the City Council directed staff to prepare a plan of transportation, safety, and urban
design/landscape improvements for both Charleston Road and Arastradero Road along the
corridor that would enhance safety and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The goals of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road project are to:
Enhance streetscape and quality of life in corridor for local residents
Enhance school commute safety for K-12 students
Improve quality of bike and pedestrian experience
Reduce amount of very high speed vehicles
Minimize traffic shift to adjacent streets
Phase 1 of the plan was incorporated along Charleston Road in 2006, and approved for
permanent retention in 2008 after a two-year trial period. Phase 2 implementation along
Arastradero Rd started immediately in 2008 with improvements at Gunn High School with full
implementation in 2010 as a trial restriping project between El Camino Real and Gunn High
School. Phase 2 was installed, initially as a one-year trial, but was extended to two years after
experiencing unexpected implementation delays, on-going revisions in response to community
input, and modifications to the Gunn High School and Bowman International School bell
schedules in 2011 that were anticipated to redistribute demand of the roadway network.
Based on the data, analysis, and findings shown in this report, traffic volumes on Arastradero
and adjacent streets have shown a consistent increase in traffic compared to other streets in
Palo Alto, consistent travel time between pre-project and project conditions, a reduction in the
high traffic speeds during off peak hours, and a substantial reduction in pedestrian and bicycle
related incidents. Bicycle traffic on and along the corridor has increased since the start of the
trial.
Background
In 2005 the City began implementation of Phase 1 of the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road
Project along Charleston Road from Fabian Way to Alma Street for a two-year trial starting in
2006, which was adopted for permanent installation by City Council in 2008. Immediately
following the retention of the Phase 1 improvements, modifications at the Arastradero Road &
Gunn High School intersection and Gunn High School driveway were also implemented. In
summer 2009, City Council approved the plan for the Phase 2 trial project on Arastradero Road
between El Camino Real and Gunn High School for a one-year trial period. Implementation
started in August 2010, but took place over one full year due to equipment procurement and
construction delays, and on-going modifications in response to community requests for
targeted improvements. The Council approved extension of the trial for an additional year
through the 2011-12 school year, so that additional observations could be made, due in part to
unplanned changes to the bell schedule at Gunn High School and Bowman International School
(private school) and because many of the original elements of the project were not
implemented until the end of the first year of the trial. Throughout the 2011-2012 school year,
staff identified several physical improvements that would enhance and improve some of the
traffic operations and safety concerns along the corridor. The results of the two-year
Arastradero Road trial restriping project are summarized in the discussion of report.
Discussion
Arastradero Road Modifications
After the successful implementation of the Phase 1 project along Charleston Road between
Alma Street and Fabian Way in 2006, staff began analyzing the Arastradero Road portions of
the corridor. In 2008, modifications were made at the intersection of the Arastradero Road &
Gunn High School as the first step the Phase 2 trial. These improvements included adding a
westbound right turn lane on Arastradero Road into Gunn High School and improvements to
the school parking lot. The improvements were successful in helping traffic flow into- and out-
of the school and setup the corridor for the additional improvements on Arastradero Road.
The Phase 2 Charleston Road-Arastradero Rd Trial Restriping project was initiated in August
2010 and included the following elements:
Hybrid lane reduction from 4-lanes to 3-lanes in some segments with dedicated or two-
way left turn lanes,
Enhanced rapid flashing beacon crosswalk at Arastradero Road and Clemo Drive with a
raised median island for pedestrian refuge, and
Traffic signal modification at Arastradero Road and Coulombe Drive with special left
turn signal phasing for eastbound Arastradero Road traffic.
Within the first year of implementation the City also made the following additional street
modifications along Arastradero Road in response to resident requests for improvements:
Median island at Arastradero Road & Hubbart Street
Two Vehicle Speed Feedback sign installations near Hubbart Street
Extension of the eastbound and westbound Arastradero Road lanes between El Camino
Real and Alta Mesa-McKellar Avenue
Two-way left turn installation at Arastradero West Apartments
Miscellaneous signage and markings improvements
Non-physical street modifications made during the second year of the trial project include:
Introduction of traffic signal coordination between the Arastradero Road & Coulombe
Drive and Arastradero Road & Donald Drive-Terman Drive intersections
Traffic signal controller replacement at Arastradero Road & Donald Drive-Terman Drive
Additional green time improvements at Alma Street & Charleston Road
“No Right Turn on Red” restriction for southbound El Camino Real traffic from 7:30AM -
8:30AM on weekdays
Throughout the duration of the project since the re-striping was implemented in 2010, staff has
held regular meetings with the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Stakeholder Committee to
discuss roadway operations, and has held four community meetings to solicit public input on
the project. In general, feedback from the community has been mixed with both praise and
concerns about the project. The concerns primarily relate to perceived increase in congestion
during the AM school peak period, increased cut-through traffic, difficulty turning left onto
Arastradero Road from some of the side streets, and an increase in mixed traffic along Maybell
Avenue. The positive feedback received from members of the community include the general
feeling of a much safer road to cross and travel along, a significant reduction in the very high
speed traffic, and generally safer conditions during both the school commutes and the off-peak
periods.
Traffic Signal Operations
During the morning school peak period, the all-pedestrian signal interval at the intersection of
Arastradero Road & Donald Drive-Terman Drive stops all vehicle movements during each signal
cycle and provides an essential safety feature during the AM school commute peak period
serving both Terman Middle School and students walking/biking to Gunn High School; however,
it contributes to delays along Arastradero Road as well as to vehicles exiting the Terman
Driveway during the AM peak school period.
The City implemented traffic signal coordination along Arastradero Road between Donald
Drive-Terman Drive and Coulombe Drive in 2011 to help move vehicle queues along the
corridor. The signal timing coordination has been effective in quickly reducing vehicle queues
east of Donald Drive-Terman Drive following the all-pedestrian signal interval.
Vehicle and Bicycle Volume Traffic Data
Daily traffic volumes on and along Arastradero Road were collected both before and
throughout various stages of the project. The monitoring of traffic data is the best tool to
measure not only changes in driver behavior/travel patterns, but also to determine whether the
project helps to promote alternative travel modes such as bicycling and walking.
Traffic volumes are approximately within three to five percent of the pre-trial conditions along
Arastradero Road with an increasing trend that is consistent with general traffic increases
around other parts of the city as well as region-wide growth. On Maybell Avenue, a larger
increase in traffic is noticed close to El Camino Real (near Pena Court) in Year 2, but a similar
increase is not observed along Maybell Avenue further west near Maybell Court, or along
connecting streets to the Barron Park Neighborhood (Amaranta Avenue). In general, the
consistency in pre-project versus project conditions, with the exception of Maybell Avenue near
El Camino Real, shows that the Phase 2 Arastradero Road – Trial Restriping Project has not
resulted in a significant diversion of traffic onto adjacent streets. The increase in peak hour
traffic along Maybell Avenue, east of Coulombe is likely due to the shift in the Gunn High School
start time closer to the start of Juana Briones Elementary School.
Bicycle use along the Arastradero Road trial restriping area continues to remain high with
bicycle use at the three schools on or adjacent to Arastradero Road (Gunn High School, Terman
Middle School, and Juana Briones Elementary School) continuing to show increasing ridership
annually. Bicycle use along Arastradero Road in the westbound direction during the AM peak
hour is equivalent to approximately 19% of the vehicle volume on the roadway (173
bicycles/928 vehicles), exceeding the regional bicycle use rate in Palo Alto of 7.1% and in Santa
Clara County of 1.4% (Palo Alto Draft Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 – Table 4-
1). It should be noted that an even higher number of bicyclist travel westbound along Maybell
Avenue during the AM peak hour (282 bicyclists/510 vehicles), representing 55% of the demand
on Maybell Avenue. It should be noted that with the active campus improvements at Gunn
High School that bicycle parking for the school is not located at the back-of-campus near the
George Avenue entrance so student bicycle parking is now more conveniently accessed via
Maybell Avenue-Georgia Avenue than from Arastradero Road when bicycle parking was more
closely located near the front-of-campus. The new location of bicycle parking on Gunn High
School increases the average student-commute by about 6-minutes to account for the
additional walking time from the bicycle parking to the campus grounds.
Charleston Road-Arastradero Road Corridor Travel Time
For the Charleston Road-Arastradero Road corridor, travel time data between Charleston Road
& San Antonio Road to Arastradero Road & Foothill Expressway was measured to determine
the effects of both the Phase I and Phase 2 projects against pre-project conditions and during
non-peak periods. Travel times along Charleston Road are fairly consistent in the westbound
direction between 2007 and 2012 (Post Phase 1 striping changes). After a vehicle passes Wilkie
Way, the travel time to reach Foothill Expressway has decreased since the implementation of
the Arastradero Road improvements, starting in 2008 with the Gunn High School driveway
improvements; however, there is an increase in travel time to cross El Camino Real. No
improvements at the El Camino Real & Charleston Road-Arastradero Road intersection have
been made. Travel time on Arastradero between El Camino Real and Gunn High School is more
efficient since the start of improvements on Arastradero Road in 2008, but delays crossing El
Camino Real have increased since the trial restriping project was implemented.
Additional Proposed Improvements
Staff recommends implementation of several improvements that would further enhance the
corridor and adjacent neighborhoods, including:
A traffic signal modification at the intersection of Arastradero Road and Donald/Terman
to provide a right turn arrow movement that operates concurrently with the westbound
left turn signal phase to help clear the Terman Drive parking lot more quickly. This right
turn arrow movement would operate only during the periods of the day when the all-
pedestrian signal phase at the intersection is in operation.
Accelerate the design and implementation of the Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard
project.
Remove the median island on Arastradero Road between Hubbart Street and Ynigo Way
installed initially in response to neighborhood feedback as part of the first year
implementation of the trial. This will require the relocation of the vehicle speed
feedback sign facing westbound Arastradero Road traffic from the median to the
sidewalk along the north side of Arastradero Road, but will better support left turn
access into and out of Hubbart Street and Ynigo Way.
Provide enhanced green bicycle lane treatments at key intersections such as Alta Mesa-
McKeller, Coulombe Drive, Donald Drive-Terman Drive, and Gunn High School to
provide motorists awareness as to the presence of bicycles, and to provide guidance for
the cyclist as to where bicycles should position themselves. New signage to identify
wrong-way bicycle riding is also recommended, similar to that installed on Channing
Avenue between Newell Road and Lincoln Avenue.
Design improvements to the El Camino Real & Arastradero Road-Charleston Road
should be planned and coordinated with Caltrans to help improve travel time and
bicycle/pedestrian safety across the intersection.
These are shown in Attachment A, Proposed Arastradero Road Improvements.
Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Recommendation
On July 25, 2012, the Planning and Transportation Commission unanimously recommended the
retention of the Arastradero Striping Trial, with incorporation of the recommended changes
and enhancements. During the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, staff also
made additional recommendations as part of considering the retention of the Phase 2 trial,
including: modification of the eastbound merge at Arastradero Road & Donald Drive-Terman
Drive and the installation of a short two-way left turn lane on Arastradero Road between King
Arthur Court and Pomona Avenue to support left turn movements out of Pomona Avenue onto
westbound Arastradero Road. The City implemented these two modifications over the Summer
2012 to help support roadway operations before the start of the current school year.
Attachment B contains the Staff Report for the Planning and Transportation Commission
hearing on this item. Attachment C includes the minutes of the meeting.
Resource Impact
The estimated cost to implement the recommended changes and improvements will primarily
require Staff time to implement. The recommended traffic signal modification at the
intersection of Arastradero Road and Donald/Terman Drive will cost approximately $25,000 and
will be funded through existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP): PL-05030 (Traffic Signal
and ITS Upgrades). The recommended green bike lane treatments can be installed immediately
this fall as the City completed the procurement of green bike lane material this past-Spring as
part of a grant program funded by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) – Transportation
Demand Account (TDA) (Staff report 2713). The Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard design is an
active project in the 2013 fiscal year and is funded by the CIP: PL-12000 (Transportation &
Parking Improvements). The removal of the median island at Arastradero Road & Hubbart Drive
will be planned in conjunction with the street resurfacing program next year.
Policy Implications
The installation of the Phase 2 Trial Re-Striping and lane configurations for Arastradero Road is
consistent with the Council-approved Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Improvement Plan. The
project furthers the following Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Goals and Programs:
T-1, Less Reliance on Single Occupant Vehicles;
T-3, Facilities, Services and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and
Bicycling;
T-5, a Transportation System that Minimizes Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods; and
T-6, a High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians and Bicyclists on Palo Alto streets.
T-41 (Program): The following roadways are designated as residential arterials. Treat
these streets with landscaping, medians, and other visual improvements to distinguish
them as residential streets, in order to reduce traffic speeds:
o Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road)
o University Avenue (between San Francisquito Creek and Middlefield Road)
o Embarcadero Road (between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road)
o Charleston/Arastradero Roads (between Miranda Avenue and Fabian Way)
Environmental Review
The City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan on January 20,
2004.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Proposed Arastradero Rd Improvements (PDF)
Attachment B: July 25, 2012 Planning and Transportation Staff Report and Attachments
(PDF)
Attachment C: July 25, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes
(PDF)
Prepared By: Rafael Rius, Traffic Engineer
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 1 of 31
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
July 25, 2012 3
4
EXCERPT 5
6
7
8
9
10
NEW BUSINESS. 11
Public Hearing: 12
13
2. Arastradero Road Re-Striping Trial Project: Recommendation for the Permanent 14
Retention of the Arastradero Road Re-Striping Trial Project between El Camino Real and 15
Gunn High School for the re-striping of Arastradero Road from four lanes to a hybrid of 16
three lanes in some sections and various traffic calming and roadway modifications. 17
18
Chair Martinez: Ok ladies and gentlemen we are going to reconvene the Commission hearing. 19
Our next item, by the way we have quite a few speaker cards, but if there are others that care to 20
speak tonight you’re welcome to submit your card. Our next item on the, our agenda is the 21
review of the and a recommendation to Council on the Arastradero Re-Striping Trial Project. 22
we’re going to begin with a brief 12 minute Staff report followed by questions from the 23
Commission and then we’re going to go to members of the public who will have three minutes to 24
speak. And with that I’m going to open the Public Hearing at this time. Jaime, you want to 25
begin? 26
27
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official: Good evening Commissioner Martinez and 28
members of the Commission and actually Curtis Williams is going to start us off on the 29
presentation. 30
31
Curtis Williams, Planning Director: Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. So I did 32
want to begin talking a little bit about the background, just bring us up to speed on the project 33
and sort of where it came from. This whole corridor, this is the second phase of a two phase 34
project for the Charleston Road/Arastradero Road Corridor and this is a particularly important 35
corridor because it not only provides key cross town vehicular traffic routes but also services a 36
lot of schools and parks and residential neighborhoods and such as well as more regional 37
facilities like the research park and Stanford. So that we have both access issues, safety issues, 38
and vehicle through put issues to deal with. 39
40
The initial study was begun in 2003 primarily as a response to the proposal for about 900 new 41
residential units in or adjacent to the corridor area and some like the Campus for Jewish Life 42
property and the projects on Meadow Circle and some of the things happening on El Camino 43
Real and so at that time the Corridor study was begun and in draft a negative declaration was 44
prepared. The purpose of the effort was to create primarily a safer corridor, safer for the users 45
that helps to mitigate the impacts of that expected development. It was in many was a forerunner 46
of the complete street concept that you’ve heard a lot about and is now embodied to some extent 47
in State law and is a planning practice and transportation practice throughout the nation of trying 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 2 of 31
to make multiple use of our streets for vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. So we tried to balance 1
those transportation modes in this case, we have particular conflicts at the commute hour with all 2
the schools that are being serviced as well as the traffic trying to just get through crosstown so 3
that was a real focus was how to best balance those transportation modes. 4
5
The plan was, was actually, Council adopted a statement to initiate the plan as a mandate for 6
Staff to incorporate not only to develop the plan but then to incorporate the residential amenities 7
that are along the corridor and also to look at how this change would affect adjacent 8
neighborhoods, adjacent streets, through neighborhoods and trying to minimize impacts on those 9
areas. So the first phase was basically from Fabian Way to Alma, not actually all the way down 10
to San Antonio, and that was completed and the, was a two year trial and then ultimately the 11
Council approved it for permanent installation which is awaiting funding. 12
13
The second phase then is the Arastradero Road part of the improvements which is what we’re 14
here to talk to you about tonight. One key link is the middle of that whole project which is the El 15
Camino Real intersection which is clearly a bottleneck. It’s been kept separate largely because 16
we really need to work with the State on that. It’s a State highway and so we recognize there’s 17
some work to do there and Jaime will be talking a little bit about some of the differences, 18
differences in travel time that results largely because of congestion at that intersection. So this 19
phase one project again was two year implementation 2006 to 2008 and in 2008 Council adopted 20
the permanent implementation. 21
22
The Arastradero Road project began planning in 2008 subsequent to the first phase with initially 23
some changes to the Gunn High School driveway and to the parking lot there and then followed 24
shortly thereafter by the, the trial that you’re looking at now as its been modified initially four 25
lane to hybrid three lane with the traffic calming treatments and an original one year trial which 26
has been extended to two. We’re at the end of that second year; we’re here to look towards 27
permanent, whether to permanently implement all or part of the trial. So with that background 28
I’d like to turn it over to Jaime to provide the particulars and our recommendation tonight. 29
Thank you. 30
31
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Curtis. Actually before I want to dive into the information here about 32
the project I want to provide a little more context for you and for the audience and for anyone 33
that’s listening at home just in general about what happens around Palo Alto when it comes to 34
vehicular movements and just traffic in general. And, you know, for the most part, you know 35
where I’m highlighting here on this graph for you is really the, the main vehicular thoroughfares 36
throughout the City of Palo Alto. You know we have of course 101 and 280 kind of to the east 37
and west, then we have some kind of north/south arterials along El Camino Real/Foothill 38
Expressway. Majority of these corridors again outside of the jurisdictional right of way of the 39
City of Palo Alto, but again the arteries that then feed into those begin to intermix with what the 40
City maintains, so if you look here you start to see how we begin to feed vehicular traffic kind of 41
across and through the City of Palo Alto. And these are arterials where we really focus vehicular 42
movements. And what we’re showing here in the orange for you is, you know, the residential 43
arterials that, you know, are poured for vehicular movements are predominantly they’re to serve 44
the community to serve, you know, the people kind of moving between business districts and 45
their homes and also to connect schools and other uses within the community and these are the 46
areas that we focused a lot of our more recent street type projects, you know, complete street 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 3 of 31
type projects themselves. But, where we’re focusing vehicular movements kind of east/west 1
across the City are really on those arterials. 2
3
There’s been significant investment by both the City of Palo Alto and really the region in 4
maintaining those connections. So we’re showing here are the active or recently approved 5
projects that are kind of occurring within the east/west vehicular corridor capacity so coming 6
forward again if you’re, you’ve driven down 101 lately you see the auxilliary construction 7
between Page Mill Road down to San Antonio eventually that goes all the way to Highway 85. 8
We’re working with the State and the County on visibility improvements for the interchange at 9
280. The County has received a significant grant from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation 10
Authority (VTA) and from Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for improvements 11
along El Camino, I’m sorry, around Oregon Expressway, I draw a blank there, and we’re making 12
significant improvements as a city along San Antonio Road to the periphery south periphery of 13
the City. 14
15
At the same time, you know, we’re trying to enhance those residential streets to really improve 16
the livability and quality of life of the community for the people that live on and along those 17
streets because we’re focusing so much of the vehicular movements kind of through those other 18
corridors. They are really vehicular based and some of the improvements that we have done 19
recently include, you know, the phase one improvements done on Charleston Road we are 20
making significant improvements over the summer on Park Boulevard, there’s a bike boulevard 21
through the corridor for bike usage. We recently completed biking improvements on Deer Creek 22
Road in partnership with Stanford University last year. We’re looking at improvements and 23
investments on California Avenue that’s of course something that went to the Council on 24
Monday. You may read a lot about it in the paper. We made improvements to Stanford/El 25
Camino. 26
27
The City is funding on its own a residential focus improvement at the Arastradero Road and 28
Oregon Expressway improvement to provide that connection for the bicycling community. And 29
if you look at Arastradero Road you see how that fits into that link of protecting the community, 30
protecting that corridor again for multiple uses not just vehicular, but really for bicycle and 31
pedestrian uses and transit uses. It’s really good to remember this because, you know again, we 32
really want to protect certain streets for multiple uses, you know, complete street type projects. 33
And there’s really some it would just make sense to focus vehicular movements and that’s what 34
we’ve been doing on some of the other arterials. 35
36
So now let’s kind of get back to the Arastradero Road project. So really in this current year that 37
just finished we really didn’t make too many improvements as far as civil improvements go, as 38
far as building the kind of things on the field. A lot of that happened over the first year. One of 39
the main reasons why the City Council approved the extension of the trial into the second year is 40
because so many of the improvements that we wanted to do in the first year didn’t happen until 41
the last half of that year. As a matter of fact one of the most critical improvements was a signal 42
modifications at Arastradero/Coulombe but that didn’t get finished until last summer, and so the 43
Council really felt that it was appropriate to extend that trial for an additional year because 44
mostly Gunn High School was also proposing bell schedules changes to have students start later 45
in the, into the, into the morning at the same time the Bowman International School, which is 46
located right adjacent to Terman Middle School at Terman and Arastradero, they also extended 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 4 of 31
their, their bell schedules an additional half hour to really stagger kind of vehicular movements 1
across Arastradero Road and the demand kind of over an hour’s time. 2
3
But we did of course make some corrections that we thought were appropriate in response to 4
concerns from the community within that first year. Those were really non-physical type 5
improvements; things that people didn’t really see but definitely things that people experience. 6
So we focused a lot of improvements on signal timing operations that we didn’t do in the first 7
year. Once again we talked about that new signal, that left turn movement at Arastradero Road 8
that we turned on last summer, right at the beginning of the school year. We actually 9
coordinated the traffic signals between Arastradero and Coulombe and Arastradero down at 10
Terman. That was something that we had not done before, there did not exist any previous 11
coordination between those two signals. At the same time as part of that coordination we did 12
make some adjustments to the way that the signal at Arastradero and Donald/Terman operated in 13
that it has what’s called an all pedestrian signal phase in the morning where for 45 minutes when 14
the crossing guard is there pedestrians move for only one interval of a cycle and all vehicle 15
movements stop while pedestrians move through the intersection. We did terminate that a little 16
earlier to allow coordination to begin between Coulombe and Arastradero Road. And then we 17
also made improvements down on the Charleston Road side at the Alma intersection in response 18
to concerns from the community about just people to get across the tracks during preemption 19
events in the morning. 20
21
So what we’re showing here is just kind of in general what traffic is like on, on a, on an average 22
daily basis kind of focusing down Arastradero and these last three bubbles here, you can see that 23
vehicle volumes ranged between about 19,000 to 20,000 vehicles a day and if you kind of just 24
spot focusing it, you know, there’s, you know, definitely been a little bit of an increase along the 25
corridor that’s consistent with a lot of the regional growth that we’ve been seeing just in general 26
across the City. But for the most part also, you know, things are kind of the same depending on 27
where you’re looking and those kind of changes and kind of growth factors kind of are consistent 28
all around the area of Arastradero. 29
30
But when we look at Arastradero what really comes to concern is the morning operation, you 31
know, people really most, most focus on how things work when people are trying to get to 32
school, people are trying to get to work through the corridor itself. And what we show here are 33
just average or the peak hour volumes in that morning commute. And you see here that from the 34
pre-project trial in black to the blue just like the average daily traffic there’s definitely been a 35
little bit of an increase and a little more of an increase in, you know, along Arastradero Road, but 36
again growth, growth rates are consistent with the region as well as, you know, increases in 37
population to the different schools such as Juana Briones. 38
39
Bicycle uses though of course has continued to rise just like vehicle uses has, and that’s, that’s a 40
positive thing for the community. And what we’re showing here is just in general over the last 41
decade how bicycle usage has increased at the various schools. And so what you’re seeing here 42
is just last year you see a little over 900 vehicles, or 900 bicyclists kind of traveling to different 43
schools in the morning. That amount of bicycle traffic which is on a lot of different streets, 44
Arastradero and Maybell and other streets, that’s equal almost in volume to the amount of 45
volume that’s just on Arastradero Road itself, so again, a lot of activity happening in that area 46
really kind of pushing the need for why we have to have kind of complete street type additional 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 5 of 31
projects to balance the loads. So this is something that is new for the community to see, 1
something new to the Commission as well. 2
3
Again, this is a corridor improvement, it’s not just Arastradero it’s how does Charleston and 4
Arastradero Road operate together. So what we’re showing here is just in general, you know, to 5
give the audience a snapshot of how long it takes to travel from Charleston/San Antonio across, 6
across Arastradero up towards Foot Hill Expressway. So in the, in the midday scenario, which is 7
kind a like a, kind of an off peak condition, it takes just a little bit over 11 minutes to basically 8
travel across the City from an east/west scenario. This is of course before all the construction 9
that was happening by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) right now. And we also show what it is 10
like in the evening hours, so again a little, about a two minute increase in the evening hours just 11
to cross the City. What we’re showing here in blue though is what things were like in the 12
morning before any of the improvements were implemented along Arastradero Road. And so 13
you see across Charleston Road travel time was pretty consistent with what it was, what it is with 14
the current project, but you saw pretty significant delay once you started crossing El Camino 15
Real started moving across the corridor. It took basically over 18 minutes to get across the 16
corridor in the morning under that pre-project four lane condition. 17
18
What we’re seeing now, in the morning with the current project is again, very consistent data 19
across Charleston Road. We definitely see in purple here a little bit of an increase crossing El 20
Camino Real. Curtis hinted towards the fact that that’s an area that has kind of plagued us with a 21
little bit of congestion, but once you pass, once you pass the intersection and you’re on 22
Arastradero Road vehicular movements, which is, this is trying to capture actually move fairly 23
consistently across the corridor and we actually have a decrease in travel time or an improvement 24
across the corridor in driving time compared to the pre-project condition. 25
26
So again another thing we focused on with the community has been just in general the speed of 27
vehicles and when we’re talking about speed we can’t really talk about the morning because in 28
the morning there’s a lot of, a lot of vehicles on the road already trying to travel across so we 29
focus on vehicle speeds really off peak because one of the measures of the project is, is are we 30
providing a benefit for the community? And what we’re showing here is what’s called the eighty 31
fifth or critical speeds of the corridor. And what we see on Arastradero Road is that the eighty 32
fifth percentiles have dropped fairly consistently across the corridor, with the exception up here 33
near McKeller where we see a little bit of a 2 mile per hour increase. Everywhere else there is a 34
decrease in that eighty fifth percentile speed. The other thing that we’re seeing though is those 35
high speed, the high speed vehicles because they are traveling kind of over 37 miles per hour on 36
the corridor, there has been a, a significant drop in those vehicular speeds kind of across the 37
corridor in general. So again what we’ve been seeing is about between a 2 to 5 mile per hour 38
reduction in vehicle speeds, but a significant reduction in vehicle speeds over, traveling over 37 39
miles per hour. 40
41
And actually I’m going to back up real quick because I do want to highlight one point here 42
because this comes up a lot in the community meetings, is that when we talk about vehicle 43
speeds it really is relative. What we have not done yet as a City is, kind of re-finalize what are 44
the recommended long term speed limits for Arastradero Road. We have to do what’s called an 45
Engineering and Traffic Survey or the general term is just a Speed Survey, and we typically after 46
making improvements wait about six months to a year to establish a new survey. We didn’t do it 47
this year because we wanted to see how the trial went. So, you know, following discussions here 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 6 of 31
and at Council this coming fall, we would like to do a Speed Survey for the corridor towards the 1
end of a, towards the end of the year. 2
3
Collision data here is also something that is new for discussion at the Commission and it’s 4
something that we didn’t do a lot of in the first year because we really needed time to see how 5
the corridor was responding to the improvements that we implemented. So originally here is 6
kind of improvements over the last several years, and again we started to see decreases in 7
collisions along Arastradero Road right after the start of improvements on Arastradero Road, 8
further improvements that went into the Gunn High School and the Gunn High School parking 9
lot. When the project was implemented in 2010 again a lot of construction happening over a one 10
year period, and a little bit of an increase in 2011, but this year, the first half of the year, we’re 11
far below previous year collisions. So at the end of June we had only seen four collisions on 12
Arastradero Road. Bike and pedestrian involved collisions, again ever since the improvements 13
started to go in, has been a significant drop in collisions on/along Arastradero Road that are 14
bicycle or pedestrian involved. And again at El Camino Real, again a lot of, a lot more 15
movement, but at El Camino Real there’s so far just been one incident this year and in previous 16
years, again either consistency with previous year collisions, mostly because we didn’t make any 17
improvements at the intersection itself. So the findings that we’ve seen definitely get a reduction 18
in bicycle and pedestrian incidences as we just discussed, overall reduction in automobile 19
collisions, consistent drop in vehicle speeds along the corridors, especially those, those speeds 20
that are, that are, were considered the high speed violators. 21
22
And on the traffic volume side, definitely a little bit of an increase, but that’s kind of consistent 23
with what we see around the rest of the region especially within the City of Palo Alto. And, I 24
guess again, that has also resulted in again a decrease of incidences that involve bicycle and 25
pedestrians and what we’re seeing is no apparent shifts for traffic in the Barron Park community. 26
That was, that was an important finding for us because one of the measures of the project during 27
the Council Monday was to protect those adjacent communities. 28
29
So what has the community been telling us about the project itself? Again, a lot of positive 30
feedback, a lot of concerned feedback as well. On the positive feedback side, people do say that 31
with the addition of the two-way left turn lanes along certain stretches of the corridor that they 32
are, make you feel like it’s easier to get out of, out of certain streets onto Arastradero Road. 33
There’s also again a reduction in the off peak vehicle speeds which we talked about earlier, 34
which again was a positive finding. Minimal congestion along Arastradero Road outside of the 35
school peak, and that’s what we saw in that travel time data that we showed you earlier again, 36
about 11 minutes to travel around the corridor, which is a, which is a pretty consistent travel 37
speed. We also saw a minor increase in travel time. Well some, some residents I should say, 38
noted concerns with an increase in travel time but that was offset by the safety benefits that were 39
occurring along the corridor. Clemo Drive specifically received a lot of improvements at the 40
very beginning of the year, first year of the project, with the brand new crosswalk, we put in the 41
rapid flashing beacon crosswalk and the step ladder crosswalks and a little median on it for 42
refuge so people feel safer now crossing that location which in turn a lot of people felt that they 43
felt at that same time then safer letting their kids walk or bike to school on their own as well. 44
45
But one of the main things we did hear was that it looks good, but hey, wrap it up! You know, if 46
you’re going to do this project, you know, get the medians built, of course we have to go through 47
this process and make sure that we give everybody the opportunity to, to provide their input and 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 7 of 31
that leads to again the concerns. There were concerns that this is only one of a few corridors that 1
gets you consistently across 101 to 280 and again, we as a region have been making a lot of 2
investments along Oregon Expressway a lot of those investments begin to take shape into the 3
form of construction this coming year. Again some people did note like an increase in delay in 4
travel time and specifically that focuses really in the morning commute period. There were 5
concerns of road rage really more in that first year, that first year we made a lot of consistent 6
corrections throughout the project. There were concerns of cut through traffic around Barron 7
Park, but again we don’t see that specifically within the numbers but you know where we do see 8
increases that does seem to match increases in school populations at both Barron School and at 9
Juana Briones Elementary School. 10
11
There were at the same time that there was positive feedback about being able to turn left onto or 12
off of Arastradero Road, there also were concerns from people being able to do the same 13
movement. Some people felt that they lost their left turn access directly into their home where 14
we had painted double yellow lines to shape future medians, people felt that the queues were too 15
long, specifically along Arastradero Road, but when we compare that to that travel time data that 16
we showed you earlier, you know we saw that traffic actually moves more consistently on 17
Arastradero once you pass El Camino Real. There were concerns about the El Camino Real 18
intersection specifically, and again that is an area we have not focused any type of 19
improvements. Specifically the concern there are no bike lanes across that corridor, and again, 20
the congestion along El Camino Real itself. 21
22
So, again, always room for improvement and so trying to really take a lot of that feedback from 23
the community to heart. We really kind of sat down and said what else can we possibly do to 24
this corridor? Again when you focus on the second year and not making any type of physical 25
civil improvements to the roadway, everything was more signal timing based, you know, that 26
you, you felt as you drove, but not you saw as you drove and there are things that we do 27
recommend to help address those ongoing concerns of, you know, bicycle safety along 28
Arastradero Road. 29
30
Just I’m going to, I’m going to walk you from the corridor from west to east so starting near 31
Gunn High School we would recommend the installation of green bicycle lanes to highlight the 32
bicycle movements that are entering near the school. We show here just the north half, or the 33
westbound movement, we could definitely mirror those same type of improvements and put them 34
in along the south side, along the frontage of the cemetery. Again, the green bike lanes 35
treatments were a recommended best practice, something recently adopted by the Bicycle and 36
Pedestrian Transportation Plan and our first bike lanes went in on Channing Avenue last year 37
and we have two additional projects happening this fall. 38
39
At the intersection of Arastradero and Hubbartt, specifically here between Ynigo and Hubbartt, 40
we actually built a median the first year in response to concerns at the beginning of the year. We 41
felt we put that median in first and foremost to house one of, a brand new vehicle speed feedback 42
sign that we put in. That’s one of those signs that tells you how fast you’re driving as you 43
approach the sign to try to encourage you to slow down. That sign is currently located in a 44
median that exists at this location. We would actually recommend to take the median out and 45
move the sign onto an existing streetlight on the north side to provide that continuous advisory 46
speed warning to vehicles traveling on the westbound, but we felt that there was enough concern 47
from the residents that were living on the north side of Arastradero Road off of Hubbartt and 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 8 of 31
from the residents living on Ynigo, I felt that that median made it too difficult for them to turn 1
off of their street. And so we feel that removal of that island is a positive change in response to 2
the concerns from that portion of the community along Arastradero Road. 3
4
Again continuing down the corridor here at the intersection of Arastradero and Donald, we 5
recommend more green bike lane treatments approaching the intersection, but specifically we 6
would actually recommend a traffic signal modification. So you, if you recall, I mentioned to 7
you earlier that we shortened the amount of time that that all pedestrian interval occurs, it used to 8
go from 7:30 until 8:15 in the morning and we cut that back by five minutes from 7:30 to 8:10 9
and that was so that we could try and coordinate the two signals at Arastradero/Coulombe and 10
Arastradero/Donald-Terman in the morning for that last kind of 15 minute push for the people 11
who are trying to get to Gunn High School in response to the school bell schedule change. But 12
that also had an impact because that all pedestrian interval works great to allow kids to kind of 13
move kind of freely across the intersection, you know, while vehicles are stopped, but once, once 14
the pedestrian movement finished that made sure that there weren’t any pedestrians that would 15
conflict with right turn vehicles coming out of Terman, and so now that we cut that off for five 16
minutes it did make it a little more difficult for cars trying to exit Terman to leave during that last 17
five minutes. 18
19
And so what a, what we recommend is what’s called an overlap modification. An overlap allows 20
left turns in the morning, it allows the right turns to move consistently while the left turns are 21
happening during that 40 minutes. And we’re trying to show that for you here, we’re extremely 22
lucky. You know, the odds were in our favor here, we actually were able to find a picture online 23
on Google where we knew where there was an overlap occurring and what’s showing here is you 24
see in this picture you see the left turn’s moving across an intersection, but the people in this 25
right turn lane they have a green arrow at the same time that that left turns moving. That’s 26
basically the type of modification that we would recommend to make at the intersection that 27
would only happen for 40 minutes in the morning. 28
29
At the same time though, we would recommend also to do another modification of striping 30
between King Arthur and Pomona. So today this is again one of those painted medians like the 31
one that was at Ynigo/Hubbartt. We would recommend to convert that to a two way left turn 32
lane so that residents that were trying to turn out of Pomona have an area of refuge to then merge 33
back onto when they are continuing west and same for the traffic that’s coming out of King 34
Arthur Court. At the intersection of Arastradero/Coulombe, again more of those green bicycle 35
treatments. Again, this is a corridor where green bicycle treatments make a lot of sense, and, and 36
at these locations where, you know, conflicts can occur at this location we’re recommending the 37
improvement. 38
39
At the same time at Los Robles today in the field this painted median goes all the way to Los 40
Robles and we do hear concerns again from people that they felt that they needed some type of 41
an area to provide refuge so they could then merge back into west, just like we did at King 42
Arthur and Hubbartt. Lastly at Suzanne, again this is showing that refuge area that already 43
exists, but we would recommend a simple change here just to add an arrow to note for people 44
that are traveling west that vehicles may be merging on their left side. But again, more of the 45
green bicycle lane treatments as well. So those, those are the recommended improvements that 46
we would suggest along the Arastradero corridor if the project were to be recommended for 47
retention. 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 9 of 31
So what are the next steps? Again, there’s a lot of things that are happening along the corridor of 1
Charleston Road, specifically at Charleston Road, the first phase of the project that was already 2
approved for retention by the Council the City funded the design phase of for median 3
improvements between Middlefield Road and Alma Street as part of the current year Capital 4
Improvement Projects (CIP). The $250,000 that came from traffic mitigation from the JCC is 5
funding the design phase. But we’re excited to announce to the community for the first time 6
tonight that we also received a $450,000 grant to build the median islands. So again we had set 7
aside money to do the design, but we didn’t really have any money to know when we could 8
actually build that improvement. We’ve already got close to 40 percent of the money that we 9
need to build those medians in the long term once they are designed this year. 10
11
On Arastradero Road, and we are here tonight with a very specific recommendation to you and 12
that is to recommend approval to the City Council for retention of those improvements. We feel 13
that there is definitely been enough improvements and protection of the community and we have 14
enough modifications in the, in the plan to really address those final concerns we’re hearing from 15
the community to recommend approval of this project long term. But, El Camino Real is still the 16
bottleneck. We can’t ignore that intersection in order, in order for us to really have a, a safe 17
corridor for the community we need to work with the State to make modifications to this 18
location. And we are working with developers and we have the opportunity to try and get 19
monies to help us fund feasibility studies to kind of come up with design concepts that may be 20
appropriate to help us put in bike lanes at that intersection and realign it to be a little bit more 21
similar to the improvements we’ve seen at the intersection at Stanford and El Camino. 22
23
So again our recommendation to the commission tonight is for you to again have a discussion, 24
provide us some additional feedback, but if possible, to provide a recommendation to the City 25
Council to approve the retention of this project. And if you have any questions we’d be happy to 26
answer them. 27
28
Chair Martinez: Thank you Jaime, very good. Before we go to the public I’d like to see if the 29
Commission has any questions about the Staff’s presentation. Commissioner Michael. Pardon? 30
Oh. Commissioner Keller. 31
32
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. You had mentioned that there was an increase in school 33
population in Barron Park Elementary and Juana Briones Elementary. Was that increase in 34
school population also an increase of students from outside of Barron Park, or was it indigenous 35
to Barron Park? 36
37
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you for the question. Yes, the increase that we saw in student population 38
was from the population coming outside of Barron Park into Barron school. And again, that 39
would of course result in an increase of vehicular traffic for, for people that do in fact drive to 40
school. 41
42
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The second question (interrupted) 43
44
Vice Chair Fineberg: And just to add a quick detail to that, they added an all-day kindergarten 45
program which draws from the entire district and also it’s one of the overflow schools, so it 46
draws heavily from the other schools that are at or over capacity. 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 10 of 31
Commissioner Keller: And I think you’re referring to Barron Elementary? Thank you. The 1
second question I have is one member, at least one member of the public talked about the kinds 2
of crosswalks on San Antonio Road where there are flashing lights in the crosswalk that are more 3
visible to the walkers and perhaps the drivers, I don’t know. And I’m wondering what your 4
thoughts about if eventually putting those in at Clemo? 5
6
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you. We can definitely look long term at newer technology as it begins to 7
develop. We have installed what are called in-pavement flashing lights in the City in the past. 8
The installations that we do have though we’ve, we’ve currently taken the position of removing 9
them just from a, because of a long term maintenance impact. When the lights fail they are 10
extremely expensive to repair and then over time as the pavement fades, the lights actually wash 11
out. That’s why we took the position for Clemo of starting with that rapid flashing beacon and 12
we did see immediate compliance with, with drivers and pedestrians when that, when that light is 13
in place, but with that said, there have been a lot of new types of flashing beacon lights that have 14
come on to the market. And so I would say that it would be appropriate for us to consider, to 15
continue to consider those in the future. 16
17
Commissioner Keller: Thank you, and one other side thing and that is how visible is it to 18
pedestrians to be aware of when the flashing lights do start? 19
20
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you and that is actually one of the only issues with the existing beacon 21
that we do have. When a pedestrian pushes that rapid flashing beacon it does give an audible 22
beep that the lights have been turned on but it doesn’t the pedestrian any visual indication that 23
the lights were turned on. That actually is intentional because the light is a warning light. It’s a 24
light to advise motorists that there may be pedestrians in the crosswalk, but we still do want the 25
pedestrians to proceed and to continue to cross there with caution. That’s one of the main 26
reasons why that light just doesn’t flash, but we do give the audible warning to let them know 27
that the light has been activated. 28
29
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. 30
31
Chair Martinez: Others? Commissioner Michael. 32
33
Commissioner Michael: So thank you Jaime and Curtis for your presentation. I also wanted to 34
thank in advance the members of the public who are here this evening and will be speaking about 35
this proposal and for the many people who submitted comments in advance. There is a very 36
thick packet of letters and messages on the table that came in which I spent a lot of time reading. 37
So thank you for giving me all the reading material. One of the concerns that I had seen in the, 38
in the written comments were submitted had to do with the possibility of underestimating the 39
level of cut through traffic. And I noticed on page 10 of your presentation which was the daily 40
traffic count comparison there was a, seemed to be a, there was an increase on Maybell at Pena 41
Court from 2,700 to 3,348, which might be people turning off of El Camino and then going down 42
to make a left turn near Briones Park either before or I guess after, cause it’s, it’s blocked one of 43
those and to avoid the Arastradero. Was there any analysis of cut through behavior in that, in 44
that area? 45
46
Mr. Rodriguez: I think I’ll go ahead and let Rafael Rius from our Transportation Engineering 47
answer that question for you. 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 11 of 31
Rafael Rius, Transportation Engineer: Hello Commissioners. Yes we did notice the increase at 1
Pena Court, but what we typically look for to determine cut through traffic is like, if they 2
continue down through the corridor. You can tell as you go, there’s also an increase as you go 3
further west towards, past Juana Briones School near Maybell Court, but there isn’t as large of an 4
increase going down Donald and Georgia where they would cut through. We also, unfortunately 5
we don’t have pre-project data for Coulombe, but we looked at the change along, I’m sorry. We 6
do have the data for Coulombe for 2011 and 2012 and we have a very negligible increase of 7
about one percent over the past year along Coulombe. We don’t have pre-project or 2008 data 8
for Coulombe. 9
10
Mr. Rodriguez: Just to add also I think what we’re trying to say here is that even if we had really 11
been seen a concern of cut through traffic we really wouldn’t have envisioned to see an increase 12
in that right turn movement coming from southbound Coulombe onto Arastradero Road and we, 13
we weren’t seeing that, so that’s where Rafael was saying that we were seeing about a one 14
percent increase which is extremely negligible compared to the increase that is being shown 15
down at Pena Court. And so that’s not demonstrated to us that people are bypassing Maybell 16
trying to get onto Coulombe and avoid kind of the El Camino Real intersection. We’re not, 17
we’re not seeing that. 18
19
Commissioner Michael: Ok, so and then my next question was of the schools that are currently at 20
capacity in the district, I think Palo Alto High School is at capacity and if you’re a new student to 21
the District of Palo Alto you can, at the high school level you have to, have to go to Gunn. So 22
there may be because of that capacity issue at Paly some impact of increased or a future increase 23
in traffic related to the students being enrolled in Gunn. Have you looked at that or do you have 24
any coordination with the School Board on that? 25
26
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Commissioner Michael. We haven’t really outreached to the School 27
District to kind of look at that level of kind of detail and what their kind of internal policy 28
changes may be doing to increase traffic there as far as like Paly students going to Gunn. We 29
haven’t had that discussion with the District. 30
31
Commissioner Michael: Ok, and then I just had, had one other question. After we’ve heard a 32
chance to hear the people from the public and their comments I may come back to more 33
specifics, but in the overall plan you showed for the City there are the arterials and then there’s 34
the residential arterials, the Charleston-Arastradero is one, Embarcadero is another, and I’m just 35
curious, you know, there isn’t sort of a similar sort of project underway to look at Embarcadero 36
for traffic calming the way you have been looking for the last nine years at Charleston-37
Arastradero. I’m just wondering if, if there’s a particular reason why the design of those two 38
streets is so different. 39
40
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you. First of all we are actually beginning to spend a lot more investment 41
as far as what we can do along Embarcadero Road as part of the plaza project that’s coming in. 42
that project is, we worked with that developer to make improvements at the intersection of St. 43
Francis. We this fall are actually going to be doing a study of Embarcadero Road for the signals 44
and how they operate at Paly and at Town and Country and so we’re, we’re starting to make that 45
improvement. And we’re also going to be at the same time this fall looking at trying to do a 46
traffic signal kind of coordination and changes at Embarcadero and Middlefield and 47
Embarcadero and Newell, specifically Embarcadero and Middlefield kind of has that same all 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 12 of 31
pedestrian phase in the morning, but Newell does not. We’re going to be studying this fall 1
whether or not we can actually do that at both locations and coordinate those signals to help 2
move traffic through. So again, we talk about improvements, it doesn’t have to be physical, it 3
can be operational changes through signal timing and that’s what we’re doing this fall. 4
5
Commissioner Michael: Ok. 6
7
Mr. Williams: If I could just add too, just a historical note, I wasn’t part of Staff then but I was 8
kind of around and some of you probably were, there was an effort, what 10 years ago or more 9
perhaps on Embarcadero Road to look at roundabouts as a method of traffic calming along that 10
road. And that caused quite a bit of controversy, was backed away from, and I think there’s been 11
a reluctance to sort of revisit Embarcadero Road from that time. And then there has been an 12
emphasis of course here and just from a staffing standpoint can’t really do much more than one 13
at a time. So, but I do think ultimately as Jaime said we’ll be looking at Embarcadero Road to 14
see what could be done there. 15
16
Commissioner Michael: Well, what I was interested in exploring and I think your comment’s 17
very responsive to that is just the overall context because we’ve looked fairly recently as the 18
Pedestrian Bicycle Plan the Rail Corridor Study, and all these point up to some of the challenges 19
or the constraints and the, I guess the east/west corridors of the City, and with Association of 20
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) expecting growth in the region and so forth anything that we do 21
that seems to impose a constraint on the flow of traffic, unless there’s some sort of a 22
transportation mode shift or other change of pattern of usage its going to be important as we go 23
into the future to make sure that we don’t, don’t impose a constraint that isn’t appropriate. 24
25
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. 26
27
Commissioner Tanaka: So I also wanted to thank Staff for their work on this and also the 28
community for coming out and all the great input we’ve gotten. Just a really quick question. So 29
it looks like we’ve got some good grant funding on Charleston Road. Can you talk a little bit 30
about what’s possible for Arastradero? 31
32
Mr. Rodriguez: On the funding side? 33
34
Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, the CIP. Well, if there’s any grant funding. 35
36
Mr. Rodriguez: Well we can’t really go after any type of grant funding to do any type of 37
permanent improvements on Arastradero Road because it is still a trial. And by all means we 38
still think that there’s opportunity for correction that’s why we have these series of 39
improvements that we’re recommending to you here tonight. But until the Council adopts the 40
plan it actually wouldn’t be appropriate for us to pursue permanent improvements, funding for 41
improvements. And, but again Charleston Road we’re very fortunate we’re able to, to come up 42
with that first $400,000 because again the forty percent of the overall construction. 43
44
Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, good job there. Thank you. 45
46
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you. 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 13 of 31
Chair Martinez: Ok, let’s go to members of the public who wish to speak tonight. Each member 1
will be given three minutes to speak. When you’re nearing the last minute, a yellow light will 2
appear to just caution you. You’re welcome to complete your thought. You’re not obliged to 3
stop in midsentence when the bell goes off. So with that, Vice Chair. 4
5
Vice Chair Fineberg: Betty Lum to be followed by Sue Fikes. 6
7
Betty Lum: Honorable Commission Members thank you very much for this opportunity. My 8
husband and I have lived, I’m Betty Lum, 4202 Suzanne Drive. My husband and I have lived on 9
the corner of Suzanne and Arastradero since 1965 and over the last several years we’ve not only 10
seen an increase in the numbers of cars, but the speed at which these cars travel. It’s evident that 11
everywhere in Palo Alto the traffic has increased and this project that we’re talking about tonight 12
is an attempt to provide a safe corridor for all users while at the same time providing a smooth 13
traffic flow with minimum impact to travel times along the corridor. Attempts to solve traffic 14
problems are never easy. It’s rare when there’s total acceptance of whatever is proposed and as 15
you’ve heard there are 11 public and private elementary, middle, and high schools along the 16
corridor as well as some preschools where children need to cross Arastradero to get to the 17
schools. I believe that this project is providing a safe travel route, especially for the school 18
children and bicyclists and yet providing a smooth flow of traffic. There will always be some of 19
the people along the corridor who feel that they are being inconvenienced, but we must 20
remember the purpose of this trial period. Admittedly those of us who live on the, on homes 21
along Arastradero have difficulty getting, merging into traffic during the rush hours. With the 22
inconvenience that we face and the price that we have to pay for the inconvenience rewards us 23
with safer travel routes for the children going to school. 24
25
I’m very grateful and I thank the City Staff, Mr. Williams, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Rius, as well 26
as the City Council for sharing our concerns and attempting to provide a safe travel route for our 27
school children, bicyclists, pedestrians, as well as minimizing the inconvenience to the motorists. 28
Taking these comments and thoughts into consideration, please consider making this project a 29
permanent one. Thank you. 30
31
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 32
33
Sue Fikes: Good evening, I’m Sue Fikes, I’m a Barron Park resident for 42 years. I’m recently a 34
daily walker in the Barron Park area and I have noticed the enormous increase in traffic on 35
Maybell coming off what we on our street call Coulombe and when evidently people are getting 36
that left turn signal if they’ve got a way to make that left turn signal onto Coulombe they’re 37
cutting through my neighborhood. I’m very concerned about safety. We’re not used to seeing 38
that much traffic. I counted in one block of my walk ten cars coming down through there. I 39
don’t know where, this was like at 8:30 in the morning. I’m also terribly concerned about the 40
traffic on Maybell. When you see the traffic back up on El Camino where there’s now no right 41
turn on red because the intersection was being so badly impacted, people are turning right onto 42
Maybell. The bicycles are everywhere. Good for them, but nobody has taught these children 43
bicycle safety. It’s scary to be a walker and cross an intersection when a bicyclist doesn’t stop. 44
It’s scary to see the speed of some cars on Amaranta. It’s scary to be passed at a stop sign on 45
Amaranta which I was recently. I’m stopped, they go. It’s scary that there are no police out 46
there. I think it would be wonderful revenue generator. I drive at 25. I am passed continually. 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 14 of 31
You cannot get off onto Arastradero unless you trigger the signal. For years I made that 1
commute, came out Coulombe, turned right, never triggered the signal. With one lane of traffic 2
it is impossible not to do that. There was always a gap somewhere, not now. I’m very 3
concerned. I’m concerned for my walking safety, I’m concerning, concerned with bicycles, cars, 4
and walkers on streets that don’t have any sidewalks. Keep in mind no sidewalks, no gutters, no 5
place to walk except on the pavement. I hope you’ll take all this into consideration. I’m 6
concerned that you’re all ready to vote yes on this and there are so many of us that are not happy. 7
Thank you. 8
9
Chair Martinez: Before you go I think a Commissioner has a question. 10
11
Ms. Fikes: Of me? 12
13
Chair Martinez: Yes. Commissioner Keller. 14
15
Ms. Fikes: Do I get more time? 16
17
Commissioner Keller: You get enough time to just answer my questions succinctly. Thank you. 18
19
Ms. Fikes: Oh darn, I have so many issues. 20
21
Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I just like to understand when you were referring to left 22
turns onto Coulombe and thank you for correcting (interrupted) 23
24
Ms. Fikes: I think, I think, I think people are cutting the El Camino corridor. I think their cutting 25
that (interrupted) 26
27
Commissioner Keller: No, I’m trying to understand left turns from where onto where. 28
29
Ms. Fikes: They’re coming, they’re going, they’re going East on, is that East? North. 30
31
Commissioner Keller: East towards El Camino? 32
33
Ms. Fikes: They’re going towards El Camino, and they’re making the left hand turn at the, at the 34
new turn signal, have you, you don’t drive that part of town? 35
36
Commissioner Keller: No, I’m familiar with it. 37
38
Ms. Fikes: Ok. There’s now a left turn signal because you couldn’t turn before, ever. Now they 39
can turn left, and so they are. So they’re cutting off that entire corner of Arastradero and El 40
Camino coming down, turning on Maybell or going all the way down to Los Robles. The traffic 41
on Los Robles is impacted. 42
43
Commissioner Keller: Ok, thank you. 44
45
Ms. Fikes: You know all of this goes back to the schools, but we won’t go there. 46
47
Chair Martinez: Jaime have you looked at the, this issue of cut through on these streets. 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 15 of 31
Mr. Martinez: Yes we did actually Commissioner so again, when we did look again that, that 1
first the Coulombe to Arastradero right turn, we also looked at the left turn from Arastradero 2
onto Coulombe and what we actually saw was actually almost no change. In the first year we 3
looked at that during the peak hour we saw about 45 left turns, you know onto Coulombe from 4
Arastradero, in the second year we only saw 46. And so, again, not an, not an increase that we 5
would attribute towards diversion. 6
7
Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. 8
9
Vice Chair Fineberg: Barbara Freeman to be followed by Nina Bell. 10
11
Chair Martinez: Can we ask the, oh, you’re doing it. Thank you. For the second speaker to 12
come up as well and be ready to kind of help us save a little time. 13
14
Barbara Freeman: I’m Barbara Freeman and I’m evidently the newcomer to the neighborhood. 15
We’ve only lived there since 1982 and I live on Donald. I want to urge you to really think about 16
the twinkle type lights that Jaime said that they would look into. First of all the lights that you 17
have put up I think are ugly as sin. They look like a traffic at a railroad crossing instead of a 18
residential street, and because as a pedestrian you can’t see when that light is on, and I had no 19
idea that that little beep meant that the light was on. I mean where is that written down, because 20
other lights beep when you hit them, like at Foothill, but that doesn’t mean that the light has now 21
turned that you can walk. So, I would like to have those where I can see them and not only do 22
they embed in the street, but the sign twinkles. In Mountain View, in Menlo Park, and in Los 23
Altos, so a lot of communities have it. 24
25
The other thing is as a pedestrian I don’t feel safe at the crossing at Coulombe, or however we’re 26
saying it today. It’s the one that goes across Coulombe, ok, parallel, going with the traffic of 27
Arastradero. I was thinking it was going to be a protected pedestrian crosswalk like it is at 28
Donald, but it’s not. You, you’ve got this other sign up there for the traffic turning left on 29
Coulombe, you can turn left as long as it’s green and no cars are coming. And so I’ve had 30
people whizz in front of me or whizz behind me while I’m in the middle of the crosswalk with X 31
many seconds left to run. And I feel very unsafe. I’ve got an elderly dog and I’m trying to get to 32
the park to walk him and that’s an unsafe thing. 33
34
As a motorist I don’t feel particularly safe. There is so much road rage, unrelenting along this 35
street. And you can witness all the keep clear marks, it doesn’t look as pretty as your pictures 36
because it says keep clear every block, every time there’s a road because people won’t let you in 37
if you are from a side street that doesn’t have a light and that’s because traffic used to go in like 38
schools of fish when it was two, two lanes in each direction. Now it’s one unrelenting freight 39
train. So, I urge the return to four lanes. Thanks. 40
41
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 42
43
Vice Chair Fineberg: Nina Bell to be followed by Michael Maurier. 44
45
Nina Bell: Hi, good evening. My name is Nina Bell. I live on Los Palos Avenue in the Green 46
Acres One Neighborhood, which is on the south side of Arastradero next to Terman Middle 47
School. I participated in the Charleston-Arastradero stakeholders Committee since its inception 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 16 of 31
about a decade ago. And before I continue I just want to make one correction. When Jaime was 1
showing his fine tuning with those left turn pockets out of neighborhood streets it was accidently 2
misidentified as Los Robles and actually it is Los Palos that is the correct name for that new left 3
turn which will assist us wonderfully to get in a holding position to merge going westbound. 4
5
So I fully support Staff’s recommendation that the Arastradero striping be made permanent and 6
include in that the fine tuning just proposed by Staff as these adjustments were in response to 7
community feedback gathered during the second year of the trial. The goals that were set out for 8
the corridor have been met, the data shows that vehicular speeds have reduced while travel time 9
has remained consistent, that bicycle usage has gone up dramatically, but that the incidents of 10
accidents involving bicycles has gone down dramatically. I’m particularly grateful every time I 11
wait in the center turn lane to make a left into my neighborhood that I no longer have to wait in 12
fear of being rear ended by a vehicle barreling up behind me as it was when we had four lanes. 13
14
I thank the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the City Council for granting us 15
the additional year trial. I thank the School District for changing the bell time. Last but not 16
least, thank you to the City Staff for their tireless work and vision, and a special word of 17
appreciation to Jaime who inherited this major project when he was hired in 2010. He jumped in 18
with enthusiastic energy and with creative problem solving. He’s listened to the community. He 19
has made adjustments according to their concerns. The end result would not have been possible 20
without his leadership. Thank you Jaime. Again, I ask you to recommend permanent retention 21
of the Arastradero striping plan and include in that Staff’s recommended fine tuning. Thank you 22
so much. 23
24
Chair Martinez: Thank you very much, and Jaime don’t let that go to your head please. 25
26
Vice Chair Fineberg: Michael Maurier to be followed by Christian Kalar. 27
28
Michael Maurier: Don’t worry Jaime, I called it in my letter last night Dos Palos and I live there. 29
Mike Maurier, I live on Fairmede. I’ve been part of this process since roughly 2000, when I 30
actually got started 2003 onwards. Thank you for showing up at the meetings Arthur. 31
Appreciate it. 32
33
Quite simply put I’ve lived in the south end of Palo Alto south of Charleston-Arastradero the 34
vast bulk of my life with excursions out for education, some of which took, some of didn’t and 35
I’m rather sensitive to it. I went to school here, went to all the schools in the area and so did my 36
children. The final straw for this came basically when the middle school reopened and 37
introduced a host of middle schoolers to an already manifestly unsafe situation which was not 38
controlled, not researched, not governed, and nobody knew much about it other than the 39
apocryphal stories and horror tales that abounded, many of which continue. 40
41
It was interesting to be part of the meetings. Most people talked about their sacred commutes 42
and shaving the numbers and traffic time and amateur traffic engineers helped or didn’t help the 43
Staff depending on what went on. The thornier issue of cut through traffic, you know, cropped 44
up later on as people became acquainted with the fact that things were going to change 45
regardless, whether anything happened there or not much like they changed for us in our little 46
loop neighborhood when Terman reopened. And interestingly we made a decision in that 47
neighborhood not to fight it even though we knew perfectly well that traffic in our neighborhood, 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 17 of 31
as it has, has really gotten interesting particularly at the rush hour and arsenic hour when they 1
drop the kids off and turn around and race out again. Net net the bottom line for us is we’re 2
heavily dependent on Arastradero and Charleston getting in and out of our neighborhoods so we 3
have no other avenues of ingress or egress. Anything that slowed it down, made people think 4
more, made more cautious particularly at the transit, peak transit hour has all been good. And 5
this has done that, and we appreciate it even though it is, it’s not always convenient, but people 6
are indeed being more cautious, more careful, and more thoughtful and I think the kids are safer. 7
I’d like to thank the Staff for all their long, long work and everybody who was involved. Thank 8
you so much. 9
10
Chair Martinez: Very nice, thank you. 11
12
Vice Chair Fineberg: Christian Kalar to be followed by Elizabeth Alexis. 13
14
Christian Kalar: Hi my name is Christian Kalar and I live at 3716 Laguna Avenue. I’ve lived 15
there over 20 years and I have two children that both bicycle to Terman and will be going to 16
Gunn via bicycle. With the trial over I’d like to request that Arastradero be returned to its 17
original configuration. 18
19
The conclusions in the Staff Report are contradictory to the data that’s included in that same 20
report and I’ll be specific to let you follow up. On page five the first paragraph states that the cut 21
through traffic has not been “significantly increased.” So they are admitting that there is cut 22
through traffic. And if you look on what I believe is page 14 although it’s not marked, it’s called 23
A.M. Peak Traffic you can see a 49 percent increase in traffic on Maybell at Pena Court which 24
was mentioned earlier, and so how is a 49 percent increase not significant? And I know there 25
was a question, they were like well it’s coming in but we don’t know where it’s going we’re 26
expecting a left turn here. If you look on page 10 of their presentation there is a, there is a cut 27
through pedestrian and bicycle path that goes from Georgia to Gunn. And if you happen to be in 28
that area in the morning which my wife and I do every weekday morning you will see tons of 29
bicycles and individual students that are dropped off going into Gunn. So that is part of the 30
mystery solved and there’s no mention to that cut through mentioned in this report as to what’s 31
going on with traffic going there. And you can see that that’s 49 percent increase is because 32
people have started cutting through Maybell because they weren’t going down Arastradero and if 33
they go down Maybell to Georgia and then back again. 34
35
Also, on page 6, Table 3 and Figure 1 show a count of only approximately 20 percent of the total 36
bicycles that go into Gunn. So where are the other 80 percent? The other 80 percent are going 37
in other avenues and a lot of those are going down Maybell and through that cut through or 38
they’re coming through Bol Park and along the old railroad. So, what I don’t see in the report is 39
any statistics on the speeds on Maybell or the bicycle traffic on Maybell and I encourage you, 40
and I know this is the middle of summer, but go down there at the end of school, before school 41
and look at all those riders and not only will you see the Terman and Gunn, but you also see the 42
bicycle riders for the elementary school. 43
44
Also, the, when there’s mention of you know 43 new students at Briones School, actually Barron 45
Park has always been an overflow because we’ve always, my kids went there and I had friends 46
from the other side of town their kids were going there. You need to look at where’s the drop off 47
for the Briones School? I believe it’s down Orme, which is on a completely other side so there’s 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 18 of 31
a number of Barron Park specifics that are missing from this Report and that’s why we as 1
residents are seeing this cut through traffic that isn’t showing up in this Report or isn’t being 2
summarized properly. Thank you. 3
4
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 5
6
Vice Chair Fineberg: Elizabeth Alexis to be followed by Adina Levin. 7
8
Elizabeth Alexis: Good evening Commission my name is Elizabeth Alexis and I’m here 9
primarily actually as somebody who uses the corridor on a daily basis. I bike from Green 10
Meadow to Barron Park and back again at the end of the day and my kids will be biking to Gunn. 11
I am fully in support of the project and I would urge you to move forward with this so that we 12
can get money so that we can get these nice beautifications that we can finally get this thing 13
done. Eight years or nine years or whatever it is, is too much to spend on this, but let’s not add 14
to that. 15
16
Again, this is, want to talk about why, you know where we were before this project. Just a 17
reminder that I mean this was again this was an issue by the City, the main goal was to make this 18
really a complete street, I mean before we knew this term. This was again mitigation for all the 19
development that I think everybody is familiar with, almost 1,000 homes and I believe there’s, 20
there’s more to come along this corridor. The four lane configuration had safety issues I think 21
that are understood there’s this idea right that if you want to make a left turn you have to stop 22
and people stack up behind you. For me personally it was very difficult on a bicycle to get 23
across all four lanes to actually bicycle on the right side of the road. And we had these crashes a 24
lot of which involved pedestrians and bicyclists. You know there were a lot of challenges going 25
into this, I mean there are a lot of, there are a lot of cars you have all these bell times which are 26
close together, the skill commute time was a particular problem but it’s like at Thanksgiving you 27
know if you add a couple people to your family and your table is no longer big enough, do you 28
go buy a new house, right? Or do you say well we’re going to start thinking, we’re going to 29
think smarter not harder and I think that is really commendable the approach that the City took 30
on this issue. 31
32
I mean we talk about people talk about the congestion, I mean this is the picture from 33
beforehand. I mean this has been, it has been a real challenge and this is what you started the 34
project with. The problem was you had this corridor that during, you know, a few minutes a day 35
you can’t move at all and then ironically the rest of the day you just speed down it, it’s like a race 36
track. And combined with what you have this, the four lanes make a specific issue for turning in 37
that a pedestrian cannot see a small person over a normal sized car cannot see that car coming, 38
that car cannot see the person, and a normal person with a large car has the same issue. So it’s 39
not only that people were going fast, but you also had these very unsafe crossings. Slowing cars 40
saves lives and this is why getting those people, how many people under 37 miles per hour 41
makes a difference. At 35 miles per hour if you get hit, you know, you’re probably dead. 30 42
you’re in the hospital and 25 it’s probably an emergency room visit. It’s a very serious thing and 43
that is why school zones are 25 miles per hour. So the goal to get those speeds, those top speeds 44
down and it is a tremendous change. So, anyway I want to just, I’m going to end now, but you 45
know we started with this is the project, right? We started with Gunn and we went on to the rest 46
of it. 47
48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 19 of 31
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 1
2
Vice Chair Fineberg: Adina Levin to be followed by Joseph Hirsch. 3
4
Adina Levin: So my name is Adina Levin. I’m the Co-Chair of the Silicon Valley Bicycle 5
Coalition Palo Alto Team and I’m going to pick up where Elizabeth left off. So she showed that 6
slide that showed the tremendous congestion at Arastradero before this project and so the 7
changes that were done with the turning lane was intended to address that congestion and the 8
slides in the Staff presentation really showed the benefit to the overall travel time through, 9
through this project. 10
11
So, I want to go back to the objectives of the project. So maintain the existing travel times, you 12
saw the slide in the Staff presentation that said what happened. To reduce the accidents and to 13
improve the conditions for pedestrian and bicycle travel. So, you know, what actually happened 14
the level of speeding has decreased dramatically, a 50 percent decrease in the number of people 15
who are traveling greater than 37 miles an hour. As Elizabeth mentioned that’s really the 16
difference between life and death a collision that you’re going to survive and a collision that 17
you’re not going to survive. So if a main goal is to keep people from getting killed and in 18
particular keeping kids from getting killed, you know that, that’s the result that’s been achieved. 19
And if you look at the number and also the share of kids that are biking to school, that’s gone up 20
and this has been part of that increase. And you saw in the Staff presentation that collisions are 21
down even though the overall traffic volume is up. 22
23
So if you look at those main goals, reducing the accidents, reducing speeding while not 24
increasing overall driving time, that, that goal has been met. And as a advocate with the Silicon 25
Valley Bicycle Coalition, Palo Alto is really the bright shining star in this region. People all 26
around the region, Menlo Park, San Carlos, Los Altos, Mountain View, they ask to learn from 27
the team that has done this in Palo Alto how do we do this in our community? The level of 28
community engagement, the level of cooperation between the City, the PTA, law enforcement, a 29
thorough engagement and the end result being over the last decade Palo Alto has increased the 30
share of kids walking and biking to school below middle school doubled to 50 percent, high 31
school doubled to 40 percent. Palo Alto is the envy of the region and I’d like to encourage you 32
to move this project forward and move on to some of the next steps in the Bike and Pedestrian 33
Plan to make it even better. Thank you. 34
35
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 36
37
Vice Chair Fineberg: Joseph Hirsch to be followed by Peter Chu. 38
39
Joseph Hirsh: I live on Georgia Avenue near Gunn High School since 1974 and since January of 40
2003 five or six times a week when I’m in town I drive over to Cubberley High School. I go 41
6:45 to 7:00 Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and 7:15 to 7:30 on Monday, Wednesday, Friday. 42
That’s not a problem. There are not enough cars on the road to make a difference. People ask 43
me what it’s like I say it’s like a video game only you’re driving a real car on a real road. It is 44
arduous at times. 45
46
The real problem is coming back. I come back between 8:00 and 9:00 and on school days it’s an 47
absolute mess and I have great difficulty reading some of the conclusions that are in the Staff 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 20 of 31
Report that times have been reduced to get from Middlefield to my home. It has gone from 8 to 1
10 minutes to at least 20 and I have gone every which way possible. I come across Charleston-2
Arastradero, I cut up to Maybell, I now come up El Camino rather than using Charleston, 3
disregarding the traffic improvements, the gas line improvements that are going there, and I’ve 4
gone through Los Altos to come up the Foothill Expressway. Virtually every way is now 20 5
minutes. So when it says the travel time to reach the Foothill Expressway has decreased since 6
implementation of the Arastradero Road improvements during schools and in the morning that 7
just, my empirical data is absolutely not true. It has doubled. It has gone from 10 to 20 minutes. 8
9
The same thing with the table on number four, or Table Number 4 on page 8, which says there 10
has been a time improvement. You can’t have improvement if you’re trying to get across the 11
Arastradero, the El Camino intersection onto Arastradero and you have stop and go traffic until 12
you hit the merge and then you have stop and go traffic until you get past Coulombe. After that 13
it blossoms out as you get to Terman and things improve. But I would urge you, unless you have 14
gone down there during the morning hours, I would ask you to defer this and at least drive the 15
corridor from Middlefield to Foothill Expressway twice during the morning traffic to see what 16
it’s really like because I don’t think that the Staff Report tells you anything. And I would 17
certainly urge you not to improve it until the City gets together with the State and finds a way to 18
improve the flow through and the flow across the El Camino/Arastradero-Charleston 19
intersection. Thank you. 20
21
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 22
23
Vice Chair Fineberg: Peter Chu to be followed by Robert Moss. 24
25
Peter Chu: I’ve got some maps [note—not speaking into the microphone] 26
27
Chair Martinez: Sure, of course. 28
29
Mr. Chu: I’m Peter Chu, I’ve been in Palo Alto since 1986 and I drive through this corridor from 30
the West to East in the morning and back in the afternoon and I generally do not use the rush 31
hours, I tend to be later, but when I run into the morning rush hours it was horrendous. So I’m 32
here to really urge you not to approve it right now because I wanted to suggest additional 33
measures that can open up additional ideas. 34
35
The, the problem I wanted to reemphasize it was in the morning from 7:30 to 8:30, and the rest 36
of the benefit was clearly agreeable, meaning the highest speed was reduced. So we wanted to 37
find a solution that get both ways, meaning reduce the morning traffic jam, at the same time 38
reduce the maximum speed and I believe there is a way to do that. Ok, we don’t have to reduce 39
the capacity of the road which I believe is a problem. The problem from the Gunn School, Gunn 40
High School to the East is the four lanes reduce to three lanes too quickly. If you see the map 41
you see the four side streets are very close to Gunn High. I believe that is part of the problem. 42
So one solution I would suggest is you consider closing off maybe two of those four streets 43
permanently so that they become cul de sac. And then if you look at the comparison to the 44
Embarcadero their distance between traffic light is much longer and then I believe there is a way 45
to program the traffic light to encourage a maximum speed. Because if you time it right then 46
whoever traffic travel faster will be slowed down automatically, ok. 47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 21 of 31
Then I wanted to also urge you to consider to work with Gunn High to open up the drop off 1
points at the west side. The Miranda Street, is that a, there is a commercial area west of Gunn 2
High and then there is a long commercial road you can implement drop off points and that that 3
would divert the traffic so that they never get on to this corridor in the first place. Thank you. 4
5
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 6
7
Vice Chair Fineberg: Bob Moss to be followed by Philip Melese. 8
9
Bob Moss: Thank you. I’m afraid this project is not ready for prime time with the current design 10
yet. Let me explain a couple of the problems. If you recall on the slides number 18 where it 11
talked about express concerns one of the ones that hasn’t gotten much mention is the brief 12
eastbound two lane section near Terman is confusing. That’s putting it mildly. There were also 13
some letters in the packet where people complained about cars cutting in and out, sideswiping, 14
and having real problems in that area, and Jaime says several times he’s going to change the 15
configuration of the merger because sometimes you merge left, sometimes you merge right, 16
sometimes you merge both ways at the same time, sometimes you go together at the same time. 17
God knows. 18
19
The best way to handle that section would be from basically Alta Mesa to Terman to keep it four 20
lanes. It simplifies things and eliminates the cars going in and out of traffic and getting the cut 21
offs and the road rage. First point. Second, as you’ve heard from several other people there is a 22
significant amount of spill over traffic into Barron Park proper. Maybell just to give you an 23
example if you look on page five the traffic count increases during A.M. peak by 70 percent. 24
The traffic count total increases by 22 percent, but that’s not the only street that has high traffic 25
count increases. Matadero increases by 24 percent and that’s not all due to changes in the 26
population of the schools because that would assume that every single new school child goes 27
down Maybell and I can guarantee you they don’t. I can guarantee you that most of them come 28
down Los Robles or Orme because they pass my house every day. 29
30
Then there’s the question of the increase in bicycle riders. The vast majority of cyclists who go 31
to Gunn go down Los Robles, they go down Paradise, and they go down the bike path. Only a 32
small percentage go down Arastradero. So the change in the bikes is nice, but it’s not adequate. 33
Now, finally in the list of things that have to be done there are five specific intersections which 34
have to be reconfigured and that doesn’t include the section between Alta Mesa and Terman. I 35
would suggest that those be reconfigured first and the trial continue for at least another three to 36
six months after reconfiguration and see if those changes were really effective and if those 37
changes improved or reduced the amount of cut through traffic, especially on Maybell. And 38
finally, one thing that was not tested but that I think would have been critical would be to get 39
traffic speeds along Maybell and along Amaranta, and along Matadero, because before and after 40
traffic speeds may also have gotten worse. 41
42
Chair Martinez: Thank you. 43
44
Vice Chair Fineberg: Final speaker Philip Melese. 45
46
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 22 of 31
Philip Melese: Close enough. Hi, I’m Philip Melese and thanks a lot for your time and I 1
appreciate this democratic forum here Commissioners and I’d like to thank the Staff has done a 2
wonderful job having patience with us both advocates, and you know people who don’t like it. 3
4
I personally like it and I’ve been here before the trial started for several years and I live kind of at 5
the epicenter at Donald and Arastradero, across the street from Terman right on Arastradero, so I 6
am in the middle of it, good and bad. My wife commutes, so she has a car every day. She has to 7
deal with getting in and out. I ride my bike. My kids went to both schools, Terman and Gunn, 8
so I’m completely immersed in it. My personal opinion is when I came here that Arastradero 9
was a freeway and that’s just wrong for a school corridor. And that’s basically my point in a 10
nutshell. As a, as a, you know, in any case that’s wrong. It should not look like Page Mill Road, 11
it should not look like Foothill Expressway, and it did. 12
13
And I think now people are complaining because you can’t go straight. You have to turn, you 14
have to think, you have to slow down. I think that’s the purpose of why we did this and I’m, 15
personally I’m very, I think that they’ve done a good job, the data supports it and logic supports 16
it. And I heard very early on when they were planning this eight years ago there was a traffic 17
expert consultant and he looked at this and he said this kind of road lends itself to speed and it’s 18
the way it looks. There are no trees, straight lines, no, no stop signs, no red lights, go straight. 19
And off hours that’s what would happen. Arbitrary speeds on the corridor, and that’s been 20
changed. And I believe that’s not only logical and you see it, but I do believe that people 21
actually feel it. 22
23
And I think this talk of road rage and the congestion that happens during school hour, that’s 24
universal. That’s not going to change. I mean that happened before, there was road rage before, 25
and the congestion was there before and you have to, you know, you live by the schools you die 26
by the schools right? You have kids, we moved here because of the schools and guess what? 27
There are kids going to school in the morning during rush hour and that’s the way I look at it. I 28
travel off hours. But I really appreciate the work that’s been done; I encourage you to support 29
the changes and sign it in. Thank you. 30
31
Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. Jaime any thoughts or comments on what we’ve just 32
heard from the public? I’m sure you’ve heard it before. 33
34
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Commissioner. Yeah, I think, I think the things you heard tonight are 35
fairly consistent with the type of comments that we were hearing during the both the community 36
meeting process, our kind of ongoing meetings with the stakeholder group, and as kind of 37
consistent with what we summarized for you on the table again. You know a lot of concerns, 38
positive input, and I think that we’ve done a pretty good job I think, I hope you think that I 39
should say of trying to address those last few concerns. 40
41
Again, the data that we’re showing, you know, we really tried to be impartial that those travel 42
time summaries that we showed you, we actually hired a company to get that for us because we 43
felt that it was going to be a real important thing to make sure that the people knew that we 44
didn’t collect that data on our own, we hired a company to go out to kind of drive that corridor 45
and really kind of give us impartial feedback and that’s that data that we got which was 46
supporting the same things that we were seeing and so, again, my main comment here is that I 47
just want to make sure the community knows we really have heard you. This project has evolved 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 23 of 31
over the last two years is really, you know, our attempt to try to respond to those concerns and I 1
think that this is a corridor that is a residential arterial and that’s why we showed you that slide in 2
the beginning that, you know, we want to focus vehicular movements kind of along those larger 3
arterial streets and provide those capacity improvements to support those, but this, this is a 4
residential community and you get a lot of concerns like this, not just in Palo Alto but in any 5
community where you have really three plus schools focused just in one area. Juana Briones, 6
Gunn, Terman, the Bowman International School, it’s very consistent with what I’ve seen in 7
other communities, but it’s an isolated event. Throughout the rest of the day the corridor seems 8
to function extremely well and, you know, its, I think that the argument from the last speaker is 9
true. People move here for the schools and we have an increase as a result. 10
11
Chair Martinez: I wanted to thank everyone who’s come out to speak from their heart of what 12
they live with, what they see, what values they see in what the City is trying to do. Nevertheless 13
I’m just struck by the polar opposition. I was hoping that someone who said that I have to drive 14
20 minutes every day to get through this, but it’s worth it for the safety of our kids, or from the 15
other side, you know we’ve got 10 more cars cutting through our street, but I see kids safer every 16
day in going to school. That, I’m hoping that we see the value in what the City has attempted to 17
do, the problem that existed before there was any kind of intervention and that the City will 18
continue to try to make this corridor a safer place for everyone. Commissioners, comments? 19
Commissioner Keller. 20
21
Commissioner Keller: So do you want comments first, or can I make a Motion? 22
23
Chair Martinez: Your pleasure. 24
25
MOTION 26
27
Commissioner Keller: Ok, so I will make a Motion to accept Staff’s recommendation so as 28
worded on the slide there. 29
30
SECOND 31
32
Chair Martinez: Is there a second? Motion by Commissioner Keller and seconded by Vice Chair 33
Fineberg. Do you want to speak to your Motion? 34
35
Commissioner Keller: Yes, thank you. So I have a number of comments here. Firstly, 36
Arastradero Road prior to the trial was a raceway, especially during the period when it wasn’t 37
rush hours. And it was quite a dangerous place where people tried to make left turns off of 38
Arastradero Road would often get rear ended. And so a four lane street without left turn lanes is 39
simply not a safe condition. So from my point of view it is completely unacceptable to go back 40
to the state beforehand. My personal position was that I was considering between whether we 41
would do what is proposed, what was being in a trial and whether there would be something that 42
we could do that would be better than simply going back to the status before. And I think that 43
there’s enough improvement in the trial and proposals that are set by Staff that will improve this 44
further that we should proceed along on this process. 45
46
I have a few specific comments to make as well. First of all, the I think the, Chief Transportation 47
Officer Rodriguez talked about, mentioned Los Robles instead of Los Palos, but the diagram 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 24 of 31
says Los Palos so it was clearly a slip of the tongue. Secondly, the, I do think that it makes sense 1
to increase law enforcement in terms of speeding and it’s not part of the Motion, but is, I think 2
it’s a, I think it does make sense to increase law enforcement along the corridor and Barron Park 3
in terms of cut through traffic and speeding and failing to stop at stop signs, particularly focusing 4
on the beginning of the school year when there’s increased traffic and when school children 5
safety is the highest issue at that time. 6
7
The next issue is with respect to the Clemo crosswalk and I appreciate Staff saying that they are 8
going to revisit this and look at additional options particularly consideration of this crosswalk as 9
this comes back in terms of more permanent. I mean obviously when we make this permanent, 10
there will be attempts to get grants and funding to implement things and as far as the further 11
implementation that’s one to consider in further funding. 12
13
I appreciate the member of the public who corrected the pronunciation of Coulombe to 14
Coulombe. I guess it’s not quite potato/potato, but and I seem to have misplaced my book on the 15
streets of Palo Alto and how it actually says to pronounce it but since it’s pronounced differently 16
then Jaime warned me not to talk about electric vehicles but there’s a company called Coulomb 17
that’s spelled differently so I can believe that there’s a pronunciation that that would be 18
pronounced with the “e” at the end, but I never knew how to pronounce it so thank you for that. 19
But it does indicate that the left turn lane which is not a, which is a permissive protected left turn 20
lane, and that, that when people turn left and there’s a green crosswalk that, that causes a left turn 21
lane vehicle to pedestrian conflict. And I’m wondering whether signage such as “Yield to 22
Pedestrians” underneath the, the traffic light, turning cars must yield to pedestrians or something 23
like that, you know the proper signage, but something like that might remind people of what the 24
law is in that regard, because left turn lanes, left turners are supposed to yield to through traffic, 25
but in particular pedestrians in a designated crosswalk. So reminding people of that would be 26
helpful. 27
28
The next point is the speaker referred to the Gunn High School drop off off of I guess it’s 29
Miranda. I understand Gunn High School is considering that, but it wouldn’t be, it would be off 30
of the, it would be off of the driveway that’s at Miranda, that’s very close to the intersection of 31
Miranda and Arastradero and so there are also safety issues involved in that. And I, but that, 32
that’s something Gunn High School would consider, that’s not something before us in the here. 33
34
In terms of traffic speeds on Maybell, Amaranta, and Los Robles that was mentioned by another 35
speaker the issue of traffic enforcement seems to be an appropriate thing for that. Another 36
speaker referred to the merge directions and I believe that all the merge directions are from the 37
left to the right with the exception of the eastbound one past Terman Drive. And that one I 38
believe is one of the things that’s being corrected is to go from the left lane into the right lane so 39
they will all be consistent. 40
41
And finally one of the speakers mentioned that his commute back from Cubberley to his house in 42
Barron Park was, has been slowed down between the 8:00 and 9:00 hour, and I observe that the 43
shifting of the Gunn High School starting bell time meant that the shift of the peak, which 44
previously was between 7:00 and 8:00, the peak is now later than that. And because the peak is 45
now between 8:00 and 9:00 as opposed to between 7:00 and 8:00, sort of the peak comes when 46
people are approaching Terman before the, I guess 8:10 bell time, and Gunn High School I 47
believe is 8:25 bell time, so therefore the congestion that happens until 8:30 or so would be much 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 25 of 31
greater than it would have been previously when Gunn had a 7:50 bell time. So, I would venture 1
to say that past 8:30 after traffic has a chance to flow through there and clear out that that 2
congestion would be decreased and my experience in driving that corridor has borne that out. 3
That the traffic does considerably clear up after that. And so if your experience was timing 8:15 4
from three years ago to 8:15 now, yes it would be slower because the peak has shifted so that’s, 5
that’s worthwhile considering. 6
7
So all in all I think that this is a significant improvement of, of safety and no improvement 8
comes, very few improvements come without any issues attached. Certainly there are some 9
issues here that Staff will continue to resolve, but I think that on the whole this is a great 10
improvement. I thank Staff for their hard work here. I thank the members of the public who 11
have weighed in both tonight and as one of the speakers mentioned I’ve been at most if not all of 12
the meetings of the public that Staff have run for the, for this, for Arastradero portion of the 13
corridor. I think that there has been a lot of concern. Some people will get their way than others 14
as happens when there is some division in the community. 15
16
And I’d also like to close my remarks to acknowledge somebody who’s not here but whose 17
presence is actually looms large over this and that is Penny Ellson. She planned to be here but 18
this was originally going to be earlier and it was scheduled, rescheduled to today and it coincides 19
I understand with her long standing travel. And I hope that she’ll be able to make it when this 20
comes to the City Council but I think that, that her dedication to improving safety on Charleston-21
Arastradero is well noted and I think that her work in realizing that with the community that the 22
great increase in amount of housing that occurred on the Charleston-Arastradero corridor 23
necessitated improvement in safety and that this certainly does implement the vision of 24
improving safety on that corridor. Thank you very much. 25
26
Chair Martinez: Commissioner next time let’s try to get through the Motion before your 27
commentary because I believe that the seconder should have had the opportunity to weigh in 28
before we entered into our discussion. Vice Chair Fineberg, do you want to speak to your 29
second? 30
31
Vice Chair Fineberg: Sure. Do you want me to follow my second with comments or then hold 32
them? 33
34
Chair Martinez: Yeah, just go ahead so we can just begin to get to the other Commissioners. So 35
go ahead with your comments. 36
37
Vice Chair Fineberg: Ok. I second this because I believe it’s a mission accomplished. I’ve lived 38
along the Charleston-Arastradero corridor for over 10 years. I drive it daily. My heavy use of it 39
is in the afternoon peak rush hour. I live far enough off it. For 10 years I was down at the end 40
near Fabian and now I’m near Middlefield, but I live far enough off it that I am not impacted by 41
the sort of contortions that are caused to the people who live immediately on the route. 42
However, I know very well firsthand what has happened along the route and the impacts of the 43
changes that have been made over the years produce. 44
45
Taking a step back I’d like to thank Staff, particularly Mr. Rodriguez and Rafael Rius for their 46
hard work on this. As previous commenters have said the project has been long in the making 47
and you’ve moved it along quickly but not too quickly. It’s not perfect. I’m pleased there are a 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 26 of 31
number of improvements. I saw you both taking notes and it’s good that there’s still a concept 1
that you’re open to changes and improvements and that those tweaks will continue. I also would 2
like to echo Commissioner Keller’s thanks of Penny Ellson. She has dedicated many years and 3
thousands of hours of work to creating an environment that is safer for our bicyclists and 4
pedestrians as well as car commuters who use the route. 5
6
It used to look like a speedway. It used to be fast and furious and you know, speeding at 40 and 7
crazy cars would pass you going even faster, I just don’t see that anymore. Even when there’s 8
nobody on it there’s enough jiggling and jogging that cars drive slower. It has created an 9
environment where it’s not a speedway. The increases in safety as Chair Martinez said, offset 10
some amount of minor inconveniences, but I understand that the people who bear those 11
inconveniences are the most burdened by that. But the single data point for me that makes the 12
difference is that the survivability of our kids is increased when that speed is lower and if, if my 13
commute is 10 minutes longer and somebody else’s kid doesn’t get killed by a crazy driver, it’s 14
good. It’s that simple. 15
16
If you look at page three of our Staff Report there were five goals for the project. We’ve 17
accomplished all but one and I hope that that last one, I know that that last one will go forward as 18
the project is implemented. We’ve enhanced the school commute safety for K to 12 students, 19
we’ve improved the quality of bike and pedestrian experience, we’ve reduced the amount of high 20
speed vehicles, and we’ve minimized traffic shifts to adjacent streets. What still needs to be 21
done is we have to enhance the streetscape and quality of life in the corridor for local residents 22
and Mr. Rodriguez, I’m expecting in the future to hear you announcing a grant or funding 23
sources that will take care of the phase two portion and I’m thrilled that you’ll be able to 24
implement those hard scape improvements on phase one. This is consistent with countless 25
numbers of policies in our Comprehensive Plan. Staff has listed some of those on page 11 of our 26
Staff Report. And I look forward to seeing the work continue. 27
28
Chair Martinez: Commissioner Michael, comment? 29
30
Commissioner Michael: So I think this is obviously a very significant project and it needs to go 31
forward in substantially a form presented. I think a lot of people have spoken about their 32
personal experience with the conditions on the corridor and having grown up in Palo Alto I lived 33
in Barron Park for over 10 years. Subsequent to that I had a daughter going to school at Terman 34
when I lived in Midtown and then she went to Gunn and I experienced a lot of the taking 20 35
minutes to go from El Camino to Gunn for the drop off. And I guess, and I like to say also that 36
I’ve been on the Commission now for only part of the year and this is the first project which I’ve 37
seen such an outpouring of public comments and participation which I think is really wonderful 38
because often times I find myself wondering what does the public think? I mean are there people 39
who are proponents and opponent and what are their reasons? So I, I really spent a lot of time 40
turned out today going through all of the documents that were submitted in great detail and 41
looking at exactly what the reasons were either in favor or not. And by my informal survey 42
roughly 76 percent of the people who took the trouble of submitting a written comment by letter 43
or e-mail were favorable and there were a smaller number of people who were opposed or who 44
had certain concerns but I find some of the concerns that were expressed to me aren’t 45
satisfactorily addressed in the Report. 46
47
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 27 of 31
So at the very least there’s some loose ends, and I think that the, the explicit objective to 1
minimize traffic shift to adjacent streets is one that seems to me not to be buttoned down. I think 2
that the, the allegation that there’s insufficient data about the extent of cut through traffic strikes 3
me as credible and it needs to be investigated. I think your statistics regarding the uptick on 4
Maybell are consistent with some of the comments that we heard this evening and definitely 5
consistent with my experience as a cyclist and as a parent and living in Barron Park and knowing 6
those cut throughs to Gunn High School. 7
8
There’s there are phenomena going on that are daily occurrences that aren’t really reflected in 9
your analysis because I think you focused appropriately on the main corridor and not so much on 10
the impacts to the Barron Park neighborhood, so when I’ve spoken to people who are current 11
residents of Barron Park neighborhood they all had opinions and most of them were negative as 12
it turned out. That sampling was decidedly different from what I just referenced. There was a 13
concern about road rage, a surprisingly authentic concern that this road rage was real. So I think 14
that the issue of traffic enforcement somehow being insufficient or sporadic is something that 15
ought to be coordinated with the Police Department. There’s something going on with this cut 16
through on Maybell and I don’t know what the solution is and I’m not a traffic engineer qualified 17
to tell you how to do the job, but I don’t know if it’s speed bumps or something but there’s 18
something going on that’s not really reflected in what we see here and then even among the 19
supporters of the, of the project who were very sincerely delighted with the balance of safety to 20
schoolchildren and minimizing the admitted inconvenience to the commute car traffic and 21
motorists, they had some ideas about specific improvements on the striping in the medians 22
versus having a raised or landscaped median. I noticed that that was not in the Capital 23
Improvement portion of this, maybe for funding but that seemed to be something that came up in 24
numerous of the comments and you probably have looked at that but that seems to be valid. 25
26
So I’m tempted to offer an amendment to suggest another six month extension of the trial to let 27
you investigate more completely what goes on in Barron Park although if you could undertake 28
that analysis of the cut through traffic and some of these other comments that I think were 29
important that were raised this evening as a project in parallel I think that the issues and the 30
design of the Arastradero sort of itself seem to be reasonably well done so that it could go to the 31
Council. But can you give me some assurance that you can undertake those in parallel or does 32
this need an amendment to extend the trial? 33
34
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you Commissioner. Within the Staff Report there’s still a couple of other 35
improvements that we recommend that we didn’t get to discuss in the presentation today and two 36
of your comments specifically reminded me that it might be a good opportunity to call those out. 37
Specifically when it comes to kind of just how Maybell is operating there were a couple of 38
improvements that we had in the Report that I think begin to address that concern. And first and 39
foremost you know Maybell Avenue is a bicycle boulevard within our Bicycle Plan and it is 40
technically an existing bicycle boulevard, I don’t think though that I would probably think that 41
most of the bicycle people would agree that it really isn’t to the caliber of what most people 42
would expect a bicycle boulevard to be. And we did recommend an acceleration of design and 43
implementation of the Maybell bicycle boulevard within the Staff report and what we do to make 44
it a bicycle boulevard begins to hit the comments that you’re suggesting Commissioner. 45
Specifically, what do we need to do to make Maybell safer for the bicycles that are using that 46
corridor? It can be a combination of additional speed bumps on the street, it can be a 47
combination of new types of striping, it can be combinations of you know, those little median 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 28 of 31
islands at certain locations near the rear of Juana Briones. Those are things that we can 1
definitely look at, I defiantly can commit that we would look what types of, at making 2
improvements on that street because it something that we already have recommended within the 3
Staff Report and would be appropriate to do as part of the implementation of the Bike Plan itself. 4
5
The other thing that we recommended with the Staff Report that we’re going to begin to move 6
forward actually as early as August is the acceleration of the development of walk and roll, 7
suggest your ride to school maps for all of the schools on and along Arastradero Road. So as a 8
quick diversion we did receive a grant last year and started the implementation of our safe ride to 9
school program this past, this past spring and we’re recommending that Terman, Gunn, Juana 10
Briones each be accelerated to develop for the development of walk and roll maps in the fall at 11
the very beginning of the school year and that process involves us at the very beginning at the 12
head end of the process meeting with parents, walking the routes that parents take to walk to 13
school, taking the routes that parents and students bike to school and trying to figure out a 14
document and develop education material to help actually encourage change in the behavior of 15
bicyclists. That was a comment that I think was a very valid one by some of the, by some of the 16
audience members that, you know we do a good job as a community in helping to educate at the 17
third grade level the rules of the road to sort of drivers. But we don’t really do a good job of 18
reiterating that at the junior high level and that that’s something that is another element of our 19
Safe Ride to School Program that we begin to develop new more educational materials for 20
middle schoolers and begin to implement that into the programs coordination with the District. 21
And again that is already something that’s already happening this year. 22
23
A bigger piece of that though is also that we want to develop education for parents. It’s just as 24
much an issue of a, of a bicyclist adhering to bicycle rules of the road, rules of the road as much 25
as it is for a driver to respect the use of the bicycle use of the road as well and so that they know 26
what bicycles should be doing so that they can watch for different types of for potential reactions 27
of bicyclist so that they know how to react as well. And so I do think that you know we can 28
make a strong commitment to you tonight Commissioner that we would begin to accelerate a lot 29
of those improvements at the same time next year. 30
31
Commissioner Michael: Ok, that’s a, so two other elements that I had raised, one was where you 32
have striping in some cases would it be possible to budget and install raised landscaped medians? 33
Because a number of the comments that I saw seem to make the valid point that where there’s 34
merely striping on the ground you still had behavior by some motorists that was not safe and if 35
you want to achieve the full benefit then using the raised medians would be, would be useful. 36
And I guess the, the comment about the, the improved safety of the, the school kids on their bike 37
to school, I’m not sure if that’s entirely responsive to the cut through traffic of, of cars. So what 38
I got was that you might not have accurate data with respect to that and maybe you could do a, 39
sort of make a commitment to update that data so that if that needs mitigation then you could 40
come back to us at a later date. 41
42
Mr. Rodriguez: Yes Commissioner, I’m sorry. Yes, we will definitely make it a point to collect 43
more data. Actually one of the things that we talked about internally because that has come up 44
is, is actually doing that very first thing in August and in September and potentially going to 45
Council a little later in September so that we have the opportunity to kind of collect and process 46
that data and show those findings to the Council. 47
48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 29 of 31
Commissioner Michael: Thank you very much. 1
2
Chair Martinez: Thank you, Commissioner Tanaka. 3
4
Commissioner Tanaka: So I also had, first of all I appreciate everyone’s comments on this and 5
for people coming out to, to speak on this item. I also was curious about the possibility of cut 6
through traffic on Maybell. It looks like there’s actually already three speed tables on Maybell at 7
least that’s what I saw and there’s only two stop signs. But I was wondering if the Chief 8
Transportation Official could talk a little more about your feel about the cut throughs. Do you 9
think there’s really a problem here already that’s not being solved, or do you think that it’s 10
something which is just general increase in Palo Alto traffic? 11
12
Mr. Rodriguez: Well you know I think that when the community kind of comes out kind of in 13
strong unison that shows that there’s concern. And so again we’re not at all trying to dismiss 14
that, that feedback from the community. I think that the recommendation by Commissioner 15
Michael is a good one, I think that we’re definitely committed to studying that corridor a little bit 16
more at the beginning of the school year and again school year starts a little earlier this year, 17
mid-August and so we want to wait till probably the last weekend of August and really just 18
collect a lot of data and really validate that concern. And so I don’t want to say it exists or 19
doesn’t exist, I would say that, I think that Commissioner is correct we collect a little more data 20
in connection to speed and cut through traffic. 21
22
Commissioner Tanaka: When were the speed tables, speed tables put in on Maybell? Was this 23
during the trial, was it before or after? I mean, do you, do you know? 24
25
Mr. Rodriguez: I honestly personally don’t know I just talked with Rafael as you asked the 26
question and he was telling me his understanding was they went in about 2008. That was about 27
the same time that we did the improvements at the Gunn High School driveway. Whether or not 28
they were specific because it was working in conjunction with that, I honestly don’t know the 29
answer. 30
31
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. So if as part of the Bike Boulevard Plan, I would assume that you 32
would also look at perhaps speed tables on Coulombe or is it just Maybell that you guys would 33
consider? Or would you consider kind of the whole route? 34
35
Mr. Rodriguez: We can definitely look at the whole route. The way we typically treat speed 36
tables and speed humps is that we usually wait for the community to address them. For a bicycle 37
boulevard though we, we can practically preempt a request for community consideration for that 38
type of an improvement. I think that when we look at the bicycle boulevard for Maybell if, if we 39
need to pay some special attention to Coulombe to help address that concern as well that, yeah, 40
yeah we can definitely do that but we also then want to make sure like what is the bell schedule 41
times for Juana Briones to any relations of that peak as well? We need to understand that to 42
make sure we don’t impact people’s ability to get to school either. 43
44
Commissioner Tanaka: Sure. I guess my main comment is that you have three speed tables, two 45
stop signs, and so if you’re really trying to cut through it doesn’t seem like much of a short cut 46
because you have all that traffic calming already, so I’m just trying to figure out is there enough 47
already, does there need to be more? I mean would you put five speed tables? There’s already 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 30 of 31
three and two stop signs. How many, how much do you need? So that’s what I’m trying to get a 1
feel of and what more would you do on that street? It’s not very long and there’s already quite a 2
bit on there. 3
4
Mr. Rodriguez: Again for bicycle boulevard type treatments there’s signage and marking type of 5
treatments that we could look at. That’s part of the design of the bicycle boulevard. Do we need 6
more improvements to the west of Coulombe? I don’t know without looking at some more data. 7
Specifically want bicycle usage as well as just lower vehicle speeds because it is a while before 8
you get from Coulombe I used to get towards the Georgia area, so there’s opportunity for vehicle 9
speeds to increase in that area. And so we want to make sure that we look at the concern and the 10
cause is that just because there is no controls in that area and that’s just a natural street segment 11
where people can increase or is that a result of Arastradero and it’s really important for us to kind 12
of, you know, to be able to identify the cause. 13
14
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. The other question is one of the members of the public mentioned 15
about pedestrian lights and how they’re hard to see. I actually haven’t witness, witnessed it 16
myself but can you speak a little bit about that. Is there, what’s the issue and is that a real issue 17
in your opinion? 18
19
Mr. Rodriguez: You’ll have to remind me a little bit more Commissioner. 20
21
Commissioner Tanaka: It was something that at Clemo. 22
23
Mr. Rodriguez: The flashing beacon at Clemo. Yes, I’m sorry. Again just to reiterate if you are a 24
pedestrian and you push the rapid flashing beacon at Clemo you do not get any type of visual cue 25
that the lights have been activated. Again that was intentional because we want motor, we want 26
pedestrians to cross with caution. There have been just a lot of advancements in new types of 27
technology and there was a lot of reference to signs that have kind of lights embedded within the 28
lights, the signs themselves. They also provide a visual, I’ve seen that and they work great. 29
Definitely I think we need to look at something like that as we’re implementing the longer term 30
improvements of the project. 31
32
Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I think I understand your rush now. Thank you. 33
34
Chair Martinez: Vice Chair Fineberg with a follow up comment. 35
36
Vice Chair Fineberg: Yeah I appreciate Commissioner Tanaka’s question on the little blinky 37
lights because it just made me realize something I’ve seen when I drive there’s often a pedestrian 38
standing there just waiting to cross and I tend to try my best to be considerate and slow down and 39
stop and provide safe crossings to pedestrians and I like doing it at that particular crosswalk 40
because I know how hard it is to get across but sometimes they just stand there and they don’t 41
step out and I’m like you know, I’m stopped, come on and there’s no cars to my left or my right 42
and car you know, next to me possibly has stopped, so they have safe passage and they just don’t 43
walk. And that just explained why. Because they don’t know it’s kind of their time and we’re 44
stopping because of the blinky lights, but they don’t know we have them. So tweak it however 45
to make it work. 46
47
Chair Martinez: Commissioners, oh, are you done? 48
_____________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto July 25, 2012 Page 31 of 31
Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, no I think in general I think the work has been pretty, pretty great 1
on this thing so I do support it. Thank you. 2
3
VOTE 4
5
Chair Martinez: Ok Commissioners, let’s vote on the Motion. Those in favor say aye. Aye. The 6
Motion passes unanimously. I want to thank everyone for your hard work on this and we look 7
forward to the permanent installation. Thanks Jaime. 8
9
MOTION PASSED (5-0, Commissioner Tuma absent) 10
11
Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you very much Commissioners. 12
13
Commission Motion: Planning and Transportation Commission to recommend that the 14
City Council approve the permanent retention of Phase 2 of the Charleston-Arastradero 15
Corridor Re-Striping Project, with additional street modifications outlined in the 16
presentation. Motion by Commissioner Keller and seconded by Vice Chair Fineberg (5-17
0) 18
19
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3156)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 10/1/2012
Summary Title: Council Priority Setting Process
Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommendations for Annual Council
Priority Setting Process
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
The Policy and Services Committee recommends that the City Council approve the definition of
a Council priority and the Council priority setting guidelines as provided in Attachment A.
Background
At the City Council’s Annual Retreat on January 21, 2012, the Council referred to the Policy and
Services Committee the task of reviewing the definition of a Council priority and any
recommended changes to the priority setting process. At its meetings on April 10, 2012 and
July 10, 2012, the Policy & Services Committee discussed the priority setting process and
directed staff to prepare the Council priority setting procedures based on the Committee’s
recommendations. The staff reports and action minutes are included in this staff report as
Attachment B.
Past Practice
The City Council adopted its first Council priorities in 1986. The establishment of Council
priorities originated from Council’s desire to better utilize time available for discussion and
decision making. It was envisioned that Council priorities should denote issues that are
important matters to the community and that warrant an intensified effort during the fiscal
year. It was further believed by designating a priority, Council sends a message to the
organization and the community that heightened attention and resources are to be directed
toward the issue.
Each year the City Council reviews the priorities at its Annual Retreat. The process for
establishing the priorities has ranged from more formal processes of Council submitting
priorities and scoring proposals to more informal reviews and discussions at Council Retreats. In
past years, the objectives and milestones that reflect the work necessary to fulfill the priorities
have also been reviewed and established by the City Council either at their Annual Retreat, by
recommendation of the Policy and Services Committee or proposed by staff for Council
consideration.
Staff also found in its review of prior year’s priority setting processes that from 2002-2007
several staff reports indicate that the City Manager and the City Council agreed on the following
assumptions regarding the Council’s priorities:
1. If everything is a priority, nothing is.
2. Major priorities require multi-years to achieve efforts.
3. The City’s budget must reflect the Council’s priorities.
4. Staff will provide Council with reports on success factors/milestones to ensure
accountability.
5. Council and staff must communicate on a regular basis through a variety of means, and let
the community know the status of the top priorities.
6. Council and staff need to avoid adding new projects and activities to the “full plate.” This is
a joint responsibility of Council and top management to keep from having attention diverted
from priorities. It is important to recognize that 90% of the departments’ work is not on the
list of priorities.
7. If the Council adds new projects and activities during the year, it is the responsibility of the
City Manager to clearly indicate the impact on the top priorities and the ongoing workload.
Additional policy direction in past years has included: 1) focus on a limited number of priorities,
2) align review of Council priorities to the two-year budget cycle, and 3) include primarily multi-
year initiatives.
Discussion
The Policy and Services Committee directed staff to prepare a Council Priority Setting Process
that includes the following components and timeline. For ease of future reference, the Council
priority definition, priority setting guidelines and timeline are consolidated in Attachment A. City
Council Priority Setting Guidelines.
Definition of a Council Priority
A Council priority is defined as a topic that will receive particular, unusual and significant
attention during the year.
Purpose of Establishing Council Priorities
The establishment of Council priorities will assist the Council and staff to better allot and utilize
time for discussion and decision making.
Process
1. Three months in advance of the annual Council Retreat, staff will solicit input from the City
Council on the priorities to be reviewed and considered for the following year.
a. Council members may submit up to three priorities.
b. Priorities must be submitted no later than December 1.
c. As applicable, the City Manager will contact newly elected officials for their input by
December 1.
d. Additional priorities may not be brought to the Council Retreat.
2. Staff will collect and organize the recommended priorities into a list for Council
consideration, and provide to Council no less than two weeks in advance of the retreat.
3. The Policy and Services Committee, each year at its December meeting, shall make
recommendations about the process that will be used at the Annual Retreat paying
particular attention to the number of priorities suggested by Council members. The
recommended process is to be forwarded to Council for adoption in advance of the Council
retreat.
It is important to note, that the Policy and Services Committee may review the list of priorities
that Council members submit for the purposes of discussing the recommended process that is
forwarded to Council for consideration. However, to ensure compliance with the Brown Act,
review and discussion of the priorities should be taken up at the Annual Retreat, which is a
noticed meeting of the full Council.
Guidelines for Selection of Priorities
1. There is a goal of no more than three priorities per year.
2. Priorities have a three year time limit.
Timeline
Milestone Date
Staff solicits input from Council October
Council submits priorities (including any new members) December 1 (no later than)
Staff organizes recommended priorities for December P&S
Committee meeting
Early December
P&S Committee meeting to discuss & make
recommendations about the priority setting process
Early December
Council receives recommended list of Council priorities and
considers P&S Committee’s recommendations for the priority
setting process
Early January
City Council’s Annual Retreat Mid-January
Attachments:
Attachment A. Prioritization Guidelines and Schedule (PDF)
Attachment B. 7-10 & 4-10-2012 Policy and Services Staff Report and Minutes (PDF)
Prepared By: Sheila Tucker, Assistant to the City Manager
Department Head: James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Attachment A
City of Palo Alto
City Council Priority Setting Guidelines
Approved by City Council:
Last revised:
Background
The City Council adopted its first Council priorities in 1986. Each year the City Council reviews
it’s priorities at its Annual Council Retreat. On ______the City Council formally adopted the
definition of a council priority, and the Council’s process and guidelines for selection of
priorities.
Definition
A Council priority is defined as a topic that will receive particular, unusual and significant
attention during the year.
Purpose
The establishment of Council priorities will assist the Council and staff to better allot and utilize
time for discussion and decision making.
Process
1. Three months in advance of the annual Council Retreat, staff will solicit input from the City
Council on the priorities to be reviewed and considered for the following year.
a. Council members may submit up to three priorities.
b. Priorities must be submitted no later than December 1.
c. As applicable, the City Manager will contact newly elected officials for their input by
December 1.
d. Additional priorities may not be brought to the Council Retreat.
2. Staff will collect and organize the recommended priorities into a list for Council
consideration, and provide to Council no less than two weeks in advance of the retreat.
3. The Policy and Services Committee, each year at its December meeting, shall make
recommendations about the process that will be used at the Annual Retreat paying
particular attention to the number of priorities suggested by Council members. The
recommended process is to be forwarded to Council for adoption in advance of the Council
retreat.
Guidelines for Selection of Priorities
1. There is a goal of no more than three priorities per year.
2. Priorities have a three year time limit.
City of Palo Alto
City Council Priority Setting Schedule
Last Updated: 8/17/2012
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3002)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 7/10/2012
July 10, 2012 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 3002)
Summary Title: Council Priority Setting Process
Title: Council Priority Setting Process
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Review the definition of a Council priority and the changes to the Council priority setting
process and consider recommending approval to the City Council.
Background
At the City Council’s Annual Retreat on January 21, 2012, the City Council referred to the Policy
and Services Committee the task of reviewing the definition of a Council priority and
recommending any changes to the priority setting process. On April 10, 2012 the Policy &
Services Committee discussed the priority setting process and directed staff to (a) prepare the
Council priority setting procedures based on the Committee’s recommendations and (b) return
to the Committee prior to returning to Council for approval.
Discussion
At its meeting on April 10, 2012, the Policy & Services Committee reviewed background
information provided by staff on the City Council’s priority setting process, past practice and
key assumptions, and the City Council’s discussion at the Annual Retreat on the priority setting
process. The staff report that supported this discussion is included as Attachment A. The Policy
& Services Committee directed staff to prepare the Council Priority Setting Process that
includes the following:
1. A context statement prior to the definition of a priority.
2. A definition of a priority as an issue or topic which will receive particular, unusual, and
significant attention during the year.
1
Packet Pg. 3
July 10, 2012 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 3002)
3. A goal of no more than three priorities per year.
4. A three year time limit on any one priority.
5. A fixed list of topics to consider at the Retreat.
In addition, the Policy and Services Committee is to establish the process of soliciting and
integrating input from all Council Members on an equal basis, beginning three months before
the January Retreat. To ensure compliance with the Brown Act, the Policy & Services
Committee may request Council members’ input on the priorities to be considered at the
Annual Retreat. However, the review and the discussion of input should take place by all
Council members at a full Council meeting. The Policy and Services Committee may also make
recommendations to the City Council about the design of the process and the Council review of
priorities that is conducted each year at the Retreat.
Attachment B provides the draft action minutes from the April 10, 2012 Policy & Services
Committee meeting. Attachment C provides the draft Council Priority Setting Process for the
Committee’s review and to consider recommending approval to Council.
Attachments:
-: Attachment A. 4-10-2012 Policy and Services Staff Report (PDF)
-: Attachment A. 4-10-2012 Staff Report (PDF)
-: Attachment B. 4-10-2012 Policy and Services Action Minutes (PDF)
-: Attachment B. Policy and Services Action Minutes 4-10-2012 (DOC)
-: Attachment C. Council Priority Setting Process (DOCX)
-: Attachment C. Council Priority Setting Process (PDF)
Prepared By: Sheila Tucker, Assistant to the City Manager
Department Head: James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
1
Packet Pg. 4
Policy and Services Committee
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 17
Special Meeting
July 10, 2012
Council Priority Setting Process
Sheila Tucker, Assistant to the City Manager spoke regarding the Council
priority setting procedures. As directed by the Policy and Services
Committee (Committee) Staff had completed the Committee’s recommended
changes and outlined them in Attachment C of the Staff Report. Some
additions had been made to the process at the advice of the City Attorney to
accommodate compliance to the Brown Act.
Council Member Klein said the Definition should be “A Council Priority is
defined as a topic that will receive particular, unusual, and significant
attention during the year” versus the more lengthy definition listed in
Attachment C. He had concerns regarding the definition section. He
suggested limiting the definitions to a single sentence as a Council priority
was a topic that would receive particular, unusual, and significant action
during the year.
Council Member Espinosa agreed with the suggested language.
Chair Holman asked if the language; by establishing a priority the Council
sends a message to the organization, should be moved to a different section.
Council Member Klein said he did not feel the paragraph was necessary as a
definition as what a priority was.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Espinosa to change the definition of a priority to “A Council Priority is defined
as a topic that will receive particular, unusual, and significant attention
during the year.”
Council Member Klein questioned the statement listed under Process, 1a, “All
Council Members will have the opportunity for equal input on the priorities
for consideration.” That statement was always true and it did not need to be listed.
Council Member Espinosa explained there had been conversations about
whether the priority setting would happen at the Committee or Council level.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 2 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
That statement was designed to ensure, if the process was moved to the
Committee level, the discussion would go back to Council and all Council
Members had a chance to participate.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER: to change the language under the header
Process on Item 1B to “Staff will collect and organize Council Members input
into a fixed list to be provided to the Council no less than a week in advance
of the Council Retreat”.
Council Member Klein was uncertain of the process between the Committee
and Staff. He was not clear if the Committee was shaping the list or merely providing suggestions to the Staff. He asked what was meant by the
statement “the Committee would initiate Council input on the priorities.”
Ms. Tucker said Staff understood the role of initiating the process, providing
feedback, and could make recommendations on how the process was
designed during the retreat.
Council Member Schmid mentioned the Staff Report identified the Brown Act
as placing limitations on what the Committee could do.
Ms. Tucker said the Committee could collect information from the Council
but should not have discussions regarding the collected data.
Chair Holman understood the Brown Act compliance in this particular case
was that Staff should collect the Council responses, not the Committee. She
questioned Item 1a which read “all Council Members had the opportunity for
equal input on the priorities for consideration”. There were no specifics
detailing the when, how, to whom, or in what form Council input was
submitted. Item 1b was not precise about which department would collect
the responses. The report noted Staff would collect and organize Council
input into a priority list to be provided to the Council in no less than a week
prior to the retreat. She suggested a timeframe of two weeks because of the
holiday schedule. She felt at least two Council Members should be needed to
make a recommendation for a priority.
Ms. Tucker said in late 2011 when the initial process discussion went before
the Committee it was suggested they provide how they wished to handle the
process. Staff had returned with those suggestions but had not included
details as to how to move forward. Returning to the Committee now was to
receive the detail.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 3 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
Chair Holman said if the intention for setting the process for priorities was
meant to be seen three months in advance the Council could not see the
information in November.
Ms. Tucker specified the current process was that Staff worked with Mayor
on how prioritization was done at the retreat. The change would be that
Staff would work with the Committee instead.
Chair Holman believed formalizing the process would benefit the Staff and
Council as a whole since the position of Mayor changed annually.
Council Member Espinosa wanted to clarify there were four steps in the process; 1) Staff would collect ideas for both priorities and process three
months before the retreat from all Council Members, 2) the suggested
priorities would go before the Committee to set the process and decide
whether or not to make recommendations on the priority ideas, 3) no less
than a week before the retreat the recommendations on process and
potential narrowing of priorities would be sent to the Council, and 4) at the
end of the process, the Committee would evaluate and reconsider the entire
process to determine if any changes should be made. He said the key issue
was the Committee would be setting the process and narrowing the list of
priorities. The part of the process where Staff collected the individual Council
ideas then provided them to the Committee for review was where the
concern arose because at that point the Committee would be reviewing all of
the ideas from all of the Council Members.
Ms. Tucker said the role of the Committee should be limited to
recommendations about the priority process.
Council Member Espinosa disagreed.
Ms. Tucker clarified the first step of the Committee soliciting priorities and
ideas about the process. The report currently read the Committee makes
recommendations about the priorities not necessarily the process.
Council Member Klein noted there were several policy decisions to discuss
prior to rewording. The first decision was whether the Committee should
sculpt the list of Council Member priority suggestions versus providing them
all to Council for consideration. He did not feel that was an appropriate role
for the Committee. He questioned whether additional items would be eligible
at the retreat. He disagreed. He did not feel the proposal of at least two
Council Members submitting an idea in order for it to be considered was a
valid suggestion.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 4 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
Council Member Schmid supposed there were two separate steps involved;
1) being what recommendation the Committee wished to present to the
Council and 2) questions to address. Suggested questions 1) how many
recommendations can each Council Member make, 2) should there be a
sense of size and scale or limit of word count, and 3) from whom does the
Committee collect the ideas. He recommended part of the definitions be; 1)
the newly elected Council Members be invited to participate in the process,
2) restrict the number of priority suggestions to three from each Council
Member, and 3) the priority be limited to 200 words. He suggested the
definition include an invitation for newly elected Council Members to
participate.
Council Member Klein felt a 200 word count was too high.
Council Member Schmid noted the ideas should be listed in categories. He
asked if the Staff or the Committee should be selecting the categories. The
Committee and Staff should reconvene in October to review the suggestions
the Committee may have regarding the process for the retreat knowing what
the proposed priorities would be.
Council Member Espinosa was intrigued by limiting the number of proposed
ideas but felt three was too few, perhaps five. He had concerns reaching out
to Council Candidates but had no issue asking their thoughts once they had
been sworn in. He asked Council Member Klein why he felt the Committee
should not be responsible for narrowing the collective list of proposed
priority ideas.
Council Member Klein defended the full Council should be able to participate
in the process of viewing all of the ideas. He compared the process to the
budget season where the Finance Committee reviewed the numbers and
made recommendations but the full Council had the ability to make
collective changes.
Council Member Espinosa asked how this would differ. If the Committee
reviewed the ideas, narrowed the selection, and made recommendations to
the full Council it was the same as the budget reference.
Council Member Klein said if all the Committee was being requested to do
was review the items and make a recommendation it would be the same.
Council Member Espinosa explained his thought process was whether there
was a role the Committee could play in narrowing the proposed ideas and
making a recommendation to the full Council. He understood that idea was not acceptable to all. He felt it was reasonable to have the Committee review
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 5 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
all of the ideas and narrow them. If the Committee members were not
soliciting responses but Staff asked the full Council for recommendations,
the recommendations would return to Staff and Staff would present them to
the Committee, would there be a Brown Act violation.
Molly Stump, City Attorney said the concern was if Council Members were
polled outside of a Council meeting and input was gathered then discussed
in a Committee meeting that was not noticed as a meeting of the full Council
there would be a Brown Act violation. There was no problem when the
Council as a whole was debating on an issue then directed a Committee to
address the recommendations or changes. This situation was not implicit of
that scenario. The situation at hand was where individual Council Members gave substantive contributions to the Committee process through writing
opposed to them being present.
Chair Holman said the example of the budget differed because the input was
from the Staff and reviewed by the Finance Committee to recommend to the
full Council.
Council Member Klein said one of the unintended consequences of the Brown
Act was in some ways it provided a superior position to the Staff.
Ms. Stump agreed that was an accurate observation. The Brown Act did at
times provide Staff latitude to do things that other Council Members could
not.
Council Member Schmid asked what the process would be if a number of
nominations were entered which overlapped in their characteristics. He
asked if the Committee could group all of those nominations into a single
category versus eliminating some of them.
Chair Holman understood the concept of categorizing similar items but
combining them into one topic may not satisfy the intention of the author.
Council Member Schmid said if characterizing them in some fashion did not
occur the final vote would be fragmented.
Chair Holman thought that would be vetted at the retreat.
Ms. Stump noted a lot of what was being discussed was not in the realm of
the limited question of the law in the Brown Act. Some of the comments
were of a legal piece but it was the most productive way for the Committee
to work. From a Brown Act perspective it would be fine if Council Members brought their suggestions to a full Council meeting then granted the
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 6 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
Committee editing ability. She asked if the Committee was satisfied with
that type of structure.
Council Member Klein was unclear about how that was different than sending
them directly to Council which did not make sense from a Brown Act
perspective.
Chair Holman suggested splitting the Motion into sections. She asked Council
Member Klein is there were corrections to the background in his Motion.
Council Member Klein stated he had no corrections to the background of his
Motion.
Chair Holman said the Motion on the table was “priorities would receive
particular, unusual, and significant attention during the year” was that
correct.
Council Member Klein stated that was correct. He accepted the idea that
Council Member Schmid had raised three questions that should be addressed
and added to the initial three questions for a total of six.
Chair Holman said the Motion was set for the background and definitions.
She proposed an Amendment to insert into the definitions “By establishing a
priority Council sends a message to the organization to better utilize time
available for discussion and decision making” insert the language as a new
section titled Purpose.
Council Member Espinosa asked if the referenced organization was the City
Staff.
Chair Holman stated yes. She believed the new language supported the
definition.
Council Member Schmid asked if the Amendment was to add a second
heading under Definition as Purpose.
Chair Holman said yes.
Council Member Schmid said with that change one of the sentences had
been misplaced from Definitions and placed under Purposes. He agreed with
that change.
Chair Holman said that was correct. She looked toward the Maker for acceptance and noted she was open to edits.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 7 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
Council Member Klein felt the language was redundant. He suggested
defining the term organization because he thought it was referring to non-
profits and not to City Staff.
Chair Holman clarified the change was from “organization” to
Staff” and now read “By establishing a priority Council sends a message to
the organization City Staff to better utilize time available for discussion and
decision making”.
Council Member Klein mentioned the redundancy in the Definition section
was between “The topic will receive particular attention throughout the year by establishing a priority question to city staff that will attract heightened
attention to city resources.” and “The establishment of Council priorities will
assist the Council to better utilize time available for discussion and decision
making.” Priorities are issues that are important matters to the community
that warrant an intensified effort during the fiscal year. By designating a
priority, Council sends a message to the organization and the community to
direct heightened attention and resources toward the issue. A Council
priority is defined as a topic that will “receive particular, unusual and
significant attention during the year”. The Amendment language was “By
establishing a priority Council sends a message to the City Staff to better
utilize time available for discussion and decision making” inserted as a new
section titled Purpose. He accepted the language as defined under Purpose
beneath Definition.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER: to add a section under Definitions titled Purpose
and include the language “By establishing a priority Council sends a message
to the City Staff to better utilize time available for discussion and decision
making”.
Chair Holman confirmed Purpose was the second paragraph under Definition
to read as:
DEFINITION: A Council priority is defined as a topic that will receive
particular, unusual and significant attention during the year.
PURPOSE: The establishing of Council priorities will assist the Council and City Manager Staff to better allot and utilize time for discussion
and decision making.
Chair Holman asked to review the four steps suggested by Council Member
Espinosa. She said she wasn’t sure that they focused on criteria.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 8 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
Council Member Espinosa acknowledged his suggestion was on the process
side but there were criteria issues raised; such as the recommendation on
the number of ideas per Council Member and the length for each.
Chair Holman viewed criteria as the activity that happened at the retreat
opposed to the number of priorities a Council Member could submit. She did
not feel the definition of Criteria was the right word for the purpose being
discussed. She suggested it could change to “retrieve criteria.”
Ms. Tucker said it was intended to guide Council’s review at the retreat.
Council Member Klein agreed with Chair Holman that criteria was not the
correct word usage.
Council Member Espinosa said if the Committee went through a timeline and
took each step individually that portion could be incorporated at the end of
the Process heading.
Chair Holman asked if the Committee agreed to a different heading, if
moving the language under Criteria to the end, and whether the verbiage
provided by Staff was acceptable.
Council Member Klein believed the City Council passed the two items under
criteria 1. There was a goal of no more than three priorities per year and 2.
Priorities had a three year time limit.
Chair Holman understood them to be comments made but not language
recommended or voted on.
Ms. Tucker agreed they were parameters that had guided Council in their
review of the priorities.
Council Member Klein recalled a discussion on the language. He believed
there were different numbers in favor of and someone added language for a
goal of no more than three.
Council Member Schmid said on page seven of the packet, item 10 read:
There should be no more than three priorities within a year.
Chair Holman clarified the language from the retreat. She did not disagree;
however, if the goal was to have a more complete document those items
should be towards the end. Addressing Council Member Klein’s comment
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 9 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
regarding the number of priorities, she said they could make that
recommendation.
Council Member Espinosa suggested walking through the timeline of the
entire process and see how it worked out.
Chair Holman suggested for the time being adding Retreat in front of Criteria
and maintaining the current language as listed by Staff. Retreat Criteria -the
following criteria will guide Council’s review and adoption of its annual
priorities: 1. There was a goal of no more than three priorities per year and
2. Priorities have a three year time limit.
Council Member Klein preferred Retreat Decision Guidelines rather than
Retreat Criteria.
Council Member Schmid suggested Retreat Goals.
Chair Holman questioned item 2 under the current heading of Criteria;
priorities have a three year time limit. She asked if priorities should
generally have a three year time limit.
Council Member Klein did not feel the time line made a difference.
Council Member Schmid felt the time line made a difference. If there was a
three year limit some items such as City finances or land use did not have a
three year time limit.
Council Member Klein stated those comments were referring back to
Definition. The idea was to move away from specific labels as Finances or
Comprehensive Plan priorities. Certain items within a City were always a
priority and if those same items were included each year what was the point
of the process.
Council Member Schmid noted the language began to exclude certain
categories.
Council Member Klein preferred to leave the three year time limit in and
noted items could be brought back if needed.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER: to change the heading Criteria to Retreat
Guidelines and moved to the bottom of the list.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 10 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
Chair Holman moved on to the Process heading where there were several
potential Brown Act issues and policy decisions to make.
Council Member Espinosa said as the Committee walked through the process
and achieved agreement it seemed the first step would be All Council
Members solicited by Staff for recommendations on potential priorities for
the upcoming year.
Chair Holman asked who specifically Staff would be.
Council Member Klein confirmed Staff would refer to the City Manager.
Ms. Tucker agreed the City Manager would be the soliciting advocate.
Council Member Schmid asked if there should be a limit placed on the
number of recommendations being solicited.
Council Member Espinosa agreed there should be a limited number of
submissions, although he was not aware of what that should be.
Council Member Klein concurred with the reasoning.
Chair Holman asked if the suggested number was three.
Council Member Schmid said the number the Committee was aiming for was
three so he felt it was a reasonable number.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER: the first step would be All Council Members
would be solicited by City Manager selected Staff for three recommendations
on potential priorities for the upcoming year.
Council Member Schmid wanted to discuss the newly elected Council
Members and when their ideas should be registered.
Chair Holman noted the earlier recommendation was for no additions
accepted at retreat so if the newly elected were not involved early after their
appointment their ideas would be left out of the process. She felt that
needed to be addressed.
Council Member Espinosa asked if that language should be added to the
process somewhere.
Council Member Klein agreed to the additional language.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 11 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
Chair Holman asked how to address newly elected Council Members.
Council Member Schmid suggested the addition of verbiage stating; New
Council Members from the November election will be included in the
solicitation process.
Council Member Klein said timing was a consideration because three months
prior to the retreat was October while the election was not until November.
Chair Holman proposed the language could say upon election the City
Manager would contact the newly elected Council Members for their input.
Council Member Espinosa asked if there were concerns from the City
Attorney regarding those persons who had been elected but not yet sworn in
to the position.
Ms. Stump clarified the Brown Act applied to any persons upon the elected
or appointed process even if they had not been sworn in.
Council Member Espinosa said his concern was although they had been
receiving City Council packets for two months they may not have any
context to the broader issues affecting the City for adequate input.
Council Member Klein proposed the additional language to the “no additions
to the retreat” rule that the newly elected Council Members who had not
served were an exception to the rule.
Council Member Espinosa believed that would place the Committee in a
tough position.
Chair Holman agreed and felt everyone should be treated the same.
Council Member Klein said they could not be treated the same. The newly
elected were in a different timeframe. He mentioned the Charter had an area
that needed discussion for change with respect to when the newly elected
Council Members take office. The surrounding cities elected take office
earlier than Palo Alto elected. He was suggesting December 1st, right after
the certification of the votes.
Ms. Stump agreed the election votes were usually certified in the beginning
of December. At the point where the votes were certified City Staff would be
working with the newly elected to orient them to City policy and procedures.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 12 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
Council Member Klein was comfortable having Staff solicit recommendations
from newly elected Council Members once the votes had been certified.
Chair Holman asked whether there were new suggestions allowed at the
retreat by the newly elected.
Council Member Klein said no.
Council Member Schmid agreed no.
Ms. Stump clarified there could be additions made up to the notice period
which was 72 hours prior.
Chair Holman stated the language in the process was different than the 72
hour window because the Staff needed time to collate so the Motion was for
a one week ahead of the retreat. She suggested for the process, the City
Manager would solicit suggestions from Council which would be sorted by
priority. The City Manager will solicit a limit of three suggestions from each
newly elected Council Member. There will be no additions at the retreat.
Council Member Klein expected Staff to eliminate close redundancies in
recommended ideas.
Ms. Tucker said Council would approve the documents. The priorities applied
to Council with regard to the retreat, priorities would have a three year time
limit. Staff could analyze and provide this language in a document, based
off language that was already adopted.
Ms. Stump said if a Council Member made a suggestion that was barred by
the three year limit rule the Committee may want to include language in the
process on how Staff should manage them.
Council Member Klein said redundancies should be added to the list with an
asterisk.
Chair Holman asked if there was a role for the Committee Chair to work with
the City Manager’s office to organize the list.
Council Member Schmid put forward the City Manager Staff would solicit the
Council Members ideas three months prior to the retreat. He asked if there
should be a time period set for the Committee to meet and confer with the
results. It made sense in early December for the Committee to meet to
receive the input from Staff on the collected proposed priorities. Once they
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 13 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
had been reviewed and organized the Committee could establish the retreat
work flow process.
Chair Holman asked if the Committee could review the information without
having it first be referred by the full Council.
Ms. Stump confirmed the recommendation was to work with the input from
all nine Council Members then work in Committee to organize and rephrase.
Council Member Schmid said the organizing and rephrasing would only occur
if necessary but the concept was to establish a process of ranking the
priorities during the meeting for the retreat.
Ms. Stump clarified procedural issues could be discussed at a later meeting.
Council Member Klein believed the policy decisions should be completed
prior to moving forward.
Ms. Stump agreed the raw results could be attached to the Staff report for
discussion.
Chair Holman asked if number four would be for the City Manager Staff to
collect and organize Council Members input into a list of priorities to be
provided to Council no less than two weeks prior to the retreat.
Council Member Espinosa clarified language should be added as a second
sentence that Staff was authorized to delete redundancies in the list.
Ms. Tucker asked if the Committee wished for Staff to complete an analysis
on the top three.
Council Member Klein said yes.
Chair Holman confirmed the language for number four would be City
Manager Staff would collect and organize Council Members input into a list of
priorities to be provided to Council no less than two weeks prior to retreat.
Council Member Espinosa wished to add language that provided Staff the
authority to correct and eliminate redundancies. The term organizing meant
to move items.
Council Member Schmid mentioned summarizes.
Chair Holman thought summarizes was too general.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 14 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
Council Member Klein felt organize was the best solution.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER TO REVISE THE PREVIOUS INCORPORATION
TO READ: the language for number four which was under the heading
Process as Item 1B as City Manager Staff would collect and organize Council
Members input into a list of priorities to be provided to the Council no less
than two weeks in advance of the Council Retreat.
Council Member Espinosa was uncertain where in the development process
discussion would take place within the Committee. Before Staff solicitation or after the retreat and a resetting of priorities had occurred.
Council Member Schmid questioned whether the recommendation was for
the Committee to make a decision for Item 2A; Recommendations about the
prioritization process will be forwarded to Council for adoption in advance of
the Council Retreat.
Council Member Espinosa asked if the Committee felt there were issues
within the process that had not been discussed.
Council Member Schmid mentioned the Council could have any number of
consolidated priorities from 4 to 30. The Committee was set to recommend
a process supposing a large number. The question was what the Committee
was going to recommend to them to ease the procedure of regulating their
recommendation to three. That was a decision needed without knowing the
actual number from each Council Member.
Council Member Espinosa had been accepting of the Committee Chair
working with the City Manager to manage the process. There had been a
recent desire to have ranked voting or other process decisions made before
the retreat. The ranking process may be fluid but was dependent upon the
number of priorities recommended each year.
Chair Holman suggested submitting the process the Committee had
completed to Council for the September meeting and they could make a
decision after reviewing the recommendations.
Council Member Klein was not satisfied submitting an incomplete document
to the Council.
Ms. Tucker asked if the Committee would be comfortable with the current process where the Staff worked with the Mayor prior to the retreat.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 15 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
Council Member Klein agreed that was plausible.
Council Member Espinosa did not see the urgency for getting the document
to Council.
Chair Holman noted the Staff report clearly stated the process of solicitation
was to begin in October; therefore, the Council needed to see it in
September.
Council Member Klein said the Committee shall each year make a
recommendation regarding the process of the retreat taking into account the number of priorities suggested by Council Members with such process to be
forwarded to Council for adoption in advance of the Council retreat.
Council Member Espinosa mentioned the Council had up to two weeks prior
to the retreat to supply input.
Council Member Klein believed only the newly elected Council Members had
up to two weeks prior to supply input.
Chair Holman suggested upon election the City Manager would invite newly
elected Council Members to submit priority suggestions but there was no
time line.
Council Member Espinosa felt there needed to be a time line initiated in
order for the Committee to have time to review.
Council Member Schmid recommended after certifications of the election
which would usually be two weeks after the election.
Chair Holman asked when the suggested submitted by date should be.
Council Member Klein stated December 10th.
Chair Holman stated there would need to be a special Policy & Services
Committee meeting set annually to review the input.
Council Member Espinosa recommended submission by December 1st and
the input would be agendized for the regular Policy & services Committee
meeting in December.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER: the language for number four which was under
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 16 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
the heading Process as Item 2A should read The Policy & Services
Committee shall meet each December to make recommendations regarding
the design of the Council Retreat process paying particular attention to the
number of priorities suggested by Council Members. The process was to be
forwarded to Council for adoption in advance of the Council retreat.
Ms. Tucker was reviewing the schedule in order for Staff to supply the
information to the Committee for review and submission to the Council for
adoption two weeks prior to the retreat.
Council Member Klein wanted the timing of the retreat varied each year.
Ms. Tucker noted it was usually mid to late January of each year.
Chair Holman said 2b currently read, Staff will evaluate the process each
year, with input from Council Members, and provide recommendations on
changes to the process and/or criteria as necessary. She suggested the
language be changed to reflect the Policy & Service Committee evaluate the
process.
Council Member Klein recommended eliminating the language.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER: to eliminate the language under the header
Process Item 2B “Staff will evaluate the process each year, with input from
Council members, and provide recommendations on changes to the process
and/or criteria as necessary”.
Council Member Schmid confirmed a prior inclusion to the Motion moved the
header Retreat Guidelines (former Criteria) to the end of the process. He
felt it would be appropriate to add a Guiding Goals section to the front. The
idea would be for anyone who looked at the process to know there would be
three priorities with a three year period.
Chair Holman agreed there was merit to the suggestion and if it was agreed
by the Maker and Seconder she would move the ”No additional priorities
rule” to that new section.
Council Member Klein thought that language was already part of the
process.
Council Member Espinosa agreed it should stay as part of the process.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 17 of 17
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
FINAL Excerpt 7/10/12
Chair Holman asked if there was agreement on the location of the Retreat
Guidelines.
Council Member Klein stated the location was not as important as the
content.
Council Member Espinosa was in agreement on the location.
Ms. Tucker asked for clarification on the header being Retreat Guidelines or
Retreat Goals.
Chair Holman confirmed it was Retreat Guidelines.
Council Member Klein stated the title was Guidelines for Selection of
Priorities.
MOTION PASSED: 4-0
Council Member Klein left at 7:32 p.m.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2735)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 4/10/2012
April 10, 2012 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 2735)
Summary Title: Council Priority Setting Process
Title: Discussion and Recommendation on Council Priority Setting Process
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Staff has prepared this report as background in support of the Policy and Services
Committee discussion and recommendation on the City Council’s priority setting
process.
Background
On January 21, 2012, the City Council held its Annual Council Retreat and
reviewed its top priorities for 2012-13. After some discussion, the Council
decided to carryover the following five Council Priorities from 2011-12:
1. City Finances
2. Land Use and Transportation
3. Emergency Preparedness
4. Environmental Sustainability
5. Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being
In addition, the City Council referred to the Policy and Services Committee to
review the definition of Council priorities and recommend to the Council any
changes to the priority setting process. This report provides background
information on the City Council’s establishment of the priority setting process,
past practice and key assumptions, and summarizes the City Council’s discussion
at the Annual Retreat on the priority setting process.
2
Packet Pg. 35
1.a
Packet Pg. 5
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
.
4
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
2
P
o
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
3
0
0
2
:
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
April 10, 2012 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 2735)
Discussion
The City Council adopted its first Council priorities in 1986. The establishment of
Council priorities originated from Council’s desire to better utilize time available
for discussion and decision making. It was envisioned that Council priorities
should denote issues that are important matters to the community and that
warrant an intensified effort during the fiscal year. It was further believed by
designating a priority, Council sends a message to the organization and the
community that heightened attention and resources are to be directed toward
the issue.
Each year the City Council reviews the priorities at its Annual Retreat. The
process for establishing the priorities has ranged from more formal processes of
Council submitting priorities and scoring proposals to more informal reviews and
discussions at Council Retreats. In past years, the objectives and milestones that
reflect the work necessary to fullfill the priorities have also been reviewed and
established by the City Council either at their Annual Retreat, by recommendation
of the Policy and Services Committee or proposed by staff for Council
consideration.
Staff also found in its review of prior year’s priority setting processes that from
2002-2007 several staff reports indicate that the City Manager and the City
Council agreed on the following assumptions regarding the Council’s priorities:
1. If everything is a priority, nothing is.
2. Major priorities require multi-years to achieve efforts.
3. The City’s budget must reflect the Council’s priorities.
4. Staff will provide Council with reports on success factors/milestones to ensure
accountability.
5. Council and staff must communicate on a regular basis through a variety of
means, and let the community know the status of the top Priorities.
6. Council and staff need to avoid adding new projects and activities to the “full
plate.” This is a joint responsibility of Council and top management to keep
from having attention diverted from priorities. It is important to recognize that
90 percent of the departments’ work is not on the list of priorities.
2
Packet Pg. 36
1.a
Packet Pg. 6
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
.
4
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
2
P
o
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
3
0
0
2
:
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
April 10, 2012 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 2735)
7. If the Council adds new projects and activities during the year, it is the
responsibility of the City Manager to clearly indicate the impact on the top
priorities and the ongoing workload.
Additional policy direction in past years has included: 1) focus on a limited
number of priorities, 2) align review of Council priorities to the two-year budget
cycle, and 3) include primarily multi-year initiatives.
January 21, 2012 Annual Council Retreat
During the Annual Retreat held on January 21, 2012, the City Council discussed a
number of issues related to the definition and process for establishing priorities.
Below is a summary of the Council comments on these topics. At the time the
staff report was prepared, the transcript from the Council Retreat was not
available.
1. Establish a process by which the Council develops priorities.
2. Rethink what the Council is trying to accomplish with the priorities.
3. Establish a clear definition of priorities, goals, and focus so the community can
clearly understand where the City is trying to accomplish throughout the year.
4. Recommend a structure for bringing forward priorities.
5. Propose a definition of what Council means by Council priorities.
6. The goals do not represent everything staff is working on or everything that is
important. It is a way to communicate to the community some of the things of
real importance.
7. Some goals fall under more than one category.
8. Establish what Council calls a priority and a goal.
9. The definition of a priority is an issue or topic which will receive particular,
unusual, and significant attention during the year.
10. There should be no more than 3 priorities within a year.
11. Priorities should be prepared ahead of time with two colleagues signing off so
staff can be prepared to discuss them at the beginning of the year in this type
of retreat setting.
2
Packet Pg. 37
1.a
Packet Pg. 7
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
.
4
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
2
P
o
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
3
0
0
2
:
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
April 10, 2012 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 2735)
12. A broader conversation is needed about goals verses values verses priorities
verses initiatives and what they really mean.
13. Develop focused workplan under each topic area.
14. Set forth, clean up and redefine the current goals; define what a goal is.
15. Refresh goals under each priority.
16. Council should not establish goals at retreat; only establish what priorities are.
17. Review goals for 2012, define the definition of a priority, and the process for
selecting the Council priorities and establishing goals, and determine process
for next retreat.
Prepared By: Sheila Tucker, Assistant to the City Manager
Department Head: James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
2
Packet Pg. 38
1.a
Packet Pg. 8
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
.
4
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
2
P
o
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
3
0
0
2
:
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
Policy and Services Committee
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 1 of 2
Regular Meeting
April 10, 2011
1. Review and Recommend Council Approval of Proposed Updated Massage
Ordinance.
MOTION: Council Member Klien moved, seconded by Council Member Espinosa,
that the Policy and Services Committee refer the Massage Ordinance back to Staff
to a) eliminate the records requirement, b) include an exemption for non‐certified
massage practitioners, and c) review the remaining language to draft an
ordinance with as light a hand as possible.
MOTION PASSED 4‐0.
2. Discussion and Recommendation of Council Priority Setting Process
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to
place a context statement prior to the definition of a priority, to define a priority
as an issue or topic which will receive particular, unusual, and significant attention
during the year, and to have a three year time limit on priorities. There will be
fixed list of priorities to consider at the retreat. The only items to be considered
for priorities shall be those proposed in writing by Staff a week prior to the annual
Council Retreat, or by one Council Member in time for inclusion in the packet for
the annual Council Retreat.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND
SECONDER the Policy and Services Committee will be the focus of establishing the
process of integrating input from all Council Members on an equal basis and will
start the process three months before the January session.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Council Member Espinosa moved, seconded by Chair
Holman to include a goal of no more than three priorities in a year.
1.b
Packet Pg. 9
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
.
4
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
2
P
o
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
A
c
t
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
3
0
0
2
:
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
DRAFT MINUTES
Page 2 of 2
Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting
Draft Action Minutes 4/10/12
AMENDMENT PASSED: 3‐1, Klein no
MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
Schmid to place a context statement prior to the definition of a priority, to define
a priority as an issue or topic which will receive particular, unusual, and significant
attention during the year. The Policy and Services Committee will be the focus of
establishing the process of integrating input from all Council Members on an
equal basis and will start the process three months before the January Retreat.
There will be a fixed list of topics to consider at the Retreat. There will be a goal
of no more than three priorities per year and there will be a three year time limit
on priorities. Staff will prepare this procedure and return to the Committee prior
to returning to the Council.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 4‐0
3. Discussion on Policy and Services Committee Workplan Prioritization and
Process for Handling New Business
No Action
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
1.b
Packet Pg. 10
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
.
4
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
2
P
o
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
A
c
t
i
o
n
M
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
3
0
0
2
:
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto
City Council Priority Setting Process
Last Revised: 7/2/2012
Last revised:
Background
The City Council adopted its first Council priorities in 1986. Each year the City Council reviews
and approves its priorities at its Annual Council Retreat, typically held in January. On ______the
City Council formally adopted the definition of a council priority, and the Council’s process and
criteria to guide its annual review.
Definition
The establishment of Council priorities will assist the Council to better utilize time available for
discussion and decision making. Priorities are issues that are important matters to the
community that warrant an intensified effort during the fiscal year. By designating a priority,
Council sends a message to the organization and the community to direct heightened attention
and resources toward the issue.
A Council priority is defined as a topic that will receive particular, unusual and significant
attention during the year.
Criteria
The following criteria will guide Council’s review and adoption of its annual priorities:
1. There is a goal of no more than three priorities per year.
2. Priorities have a three year time limit.
Process
1. Three months in advance of the City Council’s Annual Retreat, the Policy & Services
Committee will initiate Council input on the priorities to be reviewed and considered at the
Council Retreat.
a. All Council members will have the opportunity for equal input on the priorities for
consideration.
b. Staff will collect and organize Council Members’ input into a fixed list of priorities and
will provide to the Council no less than a week in advance of the Council Retreat.
2. The Policy & Services Committee may make recommendations about the design of the
process and the Council’s review of priorities conducted at the annual Retreat.
a. Recommendations about the prioritization process will be forwarded to Council for
adoption in advance of the Council Retreat.
b. Staff will evaluate the process each year, with input from Council members, and provide
recommendations on changes to the process and/or criteria as necessary.
1.c
Packet Pg. 11
-:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
.
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
(
3
0
0
2
:
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
)
City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
October 01, 2012 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 3178)
DATE: October 1, 2012
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Council Member Holman, Mayor Yeh
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM MAYOR YEH AND COUNCIL MEMBER
HOLMAN REQUESTING COUNCIL TO PASS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF PALO ALTO IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 34 (THE SAFE CALIFORNIA ACT)
BACKGROUND
In 1978, California voters passed the Briggs Act that broadened the use of the death penalty in
the state.
In 1989, the Palo Alto City Council asked for a moratorium on the death penalty - an indication
that the Council had previously found the death penalty wanting. The City Council also voted to
support Resolution 8302 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto In Support
of a Moratorium on the Death Penalty in California” on June 9, 2003.
Over the years, the State has struggled with budget shortfalls due to a variety of reasons,
among them the $130 million drain on the general fund directly related to the death penalty.
The State’s general fund provides support for local schools, roads, health care, law
enforcement, and capital improvement.
Specifically, State of California revenues to the City of Palo Alto in the form of capital project
grants has shrunk from $2.7 million in 2009 to zero in 2012 and 2013. (Page 36, City of Palo Alto
Fiscal Year 2013 Adopted Capital Budget). This has a direct impact on the City’s infrastructure
improvements.
State Homeland Security Grants (SHSG), typically used by cities for training, exercises, overtime
and equipment projects such as contributions to our Mobile Command Vehicle are more
competitive because fewer funds are available.
The State General Fund’s stresses also impact our local schools, a significant determinant of
local real estate values and resultant property taxes. The decrease in State Categorical Revenue
(Total State Categorical Funding After Fair Share Cuts) resulted in reductions from $13,647,283
October 01, 2012 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 3178)
in the 2006-2007 period to $2,522,738 in the 2011-2012 period. (2012 February PAUSD budget
update).
PURPOSE
Passage of Proposition 34 would create a $100 million fund for the first three years subsequent
to passage to be distributed to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of solving homicide
and rape cases and making our communities safer, funding that could benefit communities
throughout the Bay Area.
Passage of Proposition 34 will free State General Fund dollars that could potentially reinstate
previous funding or provide new revenues for local government and school district needs.
CONCLUSION
We urge our colleagues to join us and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in voting to
support Proposition 34.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO,
CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 34, THE SAFE CALIFORNIA
ACT, THAT WOULD REPEAL THE DEATH PENALTY
WHEREAS, the Briggs Initiative was approved by California voters on November 7, 1978.
The Act broadened the use of the death penalty as punishment for crimes; and
WHEREAS, it created a system of nearly endless appeals by inmates, with more than 700
prisoners on death row; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the death penalty currently costs taxpayers $130 million
dollars each year more than the alternative punishment proposed by The SAFE California Act;
and
WHEREAS, Proposition 34 would create a $100 million fund to be distributed to law
enforcement agencies for the purpose of solving homicide and rape cases and making our
communities safer; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 34, would repeal the death penalty as the maximum punishment
in California, and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 34 would apply retroactively to persons already sentenced to
death; and
WHEREAS, should California voters approve this initiative, the net savings to the State’s
General Fund has been confirmed by the Legislative Analyst’s Office to be $130 million
annually;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Palo Alto, California,
supports Proposition 34, the SAFE California Act, that would replace the death penalty with
life in prison without the possibility of parole.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: October 1, 2012
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________ ______________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________ ______________________
City Attorney City Manager
Why is the Deficit Growing –
Decrease in State Categorical Revenue
10* Includes "swapped" ARRA revenue
13,647,283
11,889,650
10,732,732
7,483,594 6,584,445
2,522,738
‐
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 * 2010‐11 2011‐12
Total State Categorical Funding After
Fair Share Cuts