The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-12-17 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Council Chambers December 17, 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 December 17, 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 City Manager Comments Minutes Approval November 19, 2012 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. 1. Finance Committee Recommendation that Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the Continuation of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program 2. Finance Committee Recommendation that Council Approve Updated Ten-Year Electric and Gas Energy Efficiency Goals for 2014 to 2023 3. Approval of a Contract with Rosas Brothers Construction in the Amount of $1,022,066 for the 2013 Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repairs Project 4. Acceptance Of A Contribution of $9,291 From TopCorner, Incorporated, For The Enhancement Of Cogswell Plaza; Adoption Of A Budget Amendment Ordinance To Allocate The Contribution to Project Cost Centers 5. Approval of Amendment No. One to Contract With the Downtown Streets, Inc. To Consolidate Various Contracts Under One Umbrella Contract in the Amount of $156,868 for the Second Year of a Three- Year Contract for Trash and Litter Clean up in Areas of the Downtown 2 December 17, 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 CITYCLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Corridor, Various City Parks and Facilities, and Outreach to Homeless Individuals in the Downtown Area. 6. Approval of Amendment One to Contract with Riezebos Holzbaur Group to Add $37, 212 for Design Work for the Library and Administrative Services Departments for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $121,212 7. Approval to the Division Of Arts & Science, Community Services Department to Submit a Grant Application to the National Endowment for the arts for an Our Town Grant 8. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract With Geodesy in the Amount of $135,000 for Development and Maintenance Support Services for the City's Geographic Information System Software 9. Adoption of a Resolution to Apply for Grant Funds for the Environment Enhancement and Mitigation Program for Tree Plantings to Mitigate Impacts of the Highway 101 Auxiliary Lane Construction 10. Adoption of Resolution Declaring Results of the Consolidated General and Special Municipal Elections Held on November 6, 2012 11. Update on Planning for Potential Infrastructure Finance Measure for 2014 Ballot 12. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance and Approval of a Contract with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $90,000 for Public Opinion Research Services Related to a Potential 2014 Infrastructure Finance Measure 13. Approval of Contract with SAP Inc. For Software Maintenance Support Services to the City of Palo Alto 14. Authorization for the City Manager to Enter Into a One-Year Contract with Professional Evaluation Group/The Ochoa & Moore Law Firm, P.C. (PEG/OM) in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $125,000 for Rail Legislative Advocacy Services 15. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Adopt Process for Establishing 2013 Council Priorities 3 December 17, 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 CITYCLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 16. Approval of Pilot Residential Compostables Collection Program and Adjustment to Refuse Collection Frequency 17. Public Hearing: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment Allowing the Operation of a New Pre-Kindergarten Program Within an Expanded Building and an After- School Day Care Program Associated with an Existing Private School (K-8 Program) at 1095 Channing Avenue. 18. 2012 Year in Review 19. Presentation and Update on Council and Staff Visit to Yangpu District, China and Request for Direction on Next Steps of Partnership Between the City of Palo Alto and the Yangpu District of China 20. Colleagues Memo from Mayor Yeh and Council Members Price and Shepherd Regarding Youth Council Liaison Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful. 4 December 17, 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 CITYCLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Special Finance Committee Meeting Cubberley Policy Advisory Committee City/School Committee Meeting Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Status Update for Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Property Leases Entered into by City Manager Under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.210(h), and Reported Per Section Code 2.30.710 Fiscal Year 2012 City of Palo Alto Utilities Quarterly Update - 1st Quarter of Fiscal Year 2013 Transmittal of the CalPERS City of Palo Alto Pension Plan Annual Valuation Report as of June 30, 2011 Public Letters to Council Set 1 Set 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3316) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Continuation of Palo Alto CLEAN Title: Finance Committee Recommendation that Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the Continuation of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation The Finance Committee recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the continuation of the Palo Alto CLEAN program with a price of 16.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh) for a 20-year contract, a program cap of 2 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity, and a review of the program in one year or at the time the program capacity is filled. Executive Summary In March 2012 the Council adopted Palo Alto CLEAN, a CLEAN (Clean Local Energy Accessible Now) program, also commonly referred to as a feed-in tariff (FIT) program. Though a large number of solar developers have expressed interest in Palo Alto CLEAN, no project applications have been submitted to date. The cost of purchasing renewable energy outside of Palo Alto has also decreased in this time so that the comparative cost of the program is higher than it was at the time of adoption. The UAC recommended continuing the program at the 2012 CLEAN price (14 ¢/kWh) with the existing 4 MW program cap. However, the Finance Committee recommended reducing the program cap to 2 MW while increasing the price to 16.5 ¢/kWh. If 2 MW of local solar energy were contracted through the CLEAN program at 16.5 ¢/kWh, the total costs would be about $160,000 per year higher than buying renewable energy outside of Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background The Palo Alto CLEAN program was designed to complement the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU’s) existing photovoltaic (PV) Partners solar rebate program, which was established in 1999 and which has one of the highest participation levels per customer in the country. Palo Alto CLEAN created an additional alternative for property owners by enabling them to build a new solar system and sell the energy to CPAU under a long-term, fixed-rate contract rather than participate in the PV Partners program and use the energy on site. Though a large number of solar developers have expressed interest in Palo Alto CLEAN, no project applications have been submitted to date. Discussion The 2012 CLEAN price of 14 ¢/kWh for a 20 year contract was insufficient during the first year of the Palo Alto CLEAN program to facilitate the most common business model used by project developers, which involves a third-party investor leasing roof space from a property owner. While it may be sufficient to provide a moderate return to a property owner who owns and finances a solar system without the involvement of a third party investor, it would require extensive outreach and education of potential participants. The Finance Committee Report (Attachment C) includes additional discussion of the program history and the costs of various alternative designs considered. Committee Review and Recommendation On October 3, 2012, the UAC recommended maintaining the current program (4 MW of capacity with a 14 ¢/kWh price), removing the minimum 100 kW project size, and requiring a review of the program after one year. Several commissioners expressed their support for renewable energy within Palo Alto, but were concerned about allowing the CLEAN price to deviate too far from the City’s avoided cost. Commissioners expressed some concern about devoting staff resources to marketing the program instead of marketing other successful programs, such as the PV Partners or energy efficiency programs. One commissioner supported raising the program’s price to encourage more rapid participation. The draft minutes from the UAC’s October 3, 2012 meeting are provided in Attachment D. The Finance Committee discussed the CLEAN program at its November 14, 2012 meeting. At that meeting several Committee members expressed a desire to generate some participation in the program within the next year. The Finance Committee unanimously recommended, by a 4-0 vote, raising the price to 16.5 ¢/kWh to increase the likelihood of participation, but reducing the program cap to 2 MW to limit the impact on utility costs. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Resource Impact Staff estimates the current cost of buying renewable energy outside of Palo Alto is 11.6 ¢/kWh (including transmission) for a 20-year contract. Purchasing the energy generated from 2 MW of local solar projects at 16.5 ¢/kWh is expected to cost about $160,000 per year more than buying the same energy outside of Palo Alto. This is equivalent to a 0.1% increase in the electric utility’s costs. In addition to the energy costs described above, staff time is associated with marketing and project review. The project review can be absorbed with existing staff over the life of the program, and costs will be recovered through project review fees. The additional marketing will require less than 0.25 FTE of staff time, and may involve an additional budget for marketing materials, which would be requested through the annual budget process. The marketing work will be absorbed by existing staff, but will decrease time spent on other account management and efficiency program delivery activities. Policy Implications The recommendation implements Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Strategy #4, Local Generation, which states “promote and facilitate the deployment of cost-effective local resources.” The program will facilitate the deployment of local resources, and the recommended price, 16.5 ¢/kWh, is set to encourage the development of efficient local solar projects. It also implements Climate Protection Plan Chapter 3 (Utilities), Goal 3, “Expand use of renewable energy installed or purchased directly by customers.” The program also implements Comprehensive Plan Goal N-9, “A clean, efficient, competitively-priced energy supply that makes use of cost-effective renewable resources” and Policy N-48, “Encourage the appropriate use of alternative energy technologies.” Environmental Review Adoption of this resolution is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act review under California Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(8), because the rate adopted reflects the reasonable cost of the CLEAN Program’s operating expenses, including the cost of purchasing renewable energy from local solar generating systems and the value of local benefits to CPAU and its ratepayers. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution Approving Amendments to Palo Alto CLEAN (PDF)  Attachment B: Revised Palo Alto CLEAN program rules (PDF)  Attachment C: Staff Report ID 3200 Reso to Continue Palo Alto CLEAN Program - to Finance 11-14-12 (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 4  Attachment D: Excerpted Final UAC Minutes of October 3, 2012 (PDF)  Attachment E: Excerpted Draft Minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting of 11-14-12 (PDF) *NOT YET APPROVED* 121115 DM 6051788 1 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Continuation of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program R E C I T A L S A. On March 5, 2012, the City approved the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now Program, a CLEAN program (or feed-in tariff). Under the CLEAN Program, participants who build a new solar generating system in Palo Alto may obtain a long-term, fixed-price contract with the City to sell the energy from the system to the City’s electric utility. B. The first program year of Palo Alto CLEAN commenced on April 2, 2012 and terminates on the earlier of: 1) the date the City receives applications for contracts for 4 MW of solar capacity, or 2) December 31, 2012. The City Council has not granted authority to staff to enter in to contracts after December 31, 2012. C. There have been no applications for the program to-date, but the City wants to continue the program past December 31, 2012. The Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City”) RESOLVES: SECTION 1. Revised Program Eligibility Requirements for Palo Alto CLEAN are adopted as shown in Exhibit A. SECTION 2. The Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or his designee to sign contracts for the output of one or more solar energy generating facilities meeting the Program Eligibility Requirements described in Section 1. The total CLEAN Program cost commitment made by the City during the life of the Program shall not exceed $16,700,000. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU’s) purchase of energy from local renewable sources provides additional local benefits to CPAU when compared to energy purchased outside Palo Alto, which in turn become benefits to CPAU ratepayers and the local community. These benefits include a reduction in CPAU’s costs and energy losses associated with energy transmission and distribution, and a reduction in CPAU’s capacity requirements. When the City purchases energy from local sources, a portion of the City’s electric expenditures remain within the community, which provides revenue for local economic development. Locating generation near load centers can also reduce the need for new transmission lines, thus reducing the environmental impacts of the electric system and improving reliability in transmission-constrained regions like the Greater Bay Area. The Council therefore finds that continued implementation of the Palo Alto CLEAN Program is a reasonable cost of providing electric service to CPAU’s electric customers. *NOT YET APPROVED* 121115 DM 6051788 2 SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act review under California Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(8), because the rate adopted reflects the reasonable cost of the CLEAN Program’s operating expenses, including the cost of purchasing renewable energy from local solar generating systems, and the value of local benefits to CPAU and its ratepayers as described in SECTION 3 of this resolution. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ _______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _______________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services PALO ALTO CLEAN (CLEAN LOCAL ENERGY ACCESSIBLE NOW PROGRAM ) PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY RULES AND REQUIREMENTS PROGRAM YEAR 2012 Effective January 1, 2013 A. PARTICIPATION ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT: The Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now Program (the “CLEAN Program”) , Program Year 2012, is open to participation by any Eligible Renewable Energy Resource, as defined in Section D.45, with a total generation capacity of at least 100 kilowatts (kW).. B. TERRITORIALITY REQUIREMENT: In order to be eligible to participate in the CLEAN Program during Program Year 2012, an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource must be located in and generating electricity from within the utility service area of the City of Palo Alto. C. PRICES FOR CERTIFIED RENEWABLE POWER: The following purchase prices (“Program Prices”) shall apply to the electricity produced by an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource participating in the Program starting in Program Year 2012, except as provided in Sections D.5 D.3 and D.6. Solar generation facilities: Contract Term Price 10 years 12.360 ¢ / kWh 15 years 13.216 ¢ / kWh 20 years 14.00316.5 ¢ / kWh D. ADDITIONAL RULES AND REQUIREMENTS: 1. The owner of the Eligible Renewable Energy Resource shall enter into a Eligible Renewable Energy Resource Power Purchase Agreement, Eligible Renewable Energy Resource (“PPA”) with the City of Palo Alto. 2. The last Eligible Renewable Energy Resource that is eligible for participation in the CLEAN Program during Program Year 2012 will be the Eligible Renewable Energy Resource that first causes the total capacity of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources receiving payments under the Program to exceed four (4) two (2) MW (the “Program Capacity”). 3. An application for participation in the CLEAN Program to sell output to the City (the “Application”) may be submitted at any time. Applications will be considered in the order received. during the month. Any number of PPAs may be awarded at the end of each month. If the City can accept all Applications submitted without exceeding the Program Capacity, then all Applications will be accepted at the applicable Program Price(s). If, in any month, the City cannot accept all Applications submitted during that month without exceeding the Program Capacity, then the PPAs will be awarded in the following order of precedence: PALO ALTO CLEAN (CLEAN LOCAL ENERGY ACCESSIBLE NOW PROGRAM ) PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY RULES AND REQUIREMENTS PROGRAM YEAR 2012 Effective January 1, 2013 a. The City will provide notification to all applicants that apply in the current month that there is insufficient capacity to accept all Applications. All applicants that apply for participation in the current month will be afforded two (2) weeks from the notification date to submit bid prices at which electricity from its proposed resource will be sold to the City. The bid price must be less than the price for the applicable term described in Section C, or the City will reject or will be deemed to have rejected the bid price. b. The City will award one or more PPAs based upon the proposed bid prices. The first award will be made to the applicant offering the lowest bid price and any subsequent award(s) will be made to the next higher prices, until the Program Capacity has been attained. c. Nothing in this ‘bid price’ process will affect the status of applications accepted in previous months. 2. In order for an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource to be eligible for participation in the CLEAN Program during Program Year 2012, the City must receive an Application on or before December 31, 2012 or, if that day does not fall on a regular business day of the City, on the business day immediately preceding December 31, 2012. 4. For the purposes of Program Year 2012, an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource means an electric generating facility that: (a) is defined and qualifies as an “eligible renewable energy resource” under California Public Utilities Code Section 399.12(e) and California Public Resources Code Section 25471, respectively, as amended; (b) uses a solar fuel source; and (c) meets the territoriality requirement set forth in Section B. 5. The California Energy Commission’s (“CEC”) certification of the Eligible Renewable Energy Resource shall be required within six (6) months of the commercial operation date of the electric generating facility; the facility’s owner shall provide written notice of the CEC’s certification to the City within ten (10) business days. If the City takes delivery of the facility’s electricity prior to the CEC’s certification, then, as the facility’s electricity cannot be considered in fulfillment of the City’s RPS requirements, the price that the City will pay for the facility’s electricity (the “Pre-Certification Price”) will be set at 65% of the applicable Contract Price. Upon the CEC’s certification of the facility, the City will pay the applicable Contract Price for the facility’s electricity delivered on and after the date of the CEC’s certification. The City will “true-up”, as appropriate, the difference between the Contract Price and the Pre-Certification Price for any electricity received and paid for by the City, effective as of the date of certification of the Resource. 6. If an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource is authorized to participate in the CLEAN Program, then that Resource shall not be entitled to receive any rebate or other incentive from the City’s Photovoltaic (PV) Partners Program, Power from Local Ultra-Clean Generation Incentive (PLUG-In) Program, or other similar programs funded by the City’s ratepayers. To the extent any rebate or incentive is paid to the owner of the Resource, that rebate or incentive shall be disgorged and refunded to the City if the Eligible Renewable Energy Resource continues to participate in the CLEAN Program. If a rebate or an incentive has been paid to the Eligible Renewable Energy Resource, then that Resource shall be ineligible PALO ALTO CLEAN (CLEAN LOCAL ENERGY ACCESSIBLE NOW PROGRAM ) PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY RULES AND REQUIREMENTS PROGRAM YEAR 2012 Effective January 1, 2013 to participate in the CLEAN Program. 7. All electricity generated by the Eligible Renewable Energy Resource shall be delivered only to the City. No portion of the electricity may be used to offset any load of the generating facility (other than incidental loads associated with operating the generating facility). 8. A metering and administration fee of $34.73/month will be charged to each Eligible Renewable Energy Resource that participates in the CLEAN Program during Program Year 2012. . See Utilities Rate Schedule E-15 (Electric Service Connection Fees). City of Palo Alto (ID # 3200) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 11/14/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution to Continue Palo Alto CLEAN Program Title: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the Continuation of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the continuation of the Palo Alto CLEAN program, with a review of the program by the UAC in one year. Executive Summary In March 2012 the Council adopted Palo Alto CLEAN, a CLEAN (Clean Local Energy Accessible Now program (also commonly referred to as a feed-in tariff, or FIT, program). The program was designed to complement the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU’s) existing photovoltaic (PV) Partners solar rebate program, which was established in 1999 and which has one of the highest participation levels per customer in the country. Palo Alto CLEAN created an additional alternative for property owners by enabling them to build a new solar system and sell the energy to CPAU under a long-term, fixed-rate contract rather than participate in the PV Partners program and use the energy on site. Though a large number of solar developers have expressed interest in Palo Alto CLEAN, no project applications have been submitted to date. Staff believes the current price (14 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh) for a 20 year contract) is insufficient at this time to facilitate the most common business model used by project developers, which involves a 3rd party investor leasing roof space from a property owner. It may, however, be sufficient to provide a moderate return to a property owner who owns and finances a solar system without the involvement of a third party investor. A property owner using this business model is participating in Marin Energy Authority’s FIT, which is priced at roughly 13.7 ¢/kWh. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Staff therefore recommends continuing Palo Alto CLEAN at the current price and making it available to any property owner interested in participating. CPAU staff would increase its marketing efforts to commercial customers and property owners, both for the PV Partners program and Palo Alto CLEAN, and will also investigate ways to help commercial customers decrease the cost of installing solar. Staff expects that most growth in commercial solar installations over the next 2-3 years will come from customers participating in the PV Partners program, with Palo Alto CLEAN participation increasing slowly as property owners are educated about how to make the program work for them. Palo Alto CLEAN will be available to residential customers as well, but staff expects PV Partners will continue to be their preferred program. When it was adopted, Palo Alto CLEAN was considered nearly cost neutral, since the 14 ¢/kWh price was close to 13.55 ¢/kWh, staff’s estimate of the cost of buying renewable energy outside Palo Alto and transmitting it here. However, since the program was adopted, the price of renewable energy delivered to Palo Alto has dropped to roughly 11.6 ¢/kWh. Based on its experience and research, staff believes that 14 ¢/kWh is the lowest price that can make local solar projects viable. This means that buying energy from 4 MW of local solar projects through the Palo Alto CLEAN program will cost about $158,000 per year more than buying the same energy outside of Palo Alto. This is equivalent to a 0.1% increase in the electric utility’s costs. At its October 2012 meeting, the UAC supported the proposal to continue the Palo Alto CLEAN Program at the same price. Background CPAU has a long history of supporting solar power. It initiated the PV Partners program in 1999, and in 2007 the program was expanded to meet the requirements of the State’s Million Solar Roofs Bill (Senate Bill 1, 2006). Under the PV Partners program CPAU provides rebates to residential and commercial customers who install solar for their own use. The program has been successful at stimulating solar development, with more than 3.4 megawatts (MW) of local solar capacity installed by nearly 500 participants over the program’s life. New participants have entered the program at a rate of 50-100 per year in recent years, and Palo Alto is one of the top ten utilities nationwide in installations per customer. Through PV Partners CPAU already provides substantial financial support for local solar. The total CPAU SB1 program budget for 2008-2017 is $13 million and the total program goal is 6.6 MW. When this goal is achieved the energy generated by the program annually will be 11.2 GWh (1.1% of Palo Alto load). The average annual cost to ratepayers of these rebate payments is roughly $1.1 million per year, which does not include the cost of administration or the lost distribution system revenue associated with net metering. The rate impact of this program is City of Palo Alto Page 3 roughly 1-1.5% per year while rebates are being paid. Once all rebates have been paid the rate impact of lost revenue due to net metering will continue to be 0.3-0.5% per year. Due to SB1, PV Partners is now a state mandated program, and regardless of the rate impact, CPAU is required to offer it. In April 2012 CPAU expanded its support for local distributed generation by launching Palo Alto CLEAN. That program expanded the options available to property owners by enabling them to sell energy directly to CPAU under a long term contract instead of using the energy on site. This business model facilitates certain types of projects that could not happen otherwise, such as installations by property owners who have no use for on-site solar energy or whose tenants are uninterested in using the energy. It also can lower certain project costs. For example, banks consider publicly owned utilities to be good counterparties for energy purchases so project owners can more easily obtain financing. In the first few months Palo Alto CLEAN generated a high level of interest from solar developers who wanted to lease rooftops in Palo Alto in order to build a solar system and sell the energy to CPAU. There was also some interest from property owners looking to invest in a system on their own rooftops. It soon became apparent, though, that the 14 ¢/kWh price was insufficient to enable 3rd party developers to earn their target returns while still offering attractive rooftop lease rates. The property owners who have investigated the program to-date either chose not to participate or chose to evaluate projects under the PV Partners program instead. The level of new interest has decreased, though staff still regularly receives new inquiries from developers and property owners. Despite the lack of participation, there have been some positive results from the program. By adopting the program CPAU prompted developers to take a serious look at the cost of developing solar projects in Palo Alto, and some of them shared that information with CPAU staff. Staff has gained considerable insight into the cost of building large solar systems in Palo Alto. The program also created new excitement around local solar, prompting several property owners to evaluate whether solar could be feasible for them. At least one large property owner is expected to proceed with a PV Partners application as a result. In addition, many public utilities across the country have called to discuss how to follow Palo Alto’s lead and develop a CLEAN program in their own service areas. There are encouraging indications that Palo Alto CLEAN, as currently priced, will generate some participation in the future. As mentioned above, the 14 ¢/kWh price was insufficient to enable a business model involving a 3rd party developer, but if a property owner invested in a system partially financed with debt, a project could generate a reasonable return. In Marin County the owner of the San Rafael Airport recently chose to participate in Marin Energy Authority’s (MEA) FIT program by installing a 1 MW project on the rooftop of his hangers. The property owner City of Palo Alto Page 4 financed the project himself, assisted by a loan from a local bank. With those terms the project generated a modest return at the FIT price MEA offered, 13.7 ¢/kWh, and showed that a project can work at that price when properly structured. MEA’s FIT program commenced in late 2010, but the San Rafael Airport project did not get started until 2012. A similar project may work in Palo Alto, but as in Marin, it may take some time to find the right site or collection of sites. Based on staff’s analysis and the result of the MEA FIT, staff believes 14 ¢/kWh is a reasonable price for the program. Still, even if it is possible to see results at the current Palo Alto CLEAN price of 14 ¢/kWh, the City must decide whether to seek out such projects. At the program’s inception the Palo Alto CLEAN price was considered nearly cost-neutral, but the results of CPAU’s recent renewable RFP, as well as publicly available data from other renewable procurements in the state, has revealed that the price of renewable energy has dropped since staff’s original calculations. Staff now estimates the cost of buying renewable energy outside of Palo Alto and transmitting it here to be 11.6 ¢/kWh, compared to the Palo Alto CLEAN price of 14 ¢/kWh. Discussion The first Palo Alto CLEAN program year expires on December 31, 2012, and staff has no authority to make purchases after that date. Staff recommends that Council authorize the program’s continuation, but rather than changing the price, staff recommends giving the program time to work at the current price. The attached resolution (Attachment A) would extend the program deadline until the 4 MW program capacity is filled. Staff also recommends removing the minimum project size of 100 kW. If Council adopts this strategy, staff predicts that program participation will increase slowly, with a modest impact on utility costs (see “Program Cost,” below). In 2013 and 2014 there might be minimal or no uptake. During this time growth in local distributed generation would come primarily from the PV Partners program, which still has over 4 MW of capacity available. Meanwhile, staff would reach out to local property owners and educate them on the benefits of investing in a Palo Alto CLEAN project while looking for opportunities to help customers lower the cost of installation. Staff believes this recommendation represents the best compromise between two competing objectives: 1) expanding support for local distributed generation and 2) pursuing the least costly method of fulfilling the CPAU electric portfolio objectives. Program Cost Buying the energy from 4 MW of local solar generating systems through Palo Alto CLEAN would be more expensive than buying the same amount of renewable energy from solar projects outside of Palo Alto, but because the amount of energy is small, the total impact on the utility’s costs would also be small. Using the cost of renewable energy as a baseline, and assuming the full program capacity is used, the City’s cost of renewable energy would be an additional City of Palo Alto Page 5 $158,000 per year. This is equivalent to a 0.1% increase in the electric utility’s costs. See Table 2 in the following section for examples of bills for various customer types and how those costs compare to their monthly bills. This represents a change from CPAU staff’s original assessment of the program. When the price for the 2012 Palo Alto CLEAN program was adopted, it was determined to be nearly cost neutral. In late 2011, the cost of buying renewable energy outside of Palo Alto and transmitting it here was estimated to be 13.55 ¢/kWh. This price is referred to as the City’s “avoided cost,” since these costs are avoided by buying local renewable energy. Council approved a 0.45 ¢/kWh adder to bring the Palo Alto CLEAN program price to 14 ¢/kWh (for a 20 year contract term). The adopted Palo Alto CLEAN price was so close to the CPAU avoided costs that the program could be considered to have negligible impact on the utility’s costs. Since then, however, prices for renewable energy have fallen considerably as evidenced by proposals submitted into the last Request for Proposals (RFP) for renewable energy. Based on that indication of the cost of renewable energy outside of Palo Alto, the avoided costs are about 11.6 ¢/kWh. This means that the Palo Alto CLEAN price of 14 ¢/kWh is 2.4 ¢/kWh higher than the cost of buying renewable energy outside of Palo Alto and paying the transmission and other related costs to bring it here. There are several reasons that local solar projects are more expensive than remote solar projects: 1. Palo Alto does not have developable open land, and installing solar on rooftops is more expensive than installing it on the ground. A number of solar developers have noted that the cost associated with leasing a roof is higher than the cost of purchasing open land. Many large solar projects outside of Palo Alto are located on disturbed land (marginal farmland) outside of urban areas. The land costs associated with these projects are far lower than the lease costs associated with a rooftop. 2. Owners of office space require a higher rate of return for the use of their rooftops than owners of warehouses or other similar facilities. Most of the facilities in California that host large wholesale commercial solar installations are warehouses or similar facilities with large rooftops, little rooftop equipment, and low lease rates. The revenue owners of these facilities receive for hosting a solar system is small but substantial when compared to the revenue from leasing the facility itself. In Palo Alto, however, Class A office facilities command much higher revenue per square foot, and the facilities themselves are generally much smaller than a warehouse. The revenue from leasing a solar system can appear relatively small, and therefore not worth the potential problems associated with a rooftop lease. Depending on the contract terms, a long term City of Palo Alto Page 6 rooftop lease can reduce the property owner’s flexibility in reconfiguring the site. Office space owners are also concerned about potential disruptions to tenants during installation of the solar system, something that is less of a problem with other types of facilities. 3. Remote solar projects can be located where there is more sun. Palo Alto receives excellent amounts of solar energy, but other parts of California receive even more. This can make a significant difference in the price of solar energy because the developer can generate more energy from every panel they install. Cost of Solar Installations in Palo Alto Staff has estimated the cost of installing solar in Palo Alto based on discussions with developers, property owners, other utilities, and using data from existing systems installed in Palo Alto and throughout the Bay Area. The prices below assume that the projects will be financed by a 3rd party developer leasing a rooftop, or by a customer or facility owner willing to commit capital to the project. They do not assume any debt financing. While larger systems can achieve certain economies of scale on a per unit (kW) basis, the cost of installing small commercial solar systems (<30 kW) and residential systems is substantially higher than the cost of installing the larger systems that have been evaluated for the existing Palo Alto CLEAN program. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 2013 2014 2015 2016 $/ k W h Cost of solar in Palo Alto Residential Small Commercial Large Commercial RPS-eligible Avoided Cost Brown Power Avoided Cost Alternatives Considered In developing its recommendation, staff considered several other alternatives for the future of Palo Alto CLEAN. The first two alternatives listed below are priced to attract rapid participation City of Palo Alto Page 7 by efficient 3rd party developers. The prices would be high enough to provide an attractive return to a facility owner who invests in an efficient, low-priced solar system, and would also be enough to enable a 3rd party developer to earn a moderate return while paying a moderate lease rate for a Palo Alto rooftop. These program alternatives increase the chance of rapid uptake in the program by setting a price that is attractive to those facility owners willing to commit capital to build their own solar systems, but also provides enough of a return to enable 3rd party developers to lease rooftops on facilities whose owners are not willing to commit capital. The third alternative is the staff recommendation, which relies on efficient systems financed partially by property owners and partially using debt financing. The fourth and fifth alternatives minimize CPAU’s cost and eventual ratepayer impact, but are expected to result in little or no program uptake. The five alternatives are described below: 1) Program that accommodates 3rd party developers, with prices differentiated by system size: Adopt a CLEAN program with different prices for residents, small commercial property owners, and large commercial property owners. The program would include separate capacity allocations for large systems, small systems, and residential systems, and the price would be set to reflect the different costs of development for each type of system (32.4 ¢/kWh for residents, 28.1 ¢/kWh for small commercial customers less than 35 kW in size, and 18.8 ¢/kWh for large commercial customers for a 20-year contract). 2) Program that accommodates 3rd party developers, with a single price: Adopt a CLEAN program intended to promote participation primarily by large commercial property owners. The program would be open to all property owners, but it would be priced so that only larger systems or aggregations of smaller systems would be economically feasible (18.8 ¢/kWh for a 20-year contract). 3) Current Program (Staff Recommendation): Extend the current program at the same rate (14 ¢/kWh for a 20-year contract). 4) Cost-neutral Program: Extend Palo Alto CLEAN, but price it at the cost of buying renewable energy and transporting it to Palo Alto (11.6 ¢/kWh for a 20-year contract). 5) No Program: Eliminate Palo Alto CLEAN. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Staff believes that Program Alternatives 1 and 2 would be rapidly subscribed, but would cost substantially more than the other alternatives. Program Alternative 3, the staff recommendation, may take some time to generate results, but has a very small cost and eventual rate impact compared to adding other types of renewable generation to the supply portfolio. Program Alternative 4 does not increase utility costs, but staff believes the price would not be adequate to generate any response. The costs of the five program alternatives are summarized in Table 1 below, and are compared to the CPAU avoided cost of energy. The annual budgets below are calculated based on a 4 MW program, but they vary linearly, so doubling the program size would double the budgets and rate impacts below, and halving it would halve the budgets and rate impacts. TABLE 1: Annual Cost of Program Alternatives Program Alternative Description Energy Cost (₵/kWh) Annual Excess Cost* $ and % increase in utility costs 1 Accommodates 3rd party development, price varies based on system size 25.0** $874,000 (0.7%) 2 Accommodates 3rd party development, single price 18.8 $483,000 (0.4%) 3 Extend the current program at the current price 14.0 $158,000 (0.1%) 4 Extend the program, reprice at avoided cost 11.6 N/A 5 Eliminate the program N/A N/A Renewable Avoided Cost Buying renewable energy outside Palo Alto 11.6 N/A Non-renewable Avoided Cost Buying non-renewable energy outside Palo Alto 9.7 N/A * This figure represents the cost of each program alternative compared to the cost of buying renewable energy outside of Palo Alto. ** Average energy cost for this program alternative. Detailed costs: $324/MWh for the residential portion, $281/MWh for the small commercial portion (35 kW or less) and $188 for the large commercial portion (>35 kw). City of Palo Alto Page 9 To give some perspective on the costs for each program alternative, staff has prepared Table 2, below, which shows what would happen if the annual costs of each program alternative were allocated to customers on a per-kWh basis. These costs are calculated for a 4 MW program, but it is possible to vary the program size. The costs vary linearly, so doubling the program size would double the costs below, and halving it would halve the costs. TABLE 2: Program Costs Compared to Customer Bills Customer Type / Monthly Consumption # of Customers Current Average Monthly Bill Monthly Program Costs by Alternative*: 1 2 3 4 5 Residential Customers: Summer (365 kWh) 25,678 $37 $0.33 $0.18 $0.06 $0 $0 Winter (453 kWh) 25,678 $48 $0.41 $0.23 $0.07 $0 $0 Commercial Customers: 0-1,000 kWh 1,844 $45 $0.30 $0.17 $0.06 $0 $0 1,001-8,000 kWh 1,481 $427 $3 $2 $1 $0 $0 8,001-100,000 kWh 606 $3,198 $27 $15 $4 $0 $0 > 100,000 kWh 101 $48,893 $405 $224 $74 $0 $0 *If allocated on a per-kWh basis. Resource Impact In addition to the energy costs described above, the staff recommendation will require staff time associated with marketing and project review. The project review can be absorbed with existing staff over the life of the program, and costs will be recovered through project review fees. The additional marketing will require less than 0.25 FTE of staff time, and may involve an additional budget for marketing materials, which would be requested through the annual budget process. The marketing work will be absorbed by existing staff, but will decrease time spent on other account management and efficiency program delivery. Commission Review and Recommendation On October 3, 2012, the UAC reviewed the staff proposal and on a 5-1 vote (with Commissioner Waldfogel voting no) recommended that Council approve the staff recommendation with a review of the program after one year. Several commissioners expressed their support for renewable energy within Palo Alto, but were concerned about allowing the CLEAN price to deviate too far from the City’s avoided cost. Commissioners expressed some concern about City of Palo Alto Page 10 devoting staff resources to marketing the program instead of marketing other successful programs, such as the PV Partners or energy efficiency programs. One commissioner supported raising the program’s price to encourage more rapid participation. The draft minutes from the UAC’s October 3, 2012 meeting are provided in Attachment C. Policy Implications The staff recommendation implements Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Strategy #4, Local Generation, which states “promote and facilitate the deployment of cost-effective local resources.” The program will facilitate the deployment of local resources, but the recommended price, 14 ¢/kWh, will only support the most efficient local solar projects. It also implements Climate Protection Plan Chapter 3 (Utilities), Goal 3, “Expand use of renewable energy installed or purchased directly by customers.” The program also implements Comprehensive Plan Goal N-9, “A clean, efficient, competitively-priced energy supply that makes use of cost-effective renewable resources” and Policy N-48, “Encourage the appropriate use of alternative energy technologies.” Environmental Review The adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(8). Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution Approving Amendments to Palo Alto CLEAN (PDF)  Attachment B: Revised Palo Alto CLEAN program rules (PDF)  Attachment C: Draft Excerpt of October 3, 2012 UAC Meeting Minutes (PDF) *NOT YET APPROVED* 120925 DM 6051788 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Continuation of The Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program R E C I T A L S A. On March 5, 2012, the City approved the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now Program, a CLEAN program (or feed-in tariff). Under the CLEAN Program, participants who build a new solar generating system in Palo Alto may obtain a long-term, fixed-price contract with the City to sell the energy from the system to the City’s electric utility. B. The first program year of Palo Alto CLEAN commenced on April 2, 2012 and terminates on the earlier of: 1) the date the City receives applications for contracts for 4 MW of solar capacity, or 2) December 31, 2012. The City Council has not granted authority to staff to enter in to contracts after December 31, 2012. C. There have been no applications for the program to-date, but the City wants to continue the program past December 31, 2012. The Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City”) RESOLVES: SECTION 1. Revised Program Eligibility Requirements for Palo Alto CLEAN are adopted as shown in Exhibit A. SECTION 2. The Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or his designee to sign contracts for the output of one or more solar energy generating facilities meeting the Program Eligibility Requirements described in Section 1. The total CLEAN Program cost commitment made by the City during the life of the Program shall not exceed $23,600,000. SECTION 3. The Council finds that the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU’s) purchase of energy from local renewable sources provides additional local benefits to CPAU when compared to energy purchased outside Palo Alto, which in turn become benefits to CPAU ratepayers and the local community. These benefits include a reduction in CPAU’s costs and energy losses associated with energy transmission and distribution, and a reduction in CPAU’s capacity requirements. When the City purchases energy from local sources, a portion of the City’s electric expenditures remain within the community, which provides revenue for local economic development. Locating generation near load centers can also reduce the need for new transmission lines, thus reducing the environmental impacts of the electric system and improving reliability in transmission-constrained regions like the Greater Bay Area. The Council therefore finds that continued implementation of the Palo Alto CLEAN Program is a reasonable cost of providing electric service to CPAU’s electric customers. *NOT YET APPROVED* 120925 DM 6051788 SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(8). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ _______________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _______________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Director of Utilities ___________________________ Director of Administrative Services PALO ALTO CLEAN (CLEAN LOCAL ENERGY ACCESSIBLE NOW PROGRAM ) PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY RULES AND REQUIREMENTS PROGRAM YEAR 2012 Effective January 1, 2013 A. PARTICIPATION ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT: The Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now Program (the “CLEAN Program”) , Program Year 2012, is open to participation by any Eligible Renewable Energy Resource, as defined in Section D.45, with a total generation capacity of at least 100 kilowatts (kW).. B. TERRITORIALITY REQUIREMENT: In order to be eligible to participate in the CLEAN Program during Program Year 2012, an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource must be located in and generating electricity from within the utility service area of the City of Palo Alto. C. PRICES FOR CERTIFIED RENEWABLE POWER: The following purchase prices (“Program Prices”) shall apply to the electricity produced by an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource participating in the Program starting in Program Year 2012, except as provided in Sections D.5 D.3 and D.6. Solar generation facilities: Contract Term Price 10 years 12.360 ¢ / kWh 15 years 13.216 ¢ / kWh 20 years 14.003 ¢ / kWh D. ADDITIONAL RULES AND REQUIREMENTS: 1. The owner of the Eligible Renewable Energy Resource shall enter into a Eligible Renewable Energy Resource Power Purchase Agreement, Eligible Renewable Energy Resource (“PPA”) with the City of Palo Alto. 2. The last Eligible Renewable Energy Resource that is eligible for participation in the CLEAN Program during Program Year 2012 will be the Eligible Renewable Energy Resource that first causes the total capacity of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources receiving payments under the Program to exceed four (4) MW (the “Program Capacity”). 3. An application for participation in the CLEAN Program to sell output to the City (the “Application”) may be submitted at any time. Applications will be considered in the order received. during the month. Any number of PPAs may be awarded at the end of each month. If the City can accept all Applications submitted without exceeding the Program Capacity, then all Applications will be accepted at the applicable Program Price(s). If, in any month, the City cannot accept all Applications submitted during that month without exceeding the Program Capacity, then the PPAs will be awarded in the following order of precedence: PALO ALTO CLEAN (CLEAN LOCAL ENERGY ACCESSIBLE NOW PROGRAM ) PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY RULES AND REQUIREMENTS PROGRAM YEAR 2012 Effective January 1, 2013 . The City will provide notification to all applicants that apply in the current month that there is insufficient capacity to accept all Applications. All applicants that apply for participation in the current month will be afforded two (2) weeks from the notification date to submit bid prices at which electricity from its proposed resource will be sold to the City. The bid price must be less than the price for the applicable term described in Section C, or the City will reject or will be deemed to have rejected the bid price. . The City will award one or more PPAs based upon the proposed bid prices. The first award will be made to the applicant offering the lowest bid price and any subsequent award(s) will be made to the next higher prices, until the Program Capacity has been attained. . Nothing in this ‘bid price’ process will affect the status of applications accepted in previous months. 8. In order for an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource to be eligible for participation in the CLEAN Program during Program Year 2012, the City must receive an Application on or before December 31, 2012 or, if that day does not fall on a regular business day of the City, on the business day immediately preceding December 31, 2012. 9.4. For the purposes of Program Year 2012, an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource means an electric generating facility that: (a) is defined and qualifies as an “eligible renewable energy resource” under California Public Utilities Code Section 399.12(e) and California Public Resources Code Section 25471, respectively, as amended; (b) uses a solar fuel source; and (c) meets the territoriality requirement set forth in Section B. 10.5. The California Energy Commission’s (“CEC”) certification of the Eligible Renewable Energy Resource shall be required within six (6) months of the commercial operation date of the electric generating facility; the facility’s owner shall provide written notice of the CEC’s certification to the City within ten (10) business days. If the City takes delivery of the facility’s electricity prior to the CEC’s certification, then, as the facility’s electricity cannot be considered in fulfillment of the City’s RPS requirements, the price that the City will pay for the facility’s electricity (the “Pre-Certification Price”) will be set at 65% of the applicable Contract Price. Upon the CEC’s certification of the facility, the City will pay the applicable Contract Price for the facility’s electricity delivered on and after the date of the CEC’s certification. The City will “true-up”, as appropriate, the difference between the Contract Price and the Pre-Certification Price for any electricity received and paid for by the City, effective as of the date of certification of the Resource. 11.6. If an Eligible Renewable Energy Resource is authorized to participate in the CLEAN Program, then that Resource shall not be entitled to receive any rebate or other incentive from the City’s Photovoltaic (PV) Partners Program, Power from Local Ultra-Clean Generation Incentive (PLUG-In) Program, or other similar programs funded by the City’s ratepayers. To the extent any rebate or incentive is paid to the owner of the Resource, that rebate or incentive shall be disgorged and refunded to the City if the Eligible Renewable Energy Resource continues to participate in the CLEAN Program. If a rebate or an incentive has been paid to the Eligible Renewable Energy Resource, then that Resource shall be PALO ALTO CLEAN (CLEAN LOCAL ENERGY ACCESSIBLE NOW PROGRAM ) PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY RULES AND REQUIREMENTS PROGRAM YEAR 2012 Effective January 1, 2013 ineligible to participate in the CLEAN Program. 12.7. All electricity generated by the Eligible Renewable Energy Resource shall be delivered only to the City. No portion of the electricity may be used to offset any load of the generating facility (other than incidental loads associated with operating the generating facility). 13.8. A metering and administration fee of $34.73/month will be charged to each Eligible Renewable Energy Resource that participates in the CLEAN Program during Program Year 2012. . See Utilities Rate Schedule E-15 (Electric Service Connection Fees). Excerpted Draft Minutes of the October 3, 2012 UAC Meeting ITEM 1: ACTION: UAC Recommendation that Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the Continuation of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program Public Comment: Craig Lewis, representing the CLEAN Coalition, stated that the Palo Alto CLEAN has had no takers so far, but that the program could be tweaked to be successful. The CLEAN Coalition had hoped when the program started that property owners rather than developers would develop and own projects, eliminating the need for a lease payment. He said the price offered seems to have been too low and developers and that property owners were not attracted by the rate of return from a project in Palo Alto. He believed property owners would be more interested in leasing their rooftops to a third party developer. He stated that the lease payment to building owners translates to a 3 cent/kilowatt-hour (₵/kWh) increase in price so that a price of 17 ₵/kWh or higher would be required to get local solar projects. He recommended implementing a Volumetric Price Adjustment (VPA) whereby non-participation in the program over some period of time (e.g. a month) would result in an automatic increase in the price until participants were attracted. Resource Planner Jon Abendschein provided a summary of the written report. He stated that the City has supported local solar photovoltaic (PV) system installations since 1999 and the PV Partners program has resulted in the City being one of the top utilities nationwide for PV system installations. Abendschein stated that, despite a large amount of interest, the CLEAN program has not had any participants, primarily because the PV Partners is a more cost- effective option for most facilities and the returns for CLEAN program are insufficient. Abendschein explained the staff recommendation is to extend the program at the current 14 ₵/kWh price, eliminate the 100 kW minimum size, and ramp up efforts to market the PV Partners program. Since the program was evaluated last year, and the price was set at 14 ₵/kWh, the City's projection of the avoided cost has fallen to 11.6 ₵/kWh so that additional cost to ratepayers is $158,000 per year. Abendschein explained that the alternatives to the recommendation were considered and included increasing the price, lowering the price, or eliminating the program. Increasing the price would increase the cost to ratepayers, while lowering the price would not result in any participation. He also stated that staff had examined other types of renewable energy sources, but did not find any other energy sources aside from solar that were viable in Palo Alto aside from City-owned sources that could be developed without a CLEAN program. Commissioner Melton said that originally the program had been priced at the City's avoided cost, but now the price was 20% higher than the avoided cost. He asked what the City’s pricing policy was, and at what price would the cost of the program be too high compared to the City’s avoided cost. He did not want the program to entirely lose its relationship to avoided costs. Director Valerie Fong stated that the City Council had been comfortable with a small premium over avoided cost when the program was adopted, but had not provided specific policy direction on the maximum acceptable premium. Commissioner Eglash asked how many PV systems had been installed in Palo Alto since the CLEAN program had been adopted. Abendschein stated that there had been from 25-50 systems installed in residences, but he did not have the exact numbers. Commissioner Eglash said that many people were continuing to install solar even without Palo Alto CLEAN. He said the goal was not to have a feed-in tariff (FIT) simply to have a FIT. It was to stimulate solar development. He said the PV Partners program was economically more attractive and that solar was being installed at a healthy rate even without Palo Alto CLEAN. That implied that Palo Alto CLEAN was obsolete and unnecessary. He said the cost of solar was falling substantially, and 3rd party developers were offering excellent prices. He was against raising the price, but he was happy leaving the program operating as it was if it did not cost much to maintain it. Commissioner Waldfogel asked what the equivalent cost of the PV Partners program was. Abendschein said the avoided cost was the same, but if PV Partners were translated into a FIT price it would be equivalent to 20-24 ¢/kWh. PV Partners was a State mandated program, however. Commissioner Waldfogel asked whether the size of the PV Partners program was also a State mandate. Abendschein said it was. Vice Chair Foster asked who paid for the PV Partners program. Director Fong stated the City did. Vice Chair Foster asked whether it was better to have people participating in PA CLEAN or PV Partners, since PV Partners was more expensive. Director Fong stated that PA CLEAN participation would not relieve the City of its SB1 obligation, which the PV Partners program fulfilled. Abendschein added that even if customers chose to participate in Palo Alto CLEAN, the PV Partners capacity would still be available. Vice Chair Foster asked how much the Brannon Solar project factored into the avoided cost calculation. Abendschein said it was a small part of the calculation. Vice Chair Foster asked whether the staff recommended program would allow people to fund solar on each other’s roofs if they chose to. Abendschein said the funding source was not important as long as they sold the energy to the City. Vice Mayor Scharff asked what it would cost to continue the program. Abendschein said the staff time involved in maintaining the program without marketing it was minimal, but that the staff proposal had involved some staff time for marketing which would be absorbed by existing staff. Utility Marketing Services Manager Joyce Kinnear said that Key Account Representatives, who market the City’s programs, including energy efficiency, would spend time on marketing Palo Alto CLEAN, which would replace some of the time they spent marketing other programs like energy efficiency. Commissioner Foster stated that the program is an innovative program. The City should be doing it and would like to see an increase in the price to get more participation. He was not sensing much support for that proposal, so he would support the staff recommendation. He would be opposed to eliminating the program. Chair Cook thanked the CLEAN Coalition for support, but would not want to move much further away from the avoided cost. He would support the staff recommendation, but would want to review it again at some point in time, rather than have the program continue indefinitely. Commissioner Melton remarked that the goal is to increase the amount of renewable power generated within city limits, so he supported continuing the program despite the small increase in price. ACTION: Vice Chair Foster made a motion to support staff's recommendation. Melton seconded the motion. Commissioner Eglash offered a friendly amendment to review the program in one year. Vice Chair Foster and Commissioner Melton accepted the amendment. Commissioner Waldfogel asked if the failure of the program could be attributed to a marketing shortcoming. Abendschein said it was a matter of expanding the marketing to the specific customers who the program would work for. Commissioner Waldfogel stated that he believed that anyone who was eligible for the program had already heard about the program and had determined it was not worthwhile. He was uncomfortable continuing to spend money to market the program. Vice Chair Foster said that some level of marketing should exist as not all have heard of the program and it is being expanded to more customers. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Waldfogel voting no. ATTACHMENT D EXCERPTED FINAL MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 3, 2012 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING ITEM 1: ACTION: UAC Recommendation that Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the Continuation of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program Public Comment: Craig Lewis, representing the CLEAN Coalition, stated that the Palo Alto CLEAN has had no takers so far, but that the program could be tweaked to be successful. The CLEAN Coalition had hoped when the program started that property owners rather than developers would develop and own projects, eliminating the need for a lease payment. He said the price offered seems to have been too low and developers and that property owners were not attracted by the rate of return from a project in Palo Alto. He believed property owners would be more interested in leasing their rooftops to a third party developer. He stated that the lease payment to building owners translates to a 3 cent/kilowatt-hour (₵/kWh) increase in price so that a price of 17 ₵/kWh or higher would be required to get local solar projects. He recommended implementing a Volumetric Price Adjustment (VPA) whereby non-participation in the program over some period of time (e.g. a month) would result in an automatic increase in the price until participants were attracted. Resource Planner Jon Abendschein provided a summary of the written report. He stated that the City has supported local solar photovoltaic (PV) system installations since 1999 and the PV Partners program has resulted in the City being one of the top utilities nationwide for PV system installations. Abendschein stated that, despite a large amount of interest, the CLEAN program has not had any participants, primarily because the PV Partners is a more cost- effective option for most facilities and the returns for CLEAN program are insufficient. Abendschein explained the staff recommendation is to extend the program at the current 14 ₵/kWh price, eliminate the 100 kW minimum size, and ramp up efforts to market the PV Partners program. Since the program was evaluated last year, and the price was set at 14 ₵/kWh, the City's projection of the avoided cost has fallen to 11.6 ₵/kWh so that additional cost to ratepayers is $158,000 per year. Abendschein explained that the alternatives to the recommendation were considered and included increasing the price, lowering the price, or eliminating the program. Increasing the price would increase the cost to ratepayers, while lowering the price would not result in any participation. He also stated that staff had examined other types of renewable energy sources, but did not find any other energy sources aside from solar that were viable in Palo Alto aside from City-owned sources that could be developed without a CLEAN program. Commissioner Melton said that originally the program had been priced at the City's avoided cost, but now the price was 20% higher than the avoided cost. He asked what the City’s pricing policy was, and at what price would the cost of the program be too high compared to the City’s avoided cost. He did not want the program to entirely lose its relationship to avoided costs. Director Valerie Fong stated that the City Council had been comfortable with a small premium over avoided cost when the program was adopted, but had not provided specific policy direction on the maximum acceptable premium. Commissioner Eglash asked how many PV systems had been installed in Palo Alto since the CLEAN program had been adopted. Abendschein stated that there had been from 25-50 systems installed in residences, but he did not have the exact numbers. Commissioner Eglash said that many people were continuing to install solar even without Palo Alto CLEAN. He said the goal was not to have a feed-in tariff (FIT) simply to have a FIT. It was to stimulate solar development. He said the PV Partners program was economically more attractive and that solar was being installed at a healthy rate even without Palo Alto CLEAN. That implied that Palo Alto CLEAN was obsolete and unnecessary. He said the cost of solar was falling substantially, and 3rd party developers were offering excellent prices. He was against raising the price, but he was happy leaving the program operating as it was if it did not cost much to maintain it. Commissioner Waldfogel asked what the equivalent cost of the PV Partners program was. Abendschein said the avoided cost was the same, but if PV Partners were translated into a FIT price it would be equivalent to 20-24 ¢/kWh. PV Partners was a State mandated program, however. Commissioner Waldfogel asked whether the size of the PV Partners program was also a State mandate. Abendschein said it was. Vice Chair Foster asked who paid for the PV Partners program. Director Fong stated the City did. Vice Chair Foster asked whether it was better to have people participating in PA CLEAN or PV Partners, since PV Partners was more expensive. Director Fong stated that PA CLEAN participation would not relieve the City of its SB1 obligation, which the PV Partners program fulfilled. Abendschein added that even if customers chose to participate in Palo Alto CLEAN, the PV Partners capacity would still be available. Vice Chair Foster asked how much the Brannon Solar project factored into the avoided cost calculation. Abendschein said it was a small part of the calculation. Vice Chair Foster asked whether the staff recommended program would allow people to fund solar on each other’s roofs if they chose to. Abendschein said the funding source was not important as long as they sold the energy to the City. Vice Mayor Scharff asked what it would cost to continue the program. Abendschein said the staff time involved in maintaining the program without marketing it was minimal, but that the staff proposal had involved some staff time for marketing which would be absorbed by existing staff. Utility Marketing Services Manager Joyce Kinnear said that Key Account Representatives, who market the City’s programs, including energy efficiency, would spend time on marketing Palo Alto CLEAN, which would replace some of the time they spent marketing other programs like energy efficiency. Commissioner Foster stated that the program is an innovative program. The City should be doing it and would like to see an increase in the price to get more participation. He was not sensing much support for that proposal, so he would support the staff recommendation. He would be opposed to eliminating the program. Chair Cook thanked the CLEAN Coalition for support, but would not want to move much further away from the avoided cost. He would support the staff recommendation, but would want to review it again at some point in time, rather than have the program continue indefinitely. Commissioner Melton remarked that the goal is to increase the amount of renewable power generated within city limits, so he supported continuing the program despite the small increase in price. ACTION: Vice Chair Foster made a motion to support staff's recommendation. Melton seconded the motion. Commissioner Eglash offered a friendly amendment to review the program in one year. Vice Chair Foster and Commissioner Melton accepted the amendment. Commissioner Waldfogel asked if the failure of the program could be attributed to a marketing shortcoming. Abendschein said it was a matter of expanding the marketing to the specific customers who the program would work for. Commissioner Waldfogel stated that he believed that anyone who was eligible for the program had already heard about the program and had determined it was not worthwhile. He was uncomfortable continuing to spend money to market the program. Vice Chair Foster said that some level of marketing should exist as not all have heard of the program and it is being expanded to more customers. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Waldfogel voting no. FINANCE COMMITTEE DRAFT EXCERPT Page 1 of 15 Special Meeting November 14, 2012 Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the Continuation of the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program. Jon Abendschein, Resource Planner, said since they adopted the Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now Program (PA CLEAN) back in March they had a lot of interest but found that the 14 cent per Kilowatt hour (kWh) price was not high enough to provide a return on investment for a third party developer, while still providing the developer with an attractive lease rate. There were three potential types of participants in the program: a third party developer, a utility customer, and a landlord, who installed the system on their own. With the third party developer, they leased the rooftop, they owned and developed the system, and then they sold the power to the City. They needed to be able to meet their target return while providing an attractive lease to the building owner. The utility customer built their system on their own but when they looked into Staff’s program, they compared it to Photovoltaic (PV) Partners Program; the PV Partners Program offered a shorter return because they used the energy on site. Landlords were the last potential participants. They had very few landlords that approached them but they were the most likely to participate in the program because they could get a return at 14 cents per kWh. Staff recommended to Council that they keep the program at 14 cents per kWh and to continue outreach to people that would benefit from the price of 14 cents per kWh. He said there was more information about the status of the renewable energy market. When they first looked into this program, they were calculating the City’s avoided costs. That meant the cost of buying renewable energy outside of Palo Alto and the DRAFT EXCERPT Page 2 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 transmission cost to bring it to Palo Alto. To keep the price at 14 cents per kWh they needed to increase adder because renewables were a lot lower and they were calculating the avoided costs at 11 cents per kWh. He referred to the Brannon Solar Project to use as a comparison. James Keene, City Manager asked to have the explanation of what the change meant. Mr. Abendschein said to maintain the 14 cents per kWh price that meant an increase in utilities cost of $160,000 per year, or a 0.1 percent increase. They included other potential program alternatives in the Staff report, which included prices as well. John Melton, Utilities Advisory Commissioner (UAC) said the UAC was disappointed with the results and contemplated shutting the program down. Staff convinced them that an additional year of testing the program out might field more potential for marketing and more users, like landlords and building owners. Bruce Hodge said he supported the PA CLEAN Program; it encouraged growth in solar and he thought it was cheaper. He thought an advantage was that it improved the system reliability and it conserved critical line distribution across the State; he thought it was great to generate power locally. He thought the 14 cents per kWh crippled the program and he suggested increasing the program to 16 cents because he wanted solar power to succeed. He thought the failure of solar power in Palo Alto was that solar power prices were too low to begin with. He thought the 16 cents was not that much more to ask. Sahm White said when the rate was proposed last year, he thought it was marginal and the cost to lease space was higher than anticipated. The cost increase proposed by Staff was not entirely insignificant, so he thought it was actually good to go with 2 cents more. He also thought this program brought a lot of investment in the City of Palo Alto. By buying energy from other DRAFT EXCERPT Page 3 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 places, it was going to take money away from Palo Alto. The benefit of having the program within the community was that it generated revenue and investment in Palo Alto. Council Member Price wanted to know what other types of outreach was going to be done that would improve outreach already done. Secondarily, she wanted to know if there were any incentives that promoted this project. Mr. Abendschein suggested spending more time looking at facilities within the City, identifying owners, especially ones that have multiple properties or larger lots. Another method to promote the program was to possibly sit down with the building division and discuss whether there were ways to create multiple installations, economy of scale, that kind of thing. Council Member Price suggested looking at Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) because they had a lot of property. Mr. Abendschein said they talked to them over this past year; there were challenges and opportunities there. Council Member Price said there were sustainable schools groups, green schools movement, and others. Council Member Burt assumed landlords that did not occupy their own property were the primary target group, along with considering the City’s current program of Net Metering. He suggested Staff look at the PV Partners Program because the dilemma was between the landlord and a tenant. The tenant paid the electric bill, not the landlords, which did not allow for much of an incentive for the landlord. The Net Metering/PV Partners Programs reduced the tenants’ rate. A big breakdown in the adoptions of solar was when the tenant was separate from the landlord. PA CLEAN allowed the landlord to sell the power, which opened up a new client base. Since the power was priced so low, and they had PA CLEAN, it did not seem likely that people were choosing PA CLEAN because the PV Partners Program had a DRAFT EXCERPT Page 4 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 better incentive. The Staff report clarified the comparison between PA CLEAN and remote renewables. If a person were considering cost for the best local renewables, they were probably going to choose the program that was the most cost effective. A problem was that when Palo Alto first adopted the PV Partners, a decade ago, Palo Alto was ahead on the renewables with the State. He mentioned the Million Solar Roofs Program, under Senate Bill one (SB 1), and State legislation controlling how solar electric rebates were being paid in California because it had certain mandates on all utilities and a person could look at what caused the increase. He said Staff looked at whether the expansion of PV Partners was in the number of megawatts or the rates. He wanted to know what the definition of expansion was. Joyce Kinnear, Manager Utilities Marketing Services clarified that the changes in SB 1 around PV rebate program revolved around structure and it had the impact of lowering rebates over time. They had a high rebate and they wanted to standardize the rebates process due to that. They did this to make the process easier for residents and businesses to understand the rebate process. Council Member Burt understood that the stepping down happened in tiers and the cost of solar went down at an even faster rate than what was anticipated. Ms. Kinnear said yes. In the last couple of years, the cost dropped dramatically. Council Member Burt said even if the rates were a little higher on PA CLEAN, people had a better return on the PV Partners Program. He wanted to know, with SB 1, whether it prohibited a wholesale program to meet the requirement. Ms. Kinnear said it was set up to pay rebates and to have net metering. She said there were certain restrictions. For example, there were certain types of buildings that were not included. DRAFT EXCERPT Page 5 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 Council Member Burt asked if the key was that it had to be net metered. Ms. Kinnear said yes. Council Member suggested holding the conversation because he wanted to compare it to the Net Metering Program, which was prescribed by the State. He referred to the Staff report and asked for clarification on Palo Alto’s cost of utilities at the 14 cents because if Palo sold out at the 14 cents and it was going to cost 158,000 per year, which was equivalent to a .1 percent increase in the electric utilities cost, which equaled one one- thousandth of Palo Alto’s cost of utilities at the 14 cents. Mr. Abendschein confirmed that was the cost above what power would otherwise cost. Council Member Burt confirmed that the additional cost was one one thousandth of people’s utility bill. Mr. Abendschein answered yes. Council Member Burt wanted to clarify that if people were to double the subsidy it would be two thousandths of the utility bill. Staff indicated that $1.3 million was spent on the PV Partners per year to produce 6.6 megawatts, whereas the other program spent $ 320,000 per year, to produce 4.0 megawatts; this was five times the subsidy for PV Partners Program, in comparison with the PA CLEAN per megawatt produced. Ms. Ratchye, Assistant Utilities Director said Council Member Burt was only calculating a bit above the avoided cost, not the entire cost. Council Member Burt asked if that was the total budget. DRAFT EXCERPT Page 6 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 Val Fong, Utilities Director agreed that there was a difference in program costs and that the PV Partners was more expensive. Council Member Burt wanted to clarify whether Palo Alto spent the money and if that was what was being used for the incentive to adopt the program. Ms. Fong said the power produced was kept and bypassed the utilities system. Mr. Abendschein said there was a revenue loss that was on-going for 20-25 years, which was on top of the $1.1 million. Council Member Burt said the City of Palo Alto benefits as a general fund and pays for many services based off profits, but with PV Partners, the profit was subtracted off because the revenue was subtracted off. Ms. Fong said yes. Council Member Burt confirmed that the money from the PV Partners Program went to a capital subsidy, not a revenue subsidy. Mr. Abendschein answered yes. Council Member Burt clarified that the subsidy for the PV Partners Program far exceeded the subsidy, per megawatt produced, for PA CLEAN, not considering any State mandates that influenced the programs. Palo Alto was participating in a more expensive program because of the State mandate which did not produce a program that was cost effective, while still producing qualitative benefits. He noted that the Staff report said there was minimal to no uptake projected for 2013 and 2014. The program was doing good nine months ago, but now was encountering some problems; this caused a lot of bad publicity for the program. The cost of solarof solar for the utility scale had dropped quite a bit, DRAFT EXCERPT Page 7 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 in comparison with local solar. He remarked that there was a lot of community interest, and he did not want to let go of that. His question to Staff was, for the next year, how they were going to keep the program alive and successful, at a low risk, and how the program was going to sustain itself, possibly through Palo Alto Green and the Cap and Trade Revenue. Mr. Keene said Staff’s plan was to bring Palo Alto Green to the UAC in December and then bring the report to Council. Vice Mayor Scharff confirmed that there was not any way to transfer funds from the PV Partners Program to Palo Alto CLEAN. Mr. Abendschein said that was correct. Vice Mayor Scharff said the PV Partners Program was a State mandated program, and yet the money from this program was not transferrable. He mentioned the UAC’s recommendation of giving Staff another year and said there was not much of a loss on Staff time. He said there was a possibility of a small increase but the Committee and Staff discussed raising the price next year. He thought Staff needed to look at what they wanted to achieve as a City. He did not think having the extra four megawatts made a difference. He said the question was whether Council should raise the price now, end the program, let the program go, or continue looking at the program as is. The UAC was supportive of Staff’s suggestion to continue the program for another year. He suggested looking at redoing Palo Alto Green to allow for funding and to allow people to see its value. He thought that after some time people would see enough of a return to make a long term commitment. He did not think they should raise the price now because he saw the price of solar falling. Ms. Fong agreed and said it was at 7.7 cents. Vice Mayor Scharff suggested not raising the projected price now and reviewing the program in a year’s time. He thought the Cap DRAFT EXCERPT Page 8 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 and Trade needed to be discussed and said he would support Staff’s recommendation. Chair Shepherd said there were no guarantees and was encouraged by the local energy gain. She wanted clarification on whether Staff had a small range of prices, as opposed to one fixed price. Ms. Fong said having a bid was an option. Mr. Abendschein said it was tough because Palo Alto was a small market. Chair Shepherd suggested exploring the market to get the right price. Ms. Fong agreed. Chair Shepherd said Staff could barter for a price now, and then in a year, they still might not have the right price. Mr. Abendschein said Staff looked at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) as an example because they were going to launch a 100 megawatt program. They did a small 10 megawatt pilot and had a commitment to buying up 30 cents per kWh. He said the commitment was needed; otherwise Staff was not going to get serious proposals. Chair Shepherd said if Staff threw out the 16 cents, they might not get a chance to look at things that came in at 30 cents. Mr. Keene said Staff could state the words “up to an amount,” as the Staff report does not have to have an exact amount. Ms. Fong suggested capping the price amount. DRAFT EXCERPT Page 9 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 Council Member Burt said it was not necessary to have a non- capped open-ended bid. He said Staff could have a range, say between 14 and 16 cents so Staff was authorized to have some flexibility, without coming back to Council. Ms. Fong said having flexibility took a fair amount of Staff time. Chair Shepherd said Council expected that. Staff was going to get the information and the experience during this startup phase; she said it was important to grasp the experience and to gather information. Ms. Fong said Mr. Abendschein had some standardized models and if they moved away from that, it was going to take a fair amount of Staff time. Mr. Abendschein said it was possible to do some adjusting. Ms. Fong agreed but said it was still going to take a fair amount of time. Mr. Abendschein said if Staff had the cap to work with, it was doable. Mr. Keene asked who was most likely to bid on the Staff’s proposal, was it the third party developer? He asked if the responder or the bidder went out to secure potential locations or leases in advance, or was this proposal more speculative. Mr. Abendschein said it was required to have a site and show site control. Mr. Keene asked if that was the way things worked in Los Angeles. Chair Shepherd asked if Staff would go back to Council, or, this could be something Staff was free to engage in. DRAFT EXCERPT Page 10 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 Mr. Keene said it depended on the price level. Council Member Burt suggested hearing from a representative of the CLEAN Coalition in the audience. Mr. White said Los Angeles had a pilot bid program, with similar scenarios to the Palo Alto CLEAN Program. If Palo Alto went the route they were headed now, they would be duplicating the process. The distributions were already thought out. Going ahead with this proposal meant redoing what other people already did. Chair Shepherd asked if Staff took what happened in Los Angeles into consideration when writing this report. Ms. Fong said Mr. Abendschein looked at all the FIT-type programs that they were aware of. Chair Shepherd asked if Staff still arrived at the proposed 14 cents price. Mr. Abendschein said last year there was a lot of interest coming in from third party developers. Then the third party developers came back and said it was not actually going to work and they explained why. It was good information for installation cost and how price was structured. He said Staff looked at non-developer organizations, and Palo Alto’s numbers agreed with those. LADWP’s rates did validate the numbers Staff put out. There were some differences between Los Angeles and Palo Alto, like more sun and different lease rates compared to buildings in Palo Alto. He felt Staff had a good sense of what the price of solar was, if purchased by a third party developer or a landlord. Ms. Ratchye said the going price was 18.8 cents for third party developers Palo Alto. DRAFT EXCERPT Page 11 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 Mr. Abendschein agreed that if a person wanted third party developers, they needed to be priced around 18 cents per kWh. Chair Shepherd asked if Staff knew the price took hold at 16 or 18 cents per kWh, why did Staff recommend 14 cents. Mr. Abendschein said he knew 14 cents worked, and cited the example of the City of Marin. He said the City of Marin was priced it at 13.7 cents per kWh and the trick was getting the project structured right. This required education and outreach. He said the project may take a few years, and in doing so, the cost of solar may come down too. Chair Shepherd asked if Staff stayed at 14 cents was Palo Alto going to end up with a project next year. Mr. Abendschein projected the education and outreach may take longer. Chair Shepherd said she supported a higher rate. She wanted to explore having the project more open ended and for a larger project to get the 16 cents; it was going to have a learning curve. Council Member Burt reached out to some developers and came up with 16.5 cents as an attractive incentive, with the probability of some uptake. He said citing the Marin Solar Project as a model was optimistic. Many people in Palo Alto put the panels on their roof because they want to be green, not because they consider price. If Staff wanted moderate success they needed to have a foundation and a way to transition, so they can build success, rather than have failure. Vice Mayor Scharff inquired how big a one megawatt project was. Mr. Abendschein said it was a large project for Palo Alto. DRAFT EXCERPT Page 12 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 Vice Mayor Scharff asked about when Staff gave the number of 158,000 per year, whether it was based on a four megawatt uptake because if Council authorized 16 cents for one megawatt of usage, it created incentive for early adopters at a higher rate. Mr. Melton said the UAC was presented with 17 cents per kWh. Based on the response that Staff received, there seemed to be an expressed interest; Staff arrived at 16.5 cents. The UAC was hung up because they bought solar power at 11.5 in the open market. The UAC thought 16 or 17 cents was about right but chose not to recommend that. Council Member Burt thought looking at the lowest cost rate to buy renewables was good and said the PV Partners Program was comparable, in terms of the objective. He recommended a variable rate structure because having interplay between a regulated market and a market dynamic was good. He said the State tried to anticipate the market by saying solar was going down, but the State cannot predict the market. Mr. Hodge said one key feature with a FIT was Staff started with a higher price than the initial year of implementation, then it was characterized by the gradually decreasing curves as they got up- keep in adoption; every year there was a gradual adjustment. Chair Shepherd wanted to know what the downside would be to giving Staff this type of flexibility. Ms. Fong was not sure there were any downsides; she suggested Council set a ceiling price they were willing to accept to protect the customers. Chair Shepherd asked Staff to come back to give the ceiling price and to give Council the smallest, large project Staff wanted. Ms. Fong asked if the Committee would give Staff a recommendation. DRAFT EXCERPT Page 13 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 Chair Shepherd said they were not as knowledgeable as Staff. Council Member Burt said what was placed as a ceiling price could go to Council. Then, if Staff disagreed with the number set tonight, they could recommend changing that number when they present it to Council, just so Staff could move forward. Vice Mayor Scharff supported going forward. Chair Shepherd agreed but said she did not want to rush into anything. Ms. Ratchye suggested Council come up with an option mechanism, which was a maximum price and volume to be set. Vice Mayor Scharff referred back to Council Member Burt’s comment and said this program was viewed as unsuccessful. He wanted to ask what it would take to get one project. Ms. Fong said if Council really wanted to make sure Staff gets a project, she recommended 18 cents and a limit on the volume. Council Member Burt said he did not feel good going over 17 cents. Vice Mayor Scharff said he felt good about 16.5 cents and 2 megawatts. Council Member Price asked if that was enough of a delta, should it be higher than 16.5 cents. Mr. Abendschein said there were multiple data points and 16.5 cents looked like it might work, while providing an attractive lease to the property owners. Council Member Price asked if 16.5 cents was sufficient. DRAFT EXCERPT Page 14 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded Council Member Burt to recommend the City Council adopt the resolution approving the continuation of the Palo Alto CLEAN program at a price of 16.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for 2 megawatts, with a review of the program by the Finance Committee in one year or when the 2 megawatts are achieved. Council Member Burt said he was for Staff using their discretion on a tiered pricing range, to make the proposal work, along with a price and volume cap. He thought this was especially good because if Staff thought they were not going to get uptake, they could adjust. Vice Mayor Scharff agreed. Council Member Price said giving Staff a little discretion should be done more often. Chair Shepherd asked if there was a reason Staff was not going up to four megawatts. Vice Mayor Scharff said one reason was that it costs more money. He was concerned about making sure there was at least one successful project, and then looking at other options. Chair Shepherd asked Staff to check-in with the Finance Committee on the outcome. Ms. Fong said she was okay with having a price and not having as much discretion. She said Staff would come back to Council after they had the two megawatts in place. Council Member Burt said the difference between government agencies was they were apprehensive about risk-taking, but if the policy makers were clear about the range of the risk, it was allowed for Staff. The City of Palo Alto was taking the risk and DRAFT EXCERPT Page 15 of 15 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 City Council was authorizing Staff to do so. There was not be a problem because Council limited the risk. Ms. Fong said, based on the response, they might get a higher price and they would then think through other mechanisms that required more discretion. Vice Mayor Scharff said that he agreed with Council Member Burt and said that Staff should not feel so concerned about having discretion. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3358) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability Summary Title: Update of Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Goals Title: Finance Committee Recommendation that Council Approve Updated Ten-Year Electric and Gas Energy Efficiency Goals for 2014 to 2023 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), and the Finance Committee recommend that the Council approve the proposed annual and cumulative Electric and Gas Energy Efficiency Goals for the period 2014 to 2023 as shown in the table below. Annual Gas and Electric Energy Efficiency Targets (% of total City customer usage) Electric Gas 2014 0.6% 0.5% 2015 0.6% 0.5% 2016 0.6% 0.5% 2017 0.6% 0.55% 2018 0.6% 0.55% 2019 0.6% 0.6% 2020 0.65% 0.6% 2021 0.65% 0.65% 2022 0.7% 0.65% 2023 0.7% 0.65% Cumulative 10-year EE Goal 4.8% 2.85% City of Palo Alto Page 2 Executive Summary As required by State law, the City must update its ten-year energy efficiency (EE) goals every three years. Since the last updates, there have been dramatic increases in the requirements for energy efficiency through upcoming changes to appliance standards and building codes. However, the potential savings that will be achieved through the increased standards and code requirements cannot be included in the EE achievements from Utilities programs. The proposed cumulative ten-year electric EE program goal is to save 4.8% of the City’s projected electric usage between 2014 and 2023. If the updated electric EE goal is approved, the City’s cumulative electric savings since 2006, as a result of both EE program achievements and changes to appliance codes and building standards, will be 8% of the projected load by 2023. For gas, the proposed cumulative ten-year EE program goal is to save 2.85% of the City’s projected gas usage by between 2014 and 2023. If the updated gas EE goal is approved, the City’s cumulative gas savings since 2006, as a result of both EE program achievements and changes to appliance codes and building standards, will be 4.8% of the projected load by 2023. Both the UAC and the Finance Committee unanimously supported the proposed updated EE goals. Committee Review and Recommendations At the November 14, 2012 Finance Committee, staff presented the proposed ten-year Electric and Gas Energy Efficiency Goals for 2014 to 2023 (Attachment 1: Staff Report 3211). The report covers an overview of the methodology used to update the energy efficiency goals, the proposed annual and cumulative goals for both electric and gas efficiency for 2014 to 2023, as well as the projected costs and rate impact of the Utility’s electric and gas EE programs. During discussion, the Finance Committee pointed out it may be difficult to achieve the increasing annual goals over the ten-year horizon. Staff explained that the cost of emerging EE technologies is expected to come down over the next ten years, thereby lowering the cost barrier to adopt these technologies. Staff also clarified that the model used to develop the EE goals takes into account customer churn and equipment replacement. The Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend that City Council approve the proposed 2014 to 2023 electric and gas EE goals. The draft excerpted minutes from the November 14, 2012 Finance Committee meeting are provided as Attachment 2. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Resource Impact The attached staff report to the Finance Committee contains preliminary estimates of the costs of achieving the proposed electric and gas EE goals. The detailed budget plan and staff needs to meet the annual EE goals will be part of the annual City budgeting process. The Demand Side Management budget will be a part of the entire Utilities Department and City budget request. The annual budget will present the costs for both internally administered and contractor supported efficiency programs. Policy Implications Approval of this recommendation conforms to the Council-approved Long-Term Electric Acquisition Plan and Gas Utility Long-term Plan Guidelines, which call for funding programs that maximize the deployment of cost-effective, reliable and feasible energy efficiency as the highest priority resource. The proposed electric and gas efficiency goals will also help achieve the Council-approved greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets by 2020. Environmental Review Approval of this recommendation does not meet the definition of a project, pursuant to section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Thus, no environmental review is required. Attachments:  Attachment 1: Finance Committee Staff Report #3211 - Update of Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Goal (PDF)  Attachment 2: Draft Excerpted Minutes of 11-14-12 Finance Committee Meeting (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3211) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 11/14/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability Summary Title: Update of Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Goals Title: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Approve Updated Ten-Year Electric and Gas Energy Efficiency Goals for 2014 to 2023 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend that the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council approve the proposed annual and cumulative Electric and Gas Energy Efficiency Goals for the period 2014 to 2023 as shown in the table below. Annual Gas and Electric Energy Efficiency Targets (% of total City customer usage) Electric Gas 2014 0.6% 0.5% 2015 0.6% 0.5% 2016 0.6% 0.5% 2017 0.6% 0.55% 2018 0.6% 0.55% 2019 0.6% 0.6% 2020 0.65% 0.6% 2021 0.65% 0.65% 2022 0.7% 0.65% 2023 0.7% 0.65% Cumulative 10-year EE Goal 4.8% 2.85% City of Palo Alto Page 2 Executive Summary As required by state law, the City must update its ten-year energy efficiency (EE) goals every three years. Since the last updates, there have been dramatic increases in the requirements for energy efficiency through upcoming changes to appliance codes and building standards. However, the potential savings that will be achieved through the increased standards and code requirements cannot be included in the EE achievements from Utilities programs. The proposed ten-year electric EE program goal is to save a cumulative 4.8% of the City’s projected electric usage between 2014 and 2023. If staff’s recommendation is approved, the City’s cumulative electric savings since 2006, as a result of both EE program achievements and changes to appliance codes and building standards, will be 8%, based on load projections, by the year 2023. For gas, the proposed cumulative ten-year EE program goal is to save 2.85% of the City’s projected gas usage by between 2014 and 2023. If staff’s recommendation is approved, the City’s cumulative gas savings since 2006, as a result of both EE program achievements and changes to appliance codes and building standards, will be 4.8%, based on load projections, by the year 2023. These proposed EE goals will update both the ten-year Electric EE goals and the ten-year Gas EE goals approved by the City Council in May 2010 and April 2011, respectively. Background City Council adopted the first ten-year electric and gas EE goals in 2007, which were to reduce the City’s electric and gas usage by 3.5% by 2017. These goals met the state legislative requirements established by AB 2021 (2006) requiring publicly owned electric utilities to adopt ten-year electricity efficiency savings goals by June 1, 2007 and every three years thereafter. Furthermore, City Council recognized the importance of EE as a low cost solution to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The City’s 2007 Climate Protection Plan relies on electric and gas EE to meet the City’s GHG emission reduction targets by 2020. These EE goals were used for the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU’s) resource planning as well as for EE program budget planning. In May 2010, City Council adopted an updated ten-year EE goal to reduce electric usage by 7.2% by 2020 (CMR:218:10). The gas efficiency goals were updated in April 2011 to reduce gas usage by 5.2% by 2020 (Staff Report #1532). To meet these aggressive goals, CPAU contracted with third-party vendors to provide energy efficiency services to both residential and non-residential City of Palo Alto Page 3 customers. The result, beginning July 2011, was an expansion of CPAU’s EE program offerings that target various customer segments and end-use technologies. Table 1 provides a summary of the EE goals and achievements since Fiscal Year (FY) 2008. The table shows that actual program achievements have exceed goals for most years. Table 1: Electric and Gas Efficiency Achievements for FY 2008-2011 FY 2008 (Actuals) FY 2009 (Actuals) FY 2010 (Actuals) FY 2011 (Actuals) Electric Efficiency – Goals Annual electric savings (MWh) 2,500 2,800 3,500 5,799 Percent of Annual load 0.25% 0.28% 0.31% 0.60%* Electric Efficiency – Achievements Annual electric savings (MWh) 4,399 4,668 5,269 5,457 Percent of Annual load 0.44% 0.47% 0.55% 0.58% (adj.) Gas Efficiency – Goals Annual gas savings (therms) 76,800 86,400 99,200 122,743 Percent of Annual load 0.25% 0.28% 0.32% 0.40%* Gas Efficiency – Achievements Annual gas savings (therms) 35,238 88,028 106,479 169,198 Percent of Annual load 0.11% 0.28% 0.39% 0.55%+ *The FY 2011 efficiency goals were based on the 2010/2011 EE goals update. + Half of these savings came from the (OPOWER) Home Energy Reports. To meet the legislative requirement, the ten-year Electric EE Goals need to be updated by June 2013. However, the ten-year EE goals update process is planned to be completed by December 2012 so that the results can be incorporated into the plan to develop a carbon-neutral electric supply by 2015, since EE will be a priority resource in this portfolio. Discussion Overview of the Energy Efficiency Potential Model The first step in establishing EE goals is to determine what the potential is for energy savings in the City. This step was completed using an EE potential model developed by Navigant Consulting. The 2012 EE potential model is similar to the one used by publicly owned utilities City of Palo Alto Page 4 statewide in 2010 and was most recently used by the California Public Utilities Commission to determine the EE potential for investor-owned utilities. The model estimates the technical, economic and market potential for energy efficiency measures for residential and non- residential customers, defined as follows:  Technical potential is the energy savings that would result from installation of the most energy efficient measures that are commercially available.  Economic potential includes only savings from the installation of cost-effective EE measures.  Market potential is a subset of the economic potential; it reflects the reality of customers’ awareness and willingness to adopt energy efficient equipment. The model establishes 2006 as the base year and takes into account past EE program achievements as well as user-specified input such as projected avoided energy costs and retail rates of electricity and natural gas, discount rate, building stock and assumptions regarding appliance and equipment among residential customers (e.g. room air-conditioner, electric/gas clothes dryer or others). Efficiency measures included in the analysis cover over 50 residential electric measures (including the Home Energy Report), 200 non-residential electric measures, 20 residential gas measures and 50 non-residential gas measures. For each year starting in 2006, the model steps through the calculation of the technical potential, then filters out the uneconomic measures to determine the economic potential, and, finally, identifies the market potential by applying a diffusion curve function for customer adoption of EE measures. The calculated market potential forms the basis of the proposed EE goals for 2014 to 2023. Figure 1 illustrates the model calculation steps. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Figure 1: EE Potential Model Schematic Measure Characteristics Service Area Building Stock Characteristics Service Area Rates and Avoided Costs Technical Potential TRC Based Economic Screening Economic Potential Calibration and Payback Based Decision Algorythm Market Potential Note: TRC stands for Total Resource Costs. See Appendix B for explanation of different costs-effectiveness tests for EE programs. A key enhancement to the 2012 EE potential model is the explicit accounting of savings attributed to appliance codes and building standards (Codes and Standards) upgrades, beginning in 2014. Upgrades to Codes and Standards prior to 2014 are also accounted for in the technical potential, but are not shown in the model results. Changes to federal standards1 for room air-conditioners, dishwashers, clothes washers and water heaters take effect between 2013 and 2015. For California, AB 1109 (2007) has a phased-in schedule for lighting through a minimum efficiency improvement of 50% and 25% for indoor residential application and commercial facilities respectively by 2018. Energy savings attributed to Codes and Standards are excluded from the energy efficiency potential for CPAU. The 2012 EE potential model captures the impacts of residential behavioral programs. Behavior-based energy efficiency programs, such as OPOWER’s Home Energy Reports, deliver 1 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 set mandatory efficiency standards for appliances and lighting. City of Palo Alto Page 6 energy savings by motivating customers to operate their energy-using devices more efficiently. Examples include running only full loads of dishes and laundry, reducing pool pump run times and changing programmable thermostat set-points. Many emerging EE technologies have also been added to the 2012 EE potential model. Examples include LED lighting technologies, ozone laundry systems, key card control for hotel rooms and high performance rooftop cooling units. The model assumes declining costs for emerging technology measures over the ten-year forecast period (e.g. for LED, measure cost declines by 50% over an eight-year timeframe), as well as lowers the cost-effectiveness screening criterion for emerging technology measures. Summary of Electric Efficiency Potential Results Using projections of renewable electric supply costs as of May 2012 and the assumption that 50% of the incremental cost of EE measures are covered by utility incentives, the technical, economic and market potential in 2014, 2018 and 2023 are shown in Figure 2. The technical potential declines over time due to the increasingly stringent Codes and Standards. The economic potential, on the other hand, rebounds in 2023 as more EE measures become cost- effective. Market potential also increases over time as emerging technology measures become more affordable and customers’ attitudes toward these emerging technologies change and become more positive. The base case assumptions for the electric efficiency potential analysis are provided in Appendix D. Figure 2: Electric Efficiency Potential Savings City of Palo Alto Page 7 The cumulative market potential represents 5.7% of the electric load in 2023. This is lower than the 7.2% market potential from the 2010 EE potential study. The 2010 study, however, did not account for the impact of Codes and Standards. In the absence of Codes and Standards, the market potential would have been 8% of the electric load, as illustrated in Figure 3 below. Figure 3: Impact of Codes and Standards on the Cumulative Electric EE Market Potential As shown in Figure 4, savings from residential customers make up 37% of the incremental electric EE market potential in 2014 while 63% of the savings are from non-residential customers. Of the residential savings, more than half comes from behavioral programs, such as the Home Energy Reports. Savings from lighting make up another 40% of the incremental market potential in 2014. However, with the big shift in lighting efficiency standards beginning in 2018, lighting end-uses make up only 10% of the incremental market potential by 2023. A list of the top twenty electric efficiency measures in 2014 is provided in Appendix E. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Figure 4: Composition of Electric Market Potential in 2014 Proposed Electric Efficiency Goals Staff proposes new annual electric EE targets at 0.6% of forecast electric load beginning in FY 2014, increasing to 0.65% in FY 2020 and 0.7% in FY 2022. These proposed goals may appear less aggressive than the annual electric EE targets adopted in 2010 (see Figure 5). However, when the energy savings that occur due to Codes and Standards are taken into account, the total EE savings are similar to the 2010 EE targets. Figure 6 below shows the historic EE savings, existing EE goals for FY 2012 and FY 2013 and the proposed 2014 to 2023 EE goals. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Figure 5: Comparison of 2010 Electric EE goals and Proposed Electric EE Goals Figure 6: Historic EE Savings and Proposed Annual Electric EE Goals The annual electric EE savings in the forecast period are similar to the make-up of the market potential as illustrated in Figure 4. It is important to note that some EE savings have a longer- lasting effect than others, as different EE measures have different useful lifetimes. For example, EE impacts from residential behavior programs are conservatively estimated to last only one year, as there have been few, if any, evaluation studies focusing on the persistence of City of Palo Alto Page 10 behavioral programs. Measure life for Light Emitting Diode (LED) bulbs can be up to 12 years, whereas for Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) bulbs, it may only be 5 years. On the other hand, high efficiency chillers for large businesses are expected to last 20 years. Due to the differences in lifetime that savings can be counted, the cumulative EE impact over the ten-year period is not equal to the sum of the annual EE goals for the 10 years. To estimate the cumulative ten-year EE impact, staff took into account the degradation of EE savings over time. This is illustrated in Figure 7 below. Only 67% of the EE impact from programs implemented in 2014 persists in 2015, and by 2033, there are no savings remaining from the 2014 EE programs. The impact from EE programs implemented in 2023 will extend until 2041. Figure 7: Cumulative impact of the Proposed 2014 to 2023 EE goals On a cumulative basis, the total EE savings from the proposed 2014 to 2023 targets represent 4.8% of the forecast electric load in 2023. If the EE savings from Codes and Standards are included, the cumulative EE savings in 2023 is 7.1%. The annual and cumulative impact of the annual targets for the ten-year period is shown in Figure 8. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Figure 8: Proposed 2014-2023 Cumulative Electric EE Goals Projected Electric EE Program Costs Electric EE program expenditures have been steadily increasing in the past few years. Funding for EE programs comes from two sources: a mandated Public Benefit surcharge for all electric customers and supply resource funds. Prior to 2009, annual EE program expenditures were less than the available Public Benefit funds and leftover EE funds have been tracked in a reserve account. Since 2009, annual EE targets have been steadily growing, and program EE expenditures have also been increasing. Funds in the EE reserve have been drawn to supplement Public Benefit funds in the past four years and are almost exhausted. To meet the proposed electric EE goals, staff estimates that the annual EE budget will grow from around $3 million in FY 2014 to almost $5 million in FY 2023. Public Benefit funds for EE programs, which are based on a fixed percentage of electric revenue, are expected to be around $2 million in FY 2014. Supply funds will be used to supplement Public Benefit funds. The use of Electric Supply Reserve funds to supplement EE programs is in line with the Council- adopted Long-Term Electric Acquisition Plan as well as state law, which designates energy efficiency as the highest priority electric resource. Figure 9 shows the actual electric EE program expenditures for FY 2008 through FY 2012 and the estimated annual program budget needed to achieve the proposed EE targets. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Figure 9: Actual and Projected Electric EE Progam Expenditures $- $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 $4.0 $4.5 $5.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Public Benefit $ for Electric EE Reserve/Supply $ for Electric EE Millions Actuals through 2012 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Retail Rate Impact of the Proposed Electric EE Goals and EE Budget EE programs impact retail rates in two ways. First, the use of supply funds to support EE programs increases the revenue requirements for the electric utility. Second, lower electric load means that fixed costs (capital and operating costs to run the electric utility) must be distributed over a lower electric sales volume, thereby increasing the average electric retail rate. Based on the proposed 2014 to 2023 electric EE goals and estimated annual budget, the retail electric rate in FY 2023 under the proposed ten-year goals is estimated to be 5% to 6% higher compared to a scenario with no EE programs (including those funded by Public Benefit funds). The retail rate impact from the additional supply funds to supplement the Public Benefit funds is around 2% by 2023. Customers who participate in electric EE programs will have lower electric bills due to reduced energy use; those who do not increase their equipment efficiency will have higher electric bills. Results of Alternative Electric EE Scenarios Staff examined several alternative scenarios using different portfolio strategies and electric avoided costs to test the sensitivity of the assumptions. The assumptions used in developing the base case scenario can be found in Appendix D. 1. Increase incentives: If customer incentives for electric EE projects are increased by 50%, the ten-year cumulative savings could increase by about 10%, from 4.8% to 5.2%. However, the annual EE program budget would increase by 25%, with an additional 1% rate increase. Given the small gain in EE savings and the disproportionately large increase in budget, staff feels that it is imprudent to increase the customer incentive level. 2. Only select cost-effective EE measures: In the base case, a screening criterion for individual EE measures is set at a minimum benefit-cost ratio of 0.75 (i.e. not all EE measures are cost-effective). While some measures such as residential wall and ceiling insulation, commercial kitchen equipment, assistance for low-income customers and emerging technology measures are not cost-effective, other measures, including LED recessed fixtures, are highly cost-effective. The overall EE portfolio remains cost- effective. If the screening criterion for non-low income EE measures is restricted to a minimum benefit-cost ratio of 1.0, the ten-year cumulative savings would decrease by 12%, from 4.8% to 4.2%. Staff recommends a portfolio-based cost effectiveness screening in order to capture additional EE savings. 3. Suspend residential rebate programs: As appliance standards and lighting standards continue to increase between 2013 and 2018, some policy makers have questioned the City of Palo Alto Page 14 merits of continuing residential rebate programs as more and more program participants may be free-riders (i.e. they would have undertaken the efficiency improvement anyway without the rebate). Under a scenario where residential rebates are suspended beginning 2018, the ten-year cumulative savings would drop from 4.8% to 3.7%. 4. Higher avoided cost: Since the 2010 Electric EE potential study, the price of renewable energy for the planning period from 2014 to 2020 has declined by an average of 25%. Under a high energy cost scenario, with the avoided electricity cost assumed to be 30% higher than the base case projections, the ten-year cumulative savings could increase from 4.8% to 8.2%. If the Codes and Standards savings are included in this high-price scenario, the ten-year cumulative savings could reach 10%. Close examination of model results show that there are a number of commercial measures that marginally fail the cost-effectiveness screen in 2014 under the base case avoided costs. Higher avoided costs allow these measures to pass the cost effectiveness screen. Appendix F lists the Top 20 electric efficiency measures in 2014 under the high avoided cost scenario. Note that four out of the top five measures in this list are missing in the base case Top 20 list (Appendix E.) Summary of Gas Efficiency Potential Results For modeling the gas EE potential, the base case assumes market projections of gas costs as of end of April 2012 and that 50% of the incremental cost of efficiency measures are covered by utility incentives. The technical, economic and market potential in 2014, 2018 and 2023 are shown in Figure 10. Gas market potential represents only 4.2% of the forecast load in 2023. This is due to the fact that gas EE measures such as insulating building envelopes and retrofitting boilers and furnaces are more expensive and have a longer payback than electric EE measures. Customers are more reluctant to make those investments. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Figure 10: Gas Efficiency Potential Savings Similar to the electric side, the gas EE potential is also impacted by Codes and Standards. Figure 11 below shows that in the absence of Codes and Standards, the gas market potential in 2023 would have been 4.8% of the load instead of 4.2%. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Figure 11: Impact of Codes and Standards on the Cumulative Gas EE Market Potential More than half the incremental market potential in 2014 is made up of residential behavioral savings, as shown in Figure 12. These behavioral activities, such as lowering the thermostat for space heating and doing laundry with cold water, are significant steps to achieving gas efficiency. Of the remaining gas market potential, approximately 40% is from residential retrofits such as attic/roof insulation, water heaters, space heating and clothes washers, while the remaining 60% is from commercial retrofits. Note the relatively small percentage of gas market potential attributed to residential water heating (1.5%). CPAU requires customer shows proof of permit and final inspection for water heater rebate. The fact that customers often bypass the permit process when replacing their water heaters limits the market potential of residential water heaters. A list of the top twenty gas efficiency measures in 2014 is provided in Appendix G. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Figure 12: Composition of Gas Market Potential in 2014 Proposed Gas Efficiency Goals Staff proposes new annual gas EE targets of 0.5% of forecast gas load beginning in FY 2014, increasing to 0.55% in FY 2016, 0.6% in FY 2020 and 0.65% in FY 2022. Again, these proposed goals appear to be less aggressive than the EE targets adopted in 2011 (see Figure 13). However, when the energy savings included in Codes and Standards upgrades are taken into account, the total EE savings exceed the 2010 EE targets. Figure 14 below shows the historic gas EE savings, current gas EE goals for FY 2012 and FY 2013, and the proposed 2014 to 2023 annual gas EE targets. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Figure 13: Comparison of 2010 Gas EE goals and Proposed Gas EE Goals Figure 14: Historic EE Savings and Proposed Annual Gas EE Goals On a cumulative basis, the total ten-year gas EE savings goal represents 2.8% of the gas load in 2023. If the gas EE savings from Codes and Standards are included, the cumulative EE savings in 2023 would be 3.4%. The annual savings do not add up to the cumulative savings since more than half the annual gas EE savings come from residential behavioral program(s) and these City of Palo Alto Page 19 savings are conservatively estimated to last only one year. The remaining gas savings also degrade over time as equipment burns out, similar to electric EE saving. Figure 15: Proposed 2014 to 2023 Cumulative Gas EE Goals Projected Gas EE program Costs During the past several years, the City has spent an average of 1% of the natural gas utility’s revenues as Public Benefit funding for gas efficiency programs, with additional funding for the solar water heating program coming from the natural gas supply budget. Gas EE funding in FY 2011 and FY 2012 was increased due to the addition of the Home Energy Report program. With the restructuring of the gas retail rate for residential and small to medium-sized commercial customers beginning in FY 2013, the projected gas revenue in FY 2013 is approximately 25% less than in FY 2012. Therefore, the proportion of funding for the gas EE budget from supply funds increased beginning in FY 2013. This phenomenon is shown in Figure 16 below. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Figure 16: Actual and Projected Gas EE Progam Expenditures $- $0.2 $0.4 $0.6 $0.8 $1.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Public Benefit $ for Gas EE Reserve/Supply $ for Gas EE Millions Actuals through 2012 To meet the proposed gas EE goals, staff estimates that the annual gas EE budget will grow from under $600,000 in 2014 to over $800,000 in 2023. Retail Rate Impact of the Proposed Gas EE Goals and EE Budget Based on the proposed ten-year gas EE goals and estimated annual budget, the retail gas rate in FY 2023 is estimated to be 4% higher compared to a scenario with no EE programs (including those funded by Public Benefit funds.) The retail rate impact from the additional supply funds to supplement the Public Benefit funds is between 1% and 2% by 2023. Results of Alternative Gas EE Scenarios Staff examined several scenarios to test how sensitive the gas EE potential is to changes in using different portfolio strategies and assumptions for gas avoided costs. These alternative scenarios are described below. 1. Increase incentives: If customer incentives for gas EE projects are increased by 50%, the ten-year cumulative savings could increase 15%, from 2.8% to 3.2% of the City’s gas usage in 2023. The corresponding increase in annual EE program budget would also increase by 15% to 20%. As part of ongoing program management, staff will continue to monitor customers’ adoption of gas efficiency measures and may increase the incentive level, as necessary. City of Palo Alto Page 21 2. Only select cost-effective EE measures: If the screening criterion for non-low income gas EE measures is restricted to a benefit-cost ratio of 1.0 (i.e. all gas EE measures must be cost-effective), the ten-year cumulative savings would decrease by 23%, from 2.8% to 2.2%. Under this scenario, measures that previously pass the minimum benefit-cost ratio of 0.75, such as ceiling/attic insulation and high efficiency gas water heaters, will not qualify for utility rebates. Staff recommends continuing a comprehensive customer rebate program while maintaining a gas EE portfolio that is cost-effective in its entirety, even if some of the individual measures are not cost-effective on their own. 3. Higher avoided cost: Similar to renewable energy prices, the price of natural gas for the planning period has declined by an average of 20% since the 2010 Gas EE potential study was completed. Under a high energy cost scenario, with the avoided gas cost assumed to be 25% higher than the base case projections, the ten-year cumulative savings could increase from 2.8% to 3.3%. If the Codes and Standards savings are included in this high-price scenario, the ten-year cumulative savings could reach 3.9%. Commission Review and Recommendations Staff presented the proposed ten-year electric and gas EE goals at the October 3, 2012 UAC meeting. Staff clarified that improvements to appliance codes and building standards at both the state and federal levels have reduced the amount of EE that can be counted from the City's programs. A commissioner asked for an explanation of why the total electric EE savings is shown as 5.7% by 2023, but the proposed cumulative goal is 4.8%. Staff explained that the 5.7% savings is the total cumulative savings as a result of EE programs since 2008, and the 4.8% represents new EE savings to be captured between 2014 and 2023. After discussion, the UAC voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend Council approval of the proposed 2014 to 2023 electric and gas efficiency goals. The draft excerpted notes from the UAC’s October 3, 2012 meeting are provided as Appendix I. Resource Impact Although this report contains preliminary estimates of the costs of achieving the proposed electric and gas EE goals, the detailed budget plan and staffing needs to meet the annual EE goals will be part of the annual City budgeting process. The Demand Side Management (DSM) budget is developed by Utilities staff and will be a part of the entire Utilities Department and City budget request. The annual budget will present the costs for both internally administered, as well as contractor supported, efficiency programs. At this time, any additional costs to deliver the program are expected to be for third party administration and not for additional internal staff. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Policy Implications Approval of this recommendation conforms to the Council-approved Long-Term Electric Acquisition Plan and Gas Utility Long-term Plan Guidelines, which call for funding programs that maximize the deployment of cost-effective, reliable and feasible energy efficiency as the highest priority resource. The proposed electric and gas efficiency goals will also help achieve the Council-approved greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets by 2020. Environmental Review Approval of this recommendation does not meet the definition of a project, pursuant to section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Thus, no environmental review is required. Attachments:  Appendix A: Overview of Current Energy Efficiency Portfolio (PDF)  Appendix B: Cost-Effectiveness Tests for Energy Efficiency Programs (PDF)  Appendix C: Electric and Gas Efficiency Potentials from the 2010 EE Potential Studies (PDF)  Appendix D: Electric Efficiency Potential Base Case Assumptions (PDF)  Appendix E: Top 20 Electric Efficiency Measures in 2014 under base case avoided costs (PDF)  Appendix F: Top 20 Electric Efficiency Measures in 2014 under high avoided costs (PDF)  Appendix G: Top 20 Gas Efficiency Measures in 2014 (PDF)  Appendix H: Distribution of Residential Electric and Gas Consumption by End Use (PDF)  Appendix I: Excerpt of Draft Minutes from October 3, 2012 UAC Meeting (PDF) APPENDIX A: OVERVIEW OF CURRENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY PORTFOLIO The DSM portfolio is delivered by a mixture of in-house and third party administrators. The third party contracts are mostly three-year contracts obtained through Requests for Proposals (RFPs). In the RFPs, staff typically requests a wide variety of programs, including new and innovative designs and approaches, to assist in meeting the EE goals approved by Council within the authorized budget. Staff reviews the proposals and recommends a variety of cost-effective programs for Council to approve. The overall goal is to deliver a wide-ranging, cost-effective portfolio to all customer groups in Palo Alto. Updating the programs in the portfolio every three years helps to keep programs fresh and focus on cost-effective, but new technologies while allowing customers and contractors the stability of knowing what programs will exist in the near term. The City currently contracts with 23 third-party vendors for the administration and delivery of efficiency and conservation programs in electric, natural gas and water areas. The majority of these current contracts will end in June 2014, so an RFP will go out in early 2014 to replace, modify and continue to deliver the majority of the programs in the portfolio. A few third party contracts have separate time schedules, and these programs follow a different schedule. The contract with OPower, for example, for the delivery of Home Energy Reports will end in June 2013. The contract with the California Center for Sustainable Energy for the administration of the Solar Water Heating program ends in December 2013. Staff plans to issue a Request for Proposal in Spring 2013 to continue to pursue the residential customer behavioral savings found in this potential study, as well as to continue to the solar water heating program. Page B-1 APPENDIX B: COST-EFFECTIVENESS TESTS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS The primary aim of cost-effective energy efficiency programs is to reduce utility cost and hence customer bills while improving the environment. Cost-effectiveness can be measured in many ways. The four perspectives most commonly used in efficiency program cost-effectiveness testing are: 1. Participant: An energy efficiency measure that provides net savings to a customer is cost-effective for them as a “participant.” If a customer’s initial investment, after accounting for utility rebates and tax incentives, can be recouped with lower operating cost over the life of the measure, the measure is considered cost-effective from a participant’s perspective. 2. Utility: A measure that lowers overall cost for the utility is cost-effective for the utility (also referred to as “Program Administrator”). For CPAU, this could also be considered the “all ratepayers test” or “average utility bill test,” as it reflects the change in the utility bill to the average customer. To be cost-effective from the utility perspective, the cost of the program (administrative and rebate costs) must be less than the savings from not purchasing the energy supply. 3. Total Resource: If the combination of the utility and all customers together save money, it is cost-effective from a “Total Resource Cost (TRC)” or societal viewpoint. This is the cost-effectiveness criteria that is required by the CEC and is used in CPAU reporting. 4. Non-Participant: Even if the bill for the average customer shrinks significantly, retail rates could increase slightly, so that customers who do not reduce consumption could see a slight increase in rates and therefore bills. This effect is due to the portion of retail revenue that must be collected to pay for fixed costs. For this reason it is important to design diverse programs to be widely available in order to facilitate efficiency implementation in as broad a manner as possible. The Non-Participant perspective is also called the Rate Impact perspective. The Total Resource Cost reflects the financial perspective of the Palo Alto community as a whole. The Utility Cost, Participant and Rate Impact perspectives should also be considered to ensure lower average bills and sufficient incentives to achieve participation The costs and benefits that are used to calculate the benefit-cost ratios for each of these different perspectives are illustrated below: Page B-2 Table B1: Cost-Effectiveness Perspectives and Associated Costs and Benefits Cost Effectiveness Test Costs Benefits Participant Cost Test (PCT) Does the participant save money? Measure Cost Incentive to customer Bill Savings Tax Savings Utility Cost Test (UCT) – Average Bill Are utility revenue requirements lowered? Incentive to customer Program Delivery Cost Avoided Supply Costs Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) Sum of Participant + Non-participant Are total community expenditures lowered? Measure Cost Program Delivery Cost Avoided Supply Costs Tax Savings Rate Impact Measure (RIM) Also known as non-participant test Are utility rates lowered? Incentives to customer Lost Revenues (=Bill Savings) Program Delivery Cost Avoided Supply Costs For the Gas EE potential analysis, the avoided gas supply cost includes a carbon adder based on the City’s Climate Protection Plan ($20/tonne in 2007 increasing by 5% per year). The Electric EE potential analysis assumes the cost of renewable energy as the avoided supply cost. APPENDIX C: ELECTRIC AND GAS EFFICIENCY POTENTIALS FROM THE 2010 EE POTENTIAL STUDIES The 2010 EE potential study estimated the technical, economic and market potential for electric efficiency to be 27%, 26% and 7%, respectively, of the City’s electric load in the year 2020. For gas efficiency potential, this was estimated to be 45%, 34% and 5.5% of the City’s gas load in 2020. The EE targets adopted in 2010 (for electricity) and 2011 (for gas) were based on the estimated market potential for each measure. The 2010 EE potential study results are summarized in the figures below. Electric Efficiency Potential Summary - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 Technical Economic Market in year 2020 27%26% 7% Percentages show EE potential relative to load forecast in 2020. MWh Gas Efficiency Potential Summary 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Technical Economic Market Mi l l i o n T h e r m s Residential Sector Commercial Sector Percentages show EE potential relative to load forecast in 2020. 45% 34% 5.5% APPENDIX D: EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions are used in the EE potential model for the base case scenario: Utility Electric Avoided Costs Avoided renewable supply costs, including avoided T&D losses and local capacity costs Utility Natural Gas Avoided Costs Forward gas price as of April 24, 2012, plus avoided local transportation costs and carbon cost in accordance with the City’s Climate Protection Plan Customer Incentives 50% of incremental costs of efficiency measures compared to standard measures Total Resource Cost (TRC) screen value for individual EE measure 0.75 (a TRC value of 1.0 or higher is considered cost-effective ) TRC screen value for emerging tech measures 0.50 Measure-level savings and cost Based on values in Database of Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER), which is maintained by the CPUC and is used for EE program planning and reporting by investor-owned utilities as well as publicly-owned utilities Free-ridership Free-riders are customers who would have purchased the energy efficient equipment without additional financial incentives and, therefore, the savings from these equipment purchases would have occurred without utility EE programs. Assumptions of free- ridership at the measure level are based on California statewide evaluation studies and are documented in Database of Energy Efficiency Results (DEER). Generally, mature, low-cost technologies tend to have higher free-ridership. The market potential, and, therefore, proposed EE goals, are net of free-ridership. APPENDIX E: TOP 20 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY MEASURES IN 2014 (Base Case Avoided Costs) The following table lists the top twenty electric efficiency measures in 2014 under the base case assumptions. The combined energy savings from these 20 measures represents around 70% of the total market potential. Home Energy Report tops the list, followed by delamping of 4-foot linear fluorescents in commercial buildings. High performance rooftop units are air- conditioning systems for commercial buildings and are projected to deliver savings of up to 50% of the energy use by conventional rooftop AC units. Fault Detection & Diagnostics are software tools that utilize sensors and controller hardware to automatically detect and diagnose deviations between actual and optimal HVAC system performance. Energy Management Systems (EMS) provides monitoring and analytics to building managers to optimize energy performance. Rank Top Twenty Measures - 2014 2014 - Energy Savings (MWh) Energy % of Total 1 SFE - Home Energy Report 1,118 20.6% 2 Com - Linear fluorescent delamping 4 ft 221 4.1% 3 Com - LED Exit sign 214 3.9% 4 Com - PS Exterior HID - Mercury Vapor Base 203 3.7% 5 Com - CFL Fixture Under 15W 188 3.5% 6 LI - Low Income 182 3.3% 7 Com - High bay fluorescent 180 3.3% 8 Com - High Performance Rooftop Unit 173 3.2% 9 Com - Fault Detection & Diagnostics 169 3.1% 10 Com - LED Lighting T8 - 4ft Equiv 155 2.9% 11 Ind - Occupancy_Sensor_4L4_Fluorescent_Fixtures 143 2.6% 12 Com - EMS 121 2.2% 13 SFE - Recycle refrigerator 102 1.9% 14 Com - Comprehensive Commercial HVAC Rooftop Unit Quality Maintenance 95 1.7% 15 Com - Linear fluorescent delamping 8 ft 94 1.7% 16 Com - Kitchen Vent Hoods 91 1.7% 17 SFE - HVAC Quality Maintenance 87 1.6% 18 Com - CFL Fixture 16 to 24W 80 1.5% 19 Ind - Pumps_Controls 70 1.3% 20 Ind - Pumps_System_Optimization 64 1.2% Top 20 Total 3,748 69.1% APPENDIX F: TOP 20 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY MEASURES IN 2014 (High Avoided Costs Scenario) The following table lists the top twenty electric efficiency measures in 2014 under a 20% higher avoided costs scenario. There are four commercial measures in this list that previously do not pass the TRC screen. The combined energy savings in 2014 from the top 20 measures under the High Avoided Cost scenario is 40% higher than that in the base case. Rank Top Twenty Measures - 2014 2014 - Energy Savings (MWh) Energy % of Total 1 SFE - Home Energy Report 1,118 14.5% 2 Com - Combination Oven 754 9.8% 3 Com - Advanced Generation T8 - 4ft 750 9.7% 4 Ind - Retrofit T12 to Premium T8-4foot-2lamp 308 4.0% 5 Com - Lighting Controls - Timeclock 211 2.7% 6 Com - Linear fluorescent delamping 4 ft 198 2.6% 7 Com - LED Exit sign 194 2.5% 8 Com - PS Exterior HID - Mercury Vapor Base 185 2.4% 9 LI - Low Income 182 2.4% 10 Com - High Performance Rooftop Unit 173 2.2% 11 Com - CFL Fixture Under 15W 169 2.2% 12 Com - Fault Detection & Diagnostics 163 2.1% 13 Com - High bay fluorescent 162 2.1% 14 Com - LED Lighting T8 - 4ft Equiv 155 2.0% 15 Ind - Occupancy_Sensor_4L4_Fluorescent_Fixtures 128 1.7% 16 Com - EMS 117 1.5% 17 SFE - Recycle refrigerator 102 1.3% 18 Com - Comprehensive Commercial HVAC Rooftop Unit Quality Maintenance 95 1.2% 19 Com - Kitchen Vent Hoods 91 1.2% 20 SFE - HVAC Quality Maintenance 87 1.1% Top 20 Total 5,343 69.3% APPENDIX G: TOP 20 GAS EFFICIENCY MEASURES IN 2014 (Base Case Avoided Costs) The following table lists the top twenty gas efficiency measures in 2014 under the base case assumptions. The combined energy savings from these 20 measures represents over 95% of the total market potential. The Home Energy Report tops the list, followed by residential low- income measures (this includes a combination of gas measures including shell insulation, weather-stripping, installation of programmable thermostat, etc.), ceiling and wall insulation for single family households, and Energy Management Systems (EMS) for commercial buildings. Home Energy Reports account for more than half of the gas market potential in 2014. The top 20 gas efficiency measures remain unchanged under the high avoided cost scenario. Rank Top Twenty Measures - 2014 2014 - Energy Savings (Therms) Energy % of Total 1 SFE - Home Energy Report 93,328 63.3% 2 LI - Low Income 7,436 5.0% 3 SFE - Insulation - Ceiling R30, Wall R13 6,857 4.6% 4 Com - EMS 6,708 4.5% 5 Com - Automatic Steam Trap Monitoring 5,569 3.8% 6 Com - Space Heating Boiler 95% Efficient 5,097 3.5% 7 MFE - High Efficiency Space heating boiler 3,312 2.2% 8 Ind - Steam_trap_maintenance 2,357 1.6% 9 Com - Pipe and Tank Insulation 1,670 1.1% 10 Ind - EMS_install 1,499 1.0% 11 Com - Advanced Ozone Laundry Systems 1,479 1.0% 12 SFE - ES Clothes Washer - GW&ED 1,448 1.0% 13 Com - Retrocommissioning 1,411 1.0% 14 Com - HE Griddle 1,168 0.8% 15 Ind - Maintain_boilers 926 0.6% 16 Com - Space Heating Boiler 85% Efficient 817 0.6% 17 SFE - Duct sealing and insul 801 0.5% 18 Ind - Automatic_steam_trap_monitoring 644 0.4% 19 MFE - Insulation - Ceiling R30, Wall R13 566 0.4% 20 SFE - Low Flow Showerhead 527 0.4% Top 20 Total 143,622 97.38% Page H-1 APPENDIX H: Distribution of Residential Electric and Gas Consumption by End Use The following charts show the distribution of residential electric and gas consumption by end use based on the findings from the 2010 Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) administered by the California Energy Commission. Compared to the results of the 2003 RASS, average household electric consumption increased by 6%, whereas average household gas consumption decreased by 18%. The proportion of electric consumption from TV, PC and office equipment went up from 15% to 20%. The proportion of gas consumption from space heating went down from 44% to 37%. Lighting, 22% Refrigerators asnd Freezers, 20%TV, PC, and Office Equipment, 20% Air Conditioning, 7% Pools and Spas, 7% Dishwasher and Cooking, 4% Laundry, 4% Space Heating, 2% Water Heating , 3% Miscellaneous, 11% % of Residential Electric Consumption by End Use (6,296 kWh per Household) Source: 2010 RASS Page H-2 Water Heating , 49% Space Heating, 37% Cooking, 7% Pools, Spas, Misc, 4% Dryer, 3% % of Residential Gas Consumption by End Use (354 therms per Household) Source: 2010 RASS Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 1 of 3 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 2012 EXCERPT ITEM 2: ACTION: UAC Recommendation that Council Approve the Update on the City of Palo Alto’s Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Goals (2014 to 2023) Utility Marketing Services Manager Joyce Kinnear and Resource Planner Christine Tam provided a summary of the written report. Kinnear emphasized that the impact of improvements to building codes and appliance standards has reduced the amount of energy efficiency (EE) that can be counted from the City's programs. Tam explained that the model that was used to calculate the EE potential included the impacts of improvement to codes and standards and emerging technologies. EE savings from both the City’s programs as well codes & standards upgrades are both taken into account for supply resource planning. Kinnear explained that the measures that comprise the market potential change from 2014 to 2023. For example, commercial lighting improvements account for a significant part of the potential in 2014, but the potential is much smaller in 2023. Tam explained that the funding for EE programs comes from Public Benefits funds as well as supply funds. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine how changing assumptions would change the amount of market potential. For example, if the avoided cost increased by 25%, the EE potential would increase by 70% for electric and 18% for gas as more measures would be cost-effective. DRAFT Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 2 of 3 Kinnear explained the impacts of the changes to the codes and standards. In general, the baseline is changing to more efficient devices so that the savings that can be counted is reduced. Commissioner Hall asked why the total savings for electric is 5.7% by 2023 (as shown in Figure 3 in the report), but the cumulative goal for 2023 is 4.8%. Tam replied that the 5.7% savings include EE savings that have already been captured by 2013 and the 4.8% is for new savings during the 10-year period from 2014 to 2023 only. Commissioner Hall asked why there is such a severe decay each year in the savings. Tam stated that the lifetimes of each measure vary over different periods of time and the replacement units may be standard requirements at the time of replacement. Kinnear added that some of the measures, such as the Home Energy Reports, have a one year expected life frequency. Other items, such as chillers, can have a much longer lifespan. Commissioner Waldfogel asked what the cost of saved energy is compared to the cost of brown power since what we avoid buying is brown power. Tam said that the cost of saved energy is compared to renewable power, as energy efficiency is considered to be the first resource in the Loading Order. She pointed out that Palo Alto used renewable energy in the avoided cost analysis in the last goal setting process, and that this is a part of Palo Alto’s support of energy efficiency. Commissioner Eglash stated that we should increase the investment in EE. This is an ambitious program, but we should try to do more such as lowering the barriers to EE and offer more innovative programs. He said that we will need to do more innovative programs to meet the goals and will need to increase the budget for EE programs. He would like to see the impact of increasing budgets for EE. Kinnear stated that Palo Alto is a member of many nationwide groups and is recognized across the country as a leader and innovator. However, she stated that many of the new programs may not provide a large amount of savings and there are administrative costs to administer each program. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 3 of 3 ACTION: Commissioner Eglash made a motion to support staff's recommendation. Vice Chair Foster seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). FINANCE COMMITTEE DRAFT EXCERPT Page 1 of 3 Special Meeting November 14, 2012 Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation to Approve Updated Ten- Year Electric and Gas Energy Efficiency Goals for 2014 to 2023. Joyce Kinnear, Manager Utilities Marketing Services discussed the major difference in electric energy with regard to codes and standards. She said incandescent and halogen light would be phased out and the baseline would be either compact fluorescent or a linear light. The codes and standards required that Staff be more efficient, so the ability for utility programs to make changes was reduced. The total efficiency for supply from programs and purchases remained the same. The map of utility programs influenced new technologies. Chair Shepherd said the big change was with regulations, as there was not a chance to buy anything anymore. For example, people were naturally changing their water heaters when they went out. Vice Mayor Scharff remarked that the Staff report was laid out from low to high efficiency. Secondarily, the State continued to make more regulations on efficiency, making it more difficult to reach later goals. Ms. Kinnear said State and Federal laws had already passed so that a company could continue to add programs and become more efficient. Additionally, there were a lot of businesses out there to choose from. Christine Tam, Resource Planner said one thing Staff considered was emerging technology because over time technologies became cheaper as uptake increased. As the program continued Staff projected a lot of the emerging technologies were going to be more widely adopted, making the cost cheaper; Staff has considered this projected cost decrease. James Keene, City Manager asked if demographics, in relation to energy efficiency, played a role in relation to technology. DRAFT EXCERPT Page 2 of 3 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 Ms. Kinnear said efficiency measures and sustainability were more likely to be adopted by women. Chair Shepherd said in the event that Palo Alto became engaged in the Cool City Challenge, the thinking in the next 10 years might change because the effort was to reduce the carbon foot print. Council Member Burt asked if the escalation of improvements in efficiency was driven by layering in mandates, or if it was based on anticipation of technology advancement, or both. Ms. Kinnear said it included codes and standards, as well as emerging technologies. She said the estimation became less effective when the programs were not technically possible or not cost effective. Council Member Burt asked if this was the same projection given a year ago. Ms. Kinnear said the percentage per year went down. The utility goal went down, cumulatively, 7.2 percent over 10 years. The total estimated over 10 years was 4.8 percent, the codes and standards were considered about 2.3 percent in change and efficiency. Council Member Burt asked if Staff was counting codes and standards. Ms. Kinnear said Staff cannot count codes and standards. Council Member Burt suggested showing what the overall energy efficiency improvement was because the Climate Protection Plan did not differentiate between the impact of codes and standards verses Palo Alto’s initiatives. He suggested Staff consider the way the information was framed to consider issues like future policy changes. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Staff counted Palo Alto’s standards that were higher than mandated by the State. Ms. Kinnear said, with the new construction program they counted all installations higher than State standard. Council Member Price asked what Staff based their assumptions off of because for later years the projections became weaker. Ms. Kinnear said a few assumptions were saturation of equipment of appliances, when they expected to be replaced. Staff looked at the DRAFT EXCERPT Page 3 of 3 Finance Committee Special Meeting Draft Excerpt 11/14/12 continuing reduction in price based off of reduction in price for emerging technologies and their saturation levels. Council Member Price inquired whether Staff considered the demographic factor and move-out cycles. Ms. Kinnear said yes. As an example, she said young families entering neighborhoods seemed to be part of the natural course of things. MOTION: Chair Shepherd Moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to recommend the City Council approve the proposed annual and cumulative Electric and Gas Energy Efficiency Goals for the period 2014 to 2023. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3293) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of a Contract for 2013 Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repairs Title: Approval of a Contract with Rosas Brothers Construction in the Amount of $1,022,066 for the 2013 Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repairs Project From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Rosas Brothers Construction (Attachment A) in the amount of $1,022,066 for the FY 2013 Sidewalk, Curb,and Gutter Repairs Project –Capital Improvement Program; Sidewalk Repairs Project PO- 89003, and Curb & Gutter Repairs Project PO-12001; and 2.Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Rosas Brothers Construction for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $102,000. Discussion Project Description The work to be performed under this contract is for sidewalk, curb, gutter, and asphalt pavement repairs; and Portland cement concrete and asphalt recycling. The sidewalk, curb, and gutter repair locations are shown on the attached City of Palo Alto Page 2 Location Maps and Location Lists (Attachment B). The two separate capital projects have been combined for administrative efficiency and as an attempt to get lower bid prices for a larger quantity of concrete work. The curb and gutter project represents approximately $339,000 of the total proposed contract award amount. The ongoing sidewalk portion of this contract will address sidewalk deficiencies in Sidewalk Replacement Districts 14 and 15 that encompass portions of the Greenmeadow, Fairmeadow, and Palo Verde neighborhoods. Each year this project addresses one or two of the 23 Sidewalk Replacement Districts. The current cycle traversing the City (District by District) started in 1986. At the end of this proposed contract, six Sidewalk Replacement Districts will remain to be addressed by the ongoing program. The curb and gutter portion of the project includes repairs of more than eighty curb and gutter locations throughout the City that have been lifted by tree roots and experience ponding problems. These curb and gutter locations are selected from a list of complaints received by Public Works. This project concentrates on curb and gutter repair requests that are not fixed by other projects such as the annual street maintenance overlay project. The Curb and Gutter Repair Project began in 2012 and is an ongoing project. The first four years of this new project include a higher level of funding to address the initial backlog of 290 locations. At the end of this second year of the project, approximately half of the original backlog locations will have been fixed. Work near schools will be done during the school spring and summer breaks. The schools affected are Hoover Elementary School, Fairmeadow Elementary School, Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) Middle School and Chandler School. The project also includes sidewalk repairs in intensive-use areas such as the University Avenue downtown area. Work in downtown and other intensive use areas will be stopped during lunch hours to minimize the inconvenience to restaurants, merchants and the public. For all work, the Contractor is required to provide City-furnished door hanger notices to adjacent residences and businesses at least 72 hours before the start of work. Staff will also use other outreach methods such as rBlock and the City’s website. In addition, staff will interface with the Palo City of Palo Alto Page 3 Alto Downtown Business and Professional Association, neighborhood associations, and other organizations and businesses as appropriate. This contract also includes the construction of forty-four curb ramps with detectable warning surface in compliance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ramps will include street names stamped on the curb ramp and a standardized detectable warning surface feature to warn visually impaired people of potential hazards in their path of travel.Detectable warning surfaces used in this project will consist of a surface of truncated domes aligned in a square grid pattern. The truncated domes are yellow in color at yellow crosswalks and dark grey in color at all other locations,and are in compliance with Federal Highway Administration requirements enforcing the use of truncated domes on Federal, State and local level projects.The truncated domes are also in accordance with the 2007 Public Works Standard Drawings and Specifications. Where dark grey panels do not provide the required contrast ratio, yellow panels will be used. Bid Process On October 31, 2012, a notice inviting formal bids for the FY 2013 Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repairs Project was posted at City Hall, and sent to ten builder’s exchanges and six contractors. The bidding period was twenty-one days. Bids were received from six qualified contractors on November 20,2012 as listed on the attached Bid Summary (Attachment C). Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number FY2013 Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Repairs / IFB 148043 Proposed Length of Project 300 calendar days Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 6 Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 10 Total Days to Respond to Bid 21 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Pre-Bid Meeting?No Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting N/A Number of Bids Received:6 Basis of Award Bid Range From a low of $874,247 to a high of $1,599,847 Bids ranged from a high of $1,599,847 to a low bid of $874,247. The low bid is 9% below the engineer’s estimate of $965,770. Staff has reviewed all bids and recommends that the bid submitted by Rosas Brothers Construction be accepted and that Rosas Brothers Construction be declared the lowest responsible bidder. Funding is available to award all four Add Alternates, therefore staff is recommending including these in the contract for a total amount of $1,022,066. Per the instructions on the Invitation for Bid (IFB), the Add Alternates were not considered in the basis for award. This was also made clear to the bidders on the actual bid form. The change order amount of $102,000, which equals ten percent of the total contract, is requested for related, additional but unforeseen work which may develop during the project. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed and found no significant complaints. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board and found that the contractor has an active license on file and has no outstanding complaints. Project Coordination The work included in this contract was coordinated with other capital projects at the monthly Utilities/Public Works department street work coordination meetings and by use of the GIS project coordination program. The purpose of the monthly street work coordination meeting is to coordinate the installation, replacement, and repairs of the City’s subsurface infrastructure (utilities)and street and sidewalk improvements with the annual street maintenance plan. The FY 2013 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Repairs Project has no conflicts with the other upcoming Public Works and Utilities projects. Resource Impact Funds for this project are included in the FY 2013 Capital Improvement Programs; Sidewalk Repairs Project PO-89003, and Curb & Gutter Repairs Project PO-12001. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301c of the CEQA guidelines as repair, maintenance and/or minor alteration of the existing facilities and no further environmental review is necessary. Attachments: ·A -Construction Contract (DOC) ·B -Maps and Street List (PDF) ·C -Bid Summaries (PDF) Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C131480043 City of Palo Alto and ROSAS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 2013 SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER REPAIR Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS……………………………….....................5 1.1 Recitals...............................................................................................................5 1.2 Definitions..........................................................................................................5 SECTION 2.THE PROJECT……………………………………………………………………………….............................5 SECTION 3.THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………….........................5 3.1 List of Documents …………………………………………………………………………………………......5 3.2 Order of Precedence ……………………………………………………………………………...............6 SECTION 4.THE WORK ………………………………………………………………………………….............................7 SECTION 5.PROJECT TEAM …………………………………………………………………………..............................7 SECTION 6.TIME OF COMPLETION …………………………………………………………………...........................7 6.1 Time Is of Essence.......................................................................................………7 6.2 Commencement of Work ....................................................................................7 6.3 Contract Time .....................................................................................................7 6.4 Liquidated Damages ...........................................................................................7 6.4.1 Entitlement……………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 6.4.2 Daily Amount…………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 6.4.4 Other Remedies…………………………………………………………………………………... 8 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time .........................................................................…8 SECTION 7. COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR………………………………………………………………………... 8 7.1 Contract Sum ………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 7.2 Full Compensation …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work …………………………………………………………….9 7.3.1 Self Performed Work…………………………………………………………………………………9 7.3.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………….9 SECTION 8. STANDARD OF CARE.................................................................................................9 SECTION 9. INDEMNIFICATION ...................................................................................................10 9.1 Hold Harmless……………………………………………………………………………………………………..10 9.2 Survival……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 SECTION 10. NONDISCRIMINATION............................................................................................10 SECTION 11. INSURANCE AND BONDS ........................................................................................10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS ........................................................................11 SECTION 13.NOTICES.................................................................................................................11 13.1 Method of Notice ………………………………………………………………………………………………..11 13.2 Notice Recipients................................................................................................11 13.3 Change of Address ..............................................................................................12 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes..........................................................................12 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes ..............................................................................12 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes ……………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election ……………………………………………………...........................13 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute …………………………………………………………………………..13 14.3.1 By Contractor …………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 14.3.2 By City ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process..............................................................……13 14.4.1 Direct Negotiation…………………………………………………………………………………….13 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes ………………………………………………………………… 14 14.4.3 Mediation ………………………………………………………………………………………………….14 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration ……………………………………………………………………………………15 14.5 Non-Waiver …………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 SECTION 15.DEFAULT ................................................................................................................16 15.1 Notice of Default ................................................................................................16 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default ...............................................................................16 SECTION 16.CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ................................................................................16 16.1 Remedies Upon Default......................................................................................16 16.1.1 Delete Certain Servic………………………………………………………...........................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 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 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 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage …………………………………………………………………………………..19 17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment …………………………………………………………………………… 19 17.2 Damages to Contractor .......................................................................................19 SECTION 18. ACCOUNTING RECORDS..........................................................................................19 18.1 Financial Management and City Access .........................................................…….19 18.2 Compliance with City Requests .......................................................................….20 SECTION 19. INDEPENDENT PARTIES ..........................................................................................20 SECTION 20.NUISANCE ..............................................................................................................20 SECTION 21.PERMITS AND LICENSES..........................................................................................20 SECTION 22.WAIVER .................................................................................................................20 SECTION 23.GOVERNING LAW ...................................................................................................20 SECTION 24. COMPLETE AGREEMENT .........................................................................................21 SECTION 25.SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT........................................................................................21 SECTION 26.PREVAILING WAGES ...............................................................................................21 SECTION 27.NON APPROPRIATION ............................................................................................21 SECTION 28.GOVERNMENTAL POWERS .....................................................................................21 SECTION 29.ATTORNEY FEES......................................................................................................21 SECTION 30. COUNTERPARTS .....................................................................................................22 SECTION 31. SEVERABILITY.........................................................................................................22 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and ROSAS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A.City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B.Contractor is a Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 848835. 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 10/31/2012, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the 2013 Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Repair (“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 2013 Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Repair ("Project"). SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1)Change Orders 2)Field Change Orders Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 3)Contract 4)Project Plans and Drawings 5)Technical Specifications 6)Special Provisions 7) Notice Inviting Bids 8) Instructions to Bidders 9) General Conditions 10)Bidding Addenda 11)Invitation for Bids 12)Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit 13) Reports listed in the Bidding Documents 14) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications dated 2007 and updated from time to time 15)Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards dated 2005 and updated from time to time 16) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 17) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 18)Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 19)Performance and Payment Bonds 20)Insurance Forms 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 THE WORK. The Work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, fees, licenses and taxes, and all other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without limitation, any Changes approved by City, in accordance with the Contract Documents and all Applicable Code Requirements. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Project requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed not later than . within three hundred calendar days (300) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. 6.4.1 Entitlement. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will suffer, as a result of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to: (i)Loss of public confidence in City and its contractors and consultants. (ii)Loss of public use of public facilities. (iii)Extended disruption to public. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 6.4.2 Daily Amount. City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual damage that City will incur if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all other damages to which City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of $500 per day for each Day occurring after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the entire Work. The liquidated damages amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. 6.4.3 Exclusive Remedy. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this liquidated damages provision shall be City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.4.4 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and agreed to by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of One Million Twenty-Two Thousand Sixty-Six Dollars ($1,022,066.00). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Add Alternates 1 through 4 that added $147,819.00 to the base bid.] / / / / Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 7.3 Compensation for Extra or Deleted Work. The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (either by addition or credit) for Changes in the Work involving Extra Work or Deleted Work based on one or more of the following methods to be selected by City: 1.Unit prices stated in the Contract Documents or agreed upon by City and Contractor, which unit prices shall be deemed to include Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups permitted by this Section. 2.A lump sum agreed upon by City and Contractor, based on the estimated Allowable Costs and Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markup computed in accordance with this Section. 3.Contractor’s Allowable Costs, plus Contractor Markup and Subcontractor Markups applicable to such Extra Work computed in accordance with this Section. Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups set forth herein are the full amount of compensation to be added for Extra Work or to be subtracted for Deleted Work that is attributable to overhead (direct and indirect) and profit of Contractor and of its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors, of every Tier. When using this payment methodology, Contractor Markup and Subcontractor/Sub-subcontractor Markups, which shall not be compounded, shall be computed as follows: 7.3.1 Markup Self-Performed Work. 10% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by Contractor with its own forces. 7.3.2 Markup for Work Performed by Subcontractors. 15% of the Allowable Costs for that portion of the Extra Work or Deleted Work to be performed by a first Tier Subcontractor. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City,its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and all Losses arising directly or indirectly from, or in any manner relating to any of, the following: (i)Performance or nonperformance of the Work by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors, of any tier; (ii)Performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of any of the obligations under the Contract Documents; (iii)The construction activities of Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors, of any tier, either on the Site or on other properties; (iv)The payment or nonpayment by Contractor to any of its employees, Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors of any tier, for Work performed on or off the Site for the Project; and (v)Any personal injury, property damage or economic loss to third persons associated with the performance or nonperformance by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub- subcontractors of any tier, of the Work. However, nothing herein shall obligate Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for Losses resulting from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. On or before the Execution Date, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Failure to do so shall be deemed a material breach of this Construction Contract. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. City is entering into this Construction Contract based upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i)On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii)On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii)On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv)On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v)On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City:City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to:City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Matt Raschke Or Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: Rosas Brothers Construction 4731 Coliseum Way, Po Box 7862 Oakland, Ca 94601 510-534-5077 13.3 Change of Address. In the event of any change of address, the moving party shall notify the other party of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 14.1 Resolution of Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall be resolved by the parties in accordance with the provisions of this Section 14, in lieu of any and all rights under the law that either party have its rights adjudged by a trial court or jury. All Contract Disputes shall be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process set forth in this Section 14, which shall be the exclusive recourse of Contractor and City for such Contract Disputes. 14.2 Resolution of Other Disputes. 14.2.1 Non-Contract Disputes. Contract Disputes shall not include any of the following: (i)Penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation imposed by a governmental agency; (ii)Third party tort claims for personal injury, property damage or death relating to any Work performed by Contractor or its Subcontractors or Sub-subcontractors of any tier; (iii)False claims liability under California Government Code Section 12650, et. seq.; (iv)Defects in the Work first discovered by City after Final Payment by City to Contractor; (v)Stop notices; or (vi)The right of City to specific performance or injunctive relief to compel performance of any provision of the Contract Documents. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 14.2.2 Litigation, City Election. Matters that do not constitute Contract Disputes shall be resolved by way of an action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, and shall not be subject to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process. However, the City reserves the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to treat such disputes as Contract Disputes. Upon written notice by City of its election as provided in the preceding sentence, such dispute shall be submitted by the parties and finally decided pursuant to the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the manner as required for Contract Disputes, including, without limitation, City’s right under Paragraph 14.4.2 to defer resolution and final determination until after Final Completion of the Work. 14.3 Submission of Contract Dispute. 14.3.1 By Contractor. Contractors may commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process upon City's written response denying all or part of a Claim pursuant to Paragraph 4.2.9 or 4.2.10 of the General Conditions. Contractor shall submit a written Statement of Contract Dispute (as set forth below) to City within seven (7) Days after City rejects all or a portion of Contractor's Claim. Failure by Contractor to submit its Statement of Contract Dispute in a timely manner shall result in City’s decision by City on the Claim becoming final and binding. Contractor’s Statement of Contract Dispute shall be signed under penalty of perjury and shall state with specificity the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the asserted effect on the Contract Sum and the Contract Time. The Statement of Contract Dispute shall include adequate supporting data to substantiate the disputed Claim. Adequate supporting data for a Contract Dispute relating to an adjustment of the Contract Time shall include both of the following: (i)All of the scheduling data required to be submitted by Contractor under the Contract Documents to obtain extensions of time and adjustments to the Contract Time and (ii)A detailed, event-by-event description of the impact of each event on completion of Work. Adequate data to support a Statement of Contract Dispute involving an adjustment of the Contract Sum must include both of the following: (a)A detailed cost breakdown and (b)Supporting cost data in such form and including such information and other supporting data as required under the Contract Documents for submission of Change Order Requests and Claims. 14.3.2 By City. City's right to commence the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall arise at any time following City's actual discovery of the circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute. City asserts Contract Disputes in response to a Contract Dispute asserted by Contractor. A Statement of Contract Dispute submitted by City shall state the events or circumstances giving rise to the Contract Dispute, the dates of their occurrence and the damages or other relief claimed by City as a result of such events. 14.4 Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties shall utilize each of the following steps in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process in the sequence they appear below. Each party shall participate fully and in good faith in each step in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process, and good faith effort shall be a condition precedent to the right of each party to proceed to the next step in the process. 14.4.1 Direct Negotiations. Designated representatives of City and Contractor shall meet as soon as possible (but not later than ten (10) Days after receipt of the Statement of Contract Dispute) in a good Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT faith effort to negotiate a resolution to the Contract Dispute. Each party shall be represented in such negotiations by an authorized representative with full knowledge of the details of the Claims or defenses being asserted by such party in the negotiations, and with full authority to resolve such Contract Dispute then and there, subject only to City’s obligation to obtain administrative and/or City Council approval of any agreed settlement or resolution. If the Contract Dispute involves the assertion of a right or claim by a Subcontractor or Sub-subcontractor, of any tier, against Contractor that is in turn being asserted by Contractor against City (“Pass-Through Claim”), then the Subcontractor or Sub-Subcontractor shall also have a representative attend the negotiations, with the same authority and knowledge as described above. Upon completion of the meeting, if the Contract Dispute is not resolved, the parties may either continue the negotiations or any party may declare negotiations ended. All discussions that occur during such negotiations and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of such negotiations shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. 14.4.2 Deferral of Contract Disputes. Following the completion of the negotiations required by Paragraph 14.4.1, all unresolved Contract Disputes shall be deferred pending Final Completion of the Project, subject to City’s right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to require that the Contract Dispute Resolution Process proceed prior to Final Completion. All Contract Disputes that have been deferred until Final Completion shall be consolidated within a reasonable time after Final Completion and thereafter pursued to resolution pursuant to this Contract Dispute Resolution Process. The parties can continue informal negotiations of Contract Disputes; provided, however, that such informal negotiations shall not be alter the provisions of the Agreement deferring final determination and resolution of unresolved Contract Disputes until after Final Completion. 14.4.3 Mediation. If the Contract Dispute remains unresolved after negotiations pursuant to Paragraph 14.4.1, the parties shall submit the Contract Dispute to non-binding mediation before a mutually acceptable third party mediator. .1 Qualifications of Mediator. The parties shall endeavor to select a mediator who is a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in mediating public works construction disputes. In addition, the mediator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in mediation skills. .2 Submission to Mediation and Selection of Mediator. The party initiating mediation of a Contract Dispute shall provide written notice to the other party of its decision to mediate. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within fifteen (15) Days after the receipt of such written notice, then the parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) at its San Francisco Regional Office for selection of a mediator in accordance with the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules. .3 Mediation Process. The location of the mediation shall be at the offices of City. The costs of mediation shall be shared equally by both parties. The mediator shall provide an independent assessment on the merits of the Contract Dispute and recommendations for resolution. All discussions that occur during the mediation and all documents prepared solely for the purpose of the mediation shall be confidential and privileged pursuant to California Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1152. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 14.4.4 Binding Arbitration. If the Contract Dispute is not resolved by mediation, then any party may submit the Contract Dispute for final and binding arbitration pursuant to the provisions of California Public Contract Code Sections 10240, et seq. The award of the arbitrator therein shall be final and may be entered as a judgment by any court of competent jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following: .1 Arbitration Initiation. The arbitration shall be initiated by filing a complaint in arbitration in accordance with the regulations promulgated pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 10240.5. .2 Qualifications of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be approved by all parties. The arbitrator shall be a retired judge or an attorney with at least five (5) years of experience in public works construction contract law and in arbitrating public works construction disputes. In addition, the arbitrator shall have at least twenty (20) hours of formal training in arbitration skills. In the event the parties cannot agree upon an arbitrator, the provisions of California Public Contract Code Section 10240.3 shall be followed in selecting an arbitrator possessing the qualifications required herein. .3 Hearing Days and Location. Arbitration hearings shall be held at the offices of City and shall, except for good cause shown to and determined by the arbitrator, be conducted on consecutive business days, without interruption or continuance. .4 Hearing Delays. Arbitration hearings shall not be delayed except upon good cause shown. .5 Recording Hearings. All hearings to receive evidence shall be recorded by a certified stenographic reporter, with the costs thereof borne equally by City and Contractor and allocated by the arbitrator in the final award. .6 Limitation of Depositions. The parties may conduct discovery in accordance with the provisions of section 10240.11 of the Public Contract Code; provided, however, that depositions shall be limited to both of the following: (i)Ten (10) percipient witnesses for each party and 5 expert witnesses per party. Upon a showing of good cause, the arbitrator may increase the number of permitted depositions. An individual who is both percipient and expert shall, for purposes of applying the foregoing numerical limitation only, be deemed an expert. Expert reports shall be exchanged prior to receipt of evidence, in accordance with the direction of the arbitrator, and expert reports (including initial and rebuttal reports) not so submitted shall not be admissible as evidence. .7 Authority of the Arbitrator. The arbitrator shall have the authority to hear dispositive motions and issue interim orders and interim or executory awards. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT .8 Waiver of Jury Trial. Contractor and City each voluntarily waives its right to a jury trial with respect to any Contract Dispute that is subject to binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph 14.4.4. Contractor shall include this provision in its contracts with its Subcontractors who provide any portion of the Work. 14.5 Non-Waiver. Participation in the Contract Dispute Resolution Process shall not waive, release or compromise any defense of City, including, without limitation, any defense based on the assertion that the rights or Claims of Contractor that are the basis of a Contract Dispute were previously waived by Contractor due to Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents, including, without limitation, Contractor’s failure to comply with any time periods for providing notice of requests for adjustments of the Contract Sum or Contract Time or for submission of Claims or supporting documentation of Claims. SECTION 15 DEFAULT. 15.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. 15.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. SECTION 16 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 15, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 16.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 16.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 16.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 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 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. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.4 Suspension by City for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 16.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole by giving thirty (30) Days written notice to Contractor. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 16.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. 16.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 16.5, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for: (i)Demobilizing and (ii)Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. 16.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i)Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii)Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii)Provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv)Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v)Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. SECTION 17 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 17.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 17.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60)consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 17.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 17.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 16.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 18 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 18.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. 18.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 18 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 18.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 19 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 20 NUISANCE. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 21 PERMITS AND LICENSES. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide,procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 22 WAIVER. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. SECTION 23 GOVERNING LAW. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 24 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 25 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 26 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto. Or The Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq.and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations.Copies of these rates may be obtained at cost at the Purchasing office of the City of Palo Alto.Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1810, and 1813 of the Labor Code. SECTION 27 NON APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 28 AUTHORITY. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. SECTION 29 ATTORNEY FEES. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney’s fees through the completion of mediation. If the claim or dispute is not resolved through mediation and in any dispute described in Paragraph 14.2, 22 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package Rev. July 2012 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 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. SECTION 31 SEVERABILITY. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ Purchasing Manager City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: ___________________________ Public Works Director CONTRACTOR ROSAS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ DRA'w'N BY, CHEC'D BY, DATE, SCALE, NONE KEYMAP Sidewo.lk, Curb 8x Gutter Repo.irs Project LOCATION MAP (SIDEwALK REPAIRS) City of Palo Alto APPROVED BY: PE ND. ___ _ DATE, DRA 'w'ING NO. 2A CHEC'D BYl DATEl SCALE: NONE KEYMAP Sidewo.lk) Curb & Gutter Repo.irs Project LOCATION MAP (CURB ~ GUTTER) City of Palo Alto B APPROVED BY: , PE ND. __ DATEl DRAW'ING NO. 2B -- Street LOCATION 1: A. Everett Avenue B. Forest Avenue C. Hamilton Avenue D. Lytton Avenue E. Middlefield Road F. Waverley Street G. Ensign Way H. Arbutus & Bibbits I. EI Camino Real Road LOCATION 2: Alma Street Adobe Place Carlson Court Charleston Road Creekside Drive Diablo Court Dixon Place Duncan Place EI Capitan Place Ely Place Greenmeadow Way Lundy Lane Middlefield Road Mumford Place Nelson Court Nelson Drive Parkside Drive Shasta Drive Toiga Court LOCATION3: Alger Drive Alma Street Ashton Avenue Ashton Court Bryant Street Cowper Court Cowper Street East Meadow Drive El Verano Avenue Emerson Street Maureen Drive Murdoch Ct Murdoeh Drive Rambow Drive ADD ALTERNATE #1 Bryant Street ADD ALTERNATE #2 Carlson Circle Redwood Gircle ATTACHMENTB Public Works Department, Engineering Services 2013 Sidewalk, Curb, & Gutter Repairs Project LOCATION LIST 1 (SIDEW ALK·REP AIR) Limits of Work #688 Ramona St to Emerson St #550 #656 #415,#499 #526,#550 #711 #3589 Arbutus & #3991 Bibbits #2171 Greenmeadow Wy to Charleston Rd Nelson Dr to end Charleston to Ely PI Middlefield Rd to Alma 8t Nelson Dr to Greenmeadow Wy Nelson Dr to end Ely PI to end Ely PI to Ely PI Nelson Dr to end Alma 8t to Duncan PI Alma St to end Ely PI to end East Meadow Dr to Charleston Rd Charleston to end Nelson Dr to end Shasta Dr to Charleston Rd Nelson Dr to Scripps Feme Ave to Nelson Dr Nelson Dr to end Rambow Dr to Murdoch Dr East Meadow Dr to EI Verano Ave Middlefield Rd to Cowper St Ashton Ave to end EI Verano Ave to East Meadow Dr Cowper t to end Adobe creek to East Meadow Dr Middlefield Rd to Alma St Alma 8t to Bryant St East Meadow Rd to end Cowper St to Rambow Dr Murdoch Dr to end Ahston Ave to Alger Dr Maureen Dt to Alger Dr EI Verano St to East Meadow Rd Charleston Rd to end Carlson Cr to Carlson Cr Street Side at Middlefield Road north side & Emerson side at Webster Street at Lytton Ave & Middlefield Rd at College Ave east side both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides west side both sides both sides west side both sides west side both sides both sides east side both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides south side both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides both sides· - ATTACHMENTB Public Works Department,Engineering Services 2013 Sidewalk, Curb, & Gutter Repairs Project LOCATION LIST 2 (CURB & GUTTER-REPAIR) Street Address • Curb & Gutter Type A (gutter pan varies in width 24", 32", & 36") 1. Boyce Avenue #910, #935, #947 2. Bryant Street #1017 3. Cedar Street #1228 4. Coleridge Avenue #301, #631 5. Embarcadero Road #981, #985, #989, #993, #997 6. Fabian Way #4020 7. Fife Avenue #1010 8. Harker Avenue #1241, #1331, #1341, #1405, #1425, #1445, #1449 9. High Street #2149; #2171 10. Kinsley Avenue #334, #421, #433 11. Kipling Street #421 12. Lincoln Avenue #439, #451, #467 13. Middlefield Road #251, #425, #435 14. Nevada Avenue #221, #231, #240, #2305 & #2295 Emerson, #425 15. Palo Alto Avenue #930 16. Ramona Street 17. Washington Avenue 17 A. Kellogg Avenue #935, #1037, #1048, #2230 atN. California Ave south side Alma to High & High to Emerson; # 191 #150,#160 • Curb & Gutter Type B (varies in width 24",36, & 42") 18. Byron Street' #2233, #2250, #2281, #2300,#2320, #2330, #2323, #2345, #2350 19. Edgewood Drive #1568 20. Hamilton Avenue #1550 21. Jackson Drive #555, #561 22. Nevada Avenue #425 23. Patricia Lane #528, #532, #553, #559, #569, #560, #566 24. Santa Rita Avenue #514, #524, #534, #550, #564, #59, #2090 Webster 25. Walter Hayes Drive #148, #151, #162, #166, #170, #256 26. Webster Street #2121, #2133, #2126, #2150 • ADD ALTERNATES #3 & #4 (Valley Gutter) 27. East Meadow Drive Mitchell Park 28. East Meadow Drive Fairmeadow Elementary School 29. East Meadow Drive J.1. Stanford Middle School 30. Hamilton Avenue corner Seneca Street NOTE:" -The Clly may delete or add curb & gutter repair locations during construction. 2013 SIDEWALK, CURB and GUTTER REPAIRS PROJECT IFB NO. 148043 ATTACHMENT C BASE BID 1: (Sidewalk Repair) BID DESCRIPTION BID ITEM QTY UNIT 1 Remove sidewalk only 1,920 SF 2 Sidewalk, 4" thick 30,570 SF 3 Driveway, 6" thick 14,630 SF 4 Integral sidewalk & curb & gutter 990 LF 5 Integral driveway & curb & gutter 450 LF 6 Ramp 42 EA 7 Domes only 31 EA 8 Curb 370 LF 9 Gutter 4,160 SF 10 Asphalt pavement 3,770 SF 11 Special saw cutting 6,300 LF 12 Recycle concrete & asphalt 2,240 Ton 13 Traffic control 1 LS BASE BID 1 TOTAL: BASE BID 2: (Curb & Gutter Repair) 14 Sidewalk, 4" thick 3,920 SF 15 Driveway, 6" thick "4,550 SF 16 Ramp 2 EA 17 Curb 2,710 LF 18 Gutter 5,170 SF 19 Rolled C&G Type B (width 24") 460 LF 20 Rolled C&G Type B (width 36" to 42" 1,660 LF 21 Conc pavement wI AC overlay 460 SF 22 Asphalt pavement 5,770 SF 23 Catch basin 1 EA 24 Recycle concrete & asphalt 1,500 TON 25 Traffic control 1 LS BASE BID 2 TOTAL: BASIS OF AWARD: ADD ALTERNATE #1 26 Sidewalk, 4" thick 6,270 SF 27 Driveway, 6" thick 2,350 SF 28 Recycle Concrete & Asphalt 260 TON ADD AL TERNA TE #1 TOTAL: ADD ALTERNATE #2 29 Sidewalk, 4" thick 3,140 SF 30 Driveway, 6" thick 1,170 SF 31 Recycle Concrete & Asphalt 140 TON ADD AL TERNA TE #2 TOTAL: ADD ALTERNATE #3 32 Curb 830 LF 33 Gutter 1,660 SF 34 Recycle Concrete & Asphalt 110 TON ADD AlTERNATE #3 TOTAL: ADD ALTERNATE #4 32 Curb 420 LF 33 Gutter 840 SF 34 Recycle Concrete & Asphalt 60 TON ADD AL TERNA TE #4 TOTAL: ADD ALTERNATES TOTAL: BASIS OF AWARD: ADD ALTERNATES TOTAL: CONTRACT TOTAL AMOUNT: BID SUMMARY Engineer's Estimate UNIT PRICE $3 $8 $9 $64 $70 $1,400 $300 $25 $9 $7 $3 $1 $5,000 $8 $9 $1,400 $25 $9 $32 $38 $12 $7 $3,000 $1 $4,000 $8 $9 $1 $8 $9 $1 $25 $9 $1 $25 $9 $1 BID AMOUNT $5,760 $244,560 $131,670 $63,360 $31,500 $58,800 $9,300 $9,250 $37,440 $26,390 $18,900 $2,240 $5,000 $644,170 $31,360 $40,950 $2,800 $67,750 $46,530 $14,720 $63,080 $5,520 $40,390 $3,000 $1,500 $4,000 $321,600 $965,770.00 $50,160 $21,150 $260 $71,570 $25,120 $10,530 $140 $35,790 $20,750 $14,940 $110 $35,800 $10,500 $7,560 $60 $18,120 $161,280 $965,770 $161,280 $1,127,050 ROSAS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION UNIT PRICE $2.75 $7.80 $8.35 $60.00 $65.00 $1,200.00 $290.00 $20.00 $8.00 $5.00 $1.00 $0.05 $500.00 $7.80 $8.35 $1,200.00 $19.50 $8.00 $35.00 $45.00 $13.00 $5.00 $2,500.00 $0.05 $5QO.00 $7.80 $8.35 $0.05 $7.80 $8.35 $0.05 $20.00 $8.00 $0.05 $20.00 $8.00 $0.05 BID AMOUNT $5,280.00 $238,446.00 $122,160.50 $59,400.00 $29,250.00 $50,400.00 $8,990.00 $7,400.00 $33,280.00 $18,850.00 $6,300.00 $112.00 $500.00 $580,368.50 $30,576.00 $37,992.50 $2,400.00 $52,845.00 $41,360.00 $16,100.00 $74,700.00 $5,980.00 $28,85Q.00 $2,500.00 $75.00 $500.00 $293,878.50 $874,247.00 $48,906.00 $19,622.50 $13.00 $68,541.50 $24,492.00 $9,769.50 $7.00 $34,268.50 $16,600.00 $13,280.00 $5.50 $29,885.50 $8,400.00 $6,720.00 $3.00 $15,123.00 $147,818.50 $874,247.00 $147,818.50 $,1,022,065.50 Golden Bay Construction UNIT PRICE $3.00 $7.10 $8.25 $65.00 $80.00 1,100.00 $225.00 $21.25 $7.50 $9.00 $1.50 $0.01 $1.00 $7.10 $8.25 1,100.00 $21.00 $7.25 $32.00 $38.00 $12.50 $9.00 2,390.00 $0.01 $1.00 $7.10 $8.25 $0.01 $7.10 $8.25 $0.01 $21.25 $7.50 $0.01 $21.25 $7.50 $0.01 BID AMOU.NT $5,760.00 $217,047.00 $120,697.50 $64,350.00 $36,000.00 $46,200.00 $6,975.00 $7,862.50 $31,200.00 $33,930.00 $9,450.00 $22.40 $1.00 $579,495.40 $27,832.00 $37,537.50 $2,200.00 $56,910.00 $37,482.50 $14,720.00 $63,080.00 $5,750.00 $51,930.00 $2,390.00 $15.00 $1.00 $299,848.00 $879,343.40 $44,517.00 $19,387.50 $2.60 $63,907.10 $22,294.00 $9,652.50 $1.40 $31,947.90 $17,637.50 $12,450.00 $1.10 $30,088.60 $8,925.00 $6,300.00 $0.60 $15,225.60 $141,169.20 $879,343.40 ~141 169.20 $1,020,512.60 Spencon Construction UNIT PRICE $2.00 $7.94 $7.94 $56.00 $60.00 $1,325.00 $285.00 $25.00 $8.00 $5.75 $1.10 $0.01 $499.99 $7.94 $7.94 $1,325.00 "$25.00 $8.00 $37.00 $46.00 $12.00 $5.75 $500.00 $0.01 $499.99 $10.00 $11.00 $0.01 $10.00 $11.00 $0.01 $45.00 $10.00 $0.01 $45.00 $10.00 $0.01 BID AMOUNT $3,840.00 $242,725.80 $116,162.20 $55,440.00 $27,000.00 $55,650.00 $8,835.00 $9,250.00 $33,280.00 $21,677.50 $6,930.00 $22.40 $499.99 $581,312.89 $31,124.80 $36,127.00 $2,650.00 $67,750.00 $41,360.00 $17,020.00 $76,360.00 $5,520.00 $33,177.50 $500.00 $15.00 $499.99 $312,104.29 $893,417.18 $62,700.00 $25,850.00 $2.60 $88,552.60 $31,400.00 $12,870.00 $1.40 $44,271.40 $37,350.00 $16,600.00 $1.10 $53,951.10 $18,900.00 $8,400.00 $0.60 $27,300.60 $214,075.70 $893,417.18 ~214 075.70 $1,107,492.88 page 1 of 2 2013 SIDEWALK, CURB and GUTTER REPAIRS PROJECT IFB NO. 148043 BID SUMMARY ATTACHMENT C BASE BID 1: (Sidewalk Repair) BID DESCRIPTION ITEM 1 Remove sidewalk only 2 Sidewalk, 4" thick 3 Driveway, 6" thick 4 Integral sidewalk & curb & gutter 5 Integral driveway & curb & gutter 6 Ramp 7 Domes only 8 Curb 9 Gutter 10 Asphalt pavement 11 Special saw cutting 12 Recycle concrete & asphalt 13 Traffic control BASE BID 1 TOTAL: BASE BID 2' (Curb & Gutter Repair) 14 Sidewalk, 4" thick 15 Driveway, 6" thick 16 Ramp 17 Curb 18 Gutter 19 Rolled C&G Type B (width 24") 20 Rolled C&G Type B (width 36" to 42") 21 Conc pavement wI AC overlay 22 Asphalt pavement 23 Catch basin 24 Recycle concrete & asphalt 25 Traffic control BASE BID 2 TOTAL: BASIS OF AWARD: ADD AL TERNA TE #1 26 Sidewalk, 4" thick 27 Driveway, 6" thick 28 Recycle Concrete & Asphalt ADD ALTERNATE #1 TOTAL: ADD AL TERNA TE #2 29 Sidewalk, 4" thick 30 Driveway, 6" thick 31 Recycle Concrete & Asphalt ADD ALTERNATE #2 TOTAL: ADD AL TERNA TE #3 32 Curb 33 Gutter 34 Recycle Concrete & Asphalt ADD ALTERNATE #3 TOTAL: ADD AL TERNA TE #4 32 Curb 33 Gutter 34 Recycle Concrete & Asphalt ADD ALTERNATE #4 TOTAL: ADD AL TERNATES TOTAL: '.' BASIS OF AWARD: ADD ALTERNATES TOTAL: CONTRACT TOTAL AMOUNT: BID QTY UNIT 1,920 SF 30,570 SF 14,630 SF 990 LF 450 LF 42 EA 31 EA 370 LF 4,160 SF 3,770 SF 6,300 LF 2,240 Ton 1 LS 3,920 SF 4,550 SF 2 EA 2,710 LF 5,170 SF 460 LF 1,660 LF 460 SF 5,770 SF 1 EA 1,500 TON 1 LS 6,270 SF 2,350 SF 260 TON 3,140 SF 1,170 SF 140 TON 830 LF 1,660 SF 110 TON 420 LF 840 SF 60 TON Engineer's Estimate UNIT PRICE $3 $8 $9 $64 $70 $1,400 $300 $25 $9 $7 $3 $1 $5,000 $8 $9 $1.400 $25 $9 $32 $38 $12 $7 $3,000 $1 $4,000 $8 $9 $1 $8 $9 $1 $25 $9 $1 $25 $9 $1 BID AMOUNT $5,760 $244,560 $131,670 $63,360 $31,500 $58,800 $9,300 $9,250 $37,440 $26,390 $18,900 $2,240 $5,000 $644,170 $31,360 $40,950 $2,800 $67,750 $46,530 $14,720 $63,080 $5,520 $40,390 $3,000 $1,500 $4,000 $321,600 $965,770 $50,160 $21,150 $260 $71,570 $25,120 $10,530 $140 $35,790 $20,750 $14,940 $110 $35,800 $10,500 $7,560 $60 $18,120 $161,280 $965,770 $161,280 $1,127,050 JJR Construction UNIT PRICE $1.80 $7.05 $9.50 $70.00 $85.00 $875.00 $265.00 $15.55 $9.50 $7.10 $1.00 $0.01 $100.60 $7.05 $9.50 $875.00 $15.55 $9.50 $32.00 $40.75 $13.15 $7.10 $2,500.00 $0.01 $238.50 $11.25 $13.75 $10.00 $11.25 $13.75 $10.00 $22.75 $13.75 $10.00 $22.75 $13.75 $10.00 BID AMOUNT $3,456.00 $215,518.50 $138,985.00 $69,300.00 $38,250.00 $36,750.00 $8,215.00 $5,753.50 $39,520.00 $26,767.00 $6,300.00 $22.40 $100.60 $588,938.00 $27,636.00 $43,225.00 $1,750.00 $42,140.50 $49,115.00 $14,720.00 $67,645.00 $6,049.00 $40,967.00 $2,500.00 $15.00 $238.50 $296,001.00 $884,939.00 $70,537.50 $32,312.50 $2,600.00 $105,450.00 $35,325.00 $16,087.50 $1,400.00 $52,812.50 $18,882.50 $22,825.00 $1,100.00 $42,807.50 $9,555.00 $11,550.00 $600.00 $21,705.00 $222,775.00 $884,939 $222,775 $1,107,714.00 Vanguard Construction UNIT PRICE $7.50 $9.80 $10.75 $75.00 $102.25 $2,290.00 $265.00 $26.60 $10.15 $9.45 $3.10 $1.00 $28,000 $9.95 $12.60 $2,860.00 $23.10 $13.55 $44.35 $57.70 $30.80 $9.40 $4,000.00 $1.00 $18,200 $9.80 $10.75 $1.00 $9.80 $10.75 $1.00 $23.10 $13.55 $1.00 $23.10 $13.55 $1.00 BID AMOUNT $14,400.00 $299,586.00 $157,272.50 $74,250.00 $46,012.50 $96,180.00 $8,215.00 $9,842.00 $42,224.00 $35,626.50 $19,530.00 $2,240.00 $28,000.00 $833,378.50 $39,004.00 $57,330.00 $5,720.00 $62,601.00 $70,053.50 $20,401.00 $95,782.00 $14,168.00 $54,238.00 $4,000.00 $1,500.00 $18,200.00 $442,997.50 $1,276:376 $61,446.00 $25,262.50 $260.00 $86,968.50 $30,772.00 $12,577.50 $140.00 $43,489.50 $19,173.00 $22,493.00 $110.00 $41,776.00 $9,702.00 $11,382.00 $60.00 $21,144.00 $193,378.00 $1,276,376 $193.378 $1,469,754 Sposeto Engineering UNIT PRICE $6.60 $11.70 $12.90 $113.00 $122.00 $2,400.00 $570.00 $36.00 $16.00 $13.00 $3.00 $1.00 $18,000 $11.70 $12.90 $2,400.00 $36.00 $16.00 $48.00 $79.00 $29.00 $13.00 $3,800.00 $1.00 $11,000 $11.70 $13.30 $1.00 $11.75 $13.40 $1.00 $40.00 $18.00 $1.00 $40.00 $18.00 $1.00 BID AMOUNT $12,672.00 $357,669.00 $188,727.00 $111,870.00 $54,900.00 $100,800.00 $17,670.00 $13,320.00 $66,560.00 $49,010.00 $18,900.00 $2,240.00 $18,000.00 $1,012,338 $45,864.00 $58,695.00 , $4,800.00 $97,560.00 $82,720.00 $22,080.00 $131,140.00 $13,340.00 $75,010.00 $3,800.00 $1,500.00 $11,000.00 $547,509.00 $1,559,847 $73,359.00 $31,255.00 $260.00 $104,874.00 $36,895.00 $15,678.00 ,,$140.00 $52,713.00 $33,200.00 $29,880.00 $110.00 $63,190.00 $16,800.00 $15,120.00 $60.00 $31,980.00 $252,757.00 $1,559,847 $252.757 $1,812,604 page 2 of 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3336) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: City Finances Summary Title: Budget Amendment Ordinance For Cogswell Plaza Title: Acceptance Of A Contribution of $9,291 From TopCorner, Incorporated, For The Enhancement Of Cogswell Plaza; Adoption Of A Budget Amendment Ordinance To Allocate The Contribution to Project Cost Centers From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1) Accept a contribution of $9,291 from TopCorner, Incorporated, to the City’s Technology Fund to be used for the enhancement of Cogswell Plaza Park by the installation of a Wi-Fi router for public enjoyment; and 2) Adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment A) for the allocation of the $9,291 contribution to the Information Technology program budget for the installation and operation of the Wi-Fi router and associated wiring. Executive Summary In March, 2012, TopCorner.org, a local entrepreneurial philanthropic company, approached the City about raising funds from individual donors for the enhancement or beautification of a City park or community center. Through consultation with the City Manager’s Office and various City Departments, it was suggested that with the renovation of Cogswell Plaza Park a Wi-Fi router could be attached to an existing pathway light in order to provide the same type of free Wi-Fi internet access that is provided at City libraries, community centers and City Hall. Staff has worked with TopCorner to investigate the feasibility of this enhancement and fundraising drive, and has encouraged TopCorner to solicit pledges for the project. TopCorner has been successfully in reaching the target of $9,291 to cover all design, installation and City of Palo Alto Page 2 operating costs of the Wi-Fi system for the first year of a trial application. Staff recommends the approval of this trial project and the use of contributed dollars to the City’s Technology Fund for this project. Background City staff and the Mayor’s Office were contacted in March 2012, by TopCorner.org Co- Founder Chris Frank, about the application of their fundraising and community building website for the improvement or expansion of a City program or facility. After brainstorming various current projects with members of the TopCorner team and striving to find a project that would be both feasible in the short-term and inspirational to TopCorner participants and contributors, staff recommended to TopCorner the enhancement of Cogswell Plaza in conjunction with other park improvements that are currently being accomplished as part of Capital Improvement Project PG-11001. On July 23, 2012, Council adopted a Park Improvement Ordinance for the renovation of Lytton Plaza, which includes the installation of new pathway lighting, electrical systems, irrigation systems, park benches, tables and other park amenities (Attachment B, link). The recommended privately-financed enhancement to the park would be affixed to the approved pathway lighting and would utilize existing park electrical conduits. The recommended Wi-Fi router project would not alter the intent of the Park Improvement Ordinance or interfere with park uses. Discussion Pursuant to City Policies 1-12 (Grant and Funding Requests) and 1-25 (Public/Private Partnerships), staff has worked with representatives of the Information Technology, Community Services, Public Works, Utilities, City Manager’s Office and City Attorney’s Office to ensure that the development of this trial public-private partnership would cover all costs associated with this project during the first year of operation. In the past four years Wi-Fi internet routers have been installed in various City facilities for the use and enjoyment of library, community center, nature center and City Hall visitors. Staff believes that the installation of a free Wi-Fi hotspot at Lytton Plaza will not only provide a much-needed community benefit to park visitors on a daily basis, but will also enable the City to stage and produce special events, such as the popular “Hack-A-Thon,” as a way of supporting creativity and innovation in the community. Timeline City of Palo Alto Page 3 If the project and Budget Amendment Ordinance are approved by Council, staff will proceed with the installation of necessary internet wiring through existing conduits and the installation of a small outdoor router. The project will be completed by February 2013. Resource Impact Funding of the design, installation, and wiring of the router, is completely paid for by the $9,291 contribution from TopCorner. Contributions also cover part of the first year of internet service fees (Utilities). The project is a 12-month experiment; staff intends to return Council in the next year with possible policy recommendations of how to fund on-going costs for public-benefit Wi-Fi connections. Funding for the renovation of Cogswell Plaza park was separately financed by Capital Improvement Project PG-11001 (Cogswell Plaza Improvements) as well as Benches, Signage, Walkways and Fencing (PG-06003). Policy Implications This project is consistent with City Policies 1-12 and 1-25, and Policy C-23 of the Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan: “Study and recommend methods of private and public financing for improved park maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction;” with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan which “encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets;” and Policy C-22 which encourages new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. Environmental Review The proposed improvements is considered as minor alterations and repairs to existing facilities and is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15301 guidelines. Attachments: Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance Amending the Information Technology Department Budget for Installation of Wi-Fi in Cogswell Plaza Park (DOCX) ORDINANCE NO. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION OF $9,291 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WI-FI IN COGSWELL PLAZA PARK. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 18, 2012 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2013; and B. The Community Services Department in collaboration with other city departments has been working on a number of park improvement projects; and C. The Mayor’s Office and City staff were contacted by TopCorner.com with an offer of funding for the improvement or expansion of a City program or facility; and D. After review of current projects, TopCorner.com has chosen to fund a project to provide public Wi-Fi at Cogswell Plaza Park; and E. TopCorner.com has granted the City $9,291 for this project; and F. The City’s Information Technology Department will purchase the supplies and perform the work to complete the project. G. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2013 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. Grant revenue totaling Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety One Dollars ($9,291) is hereby received, and appropriated as such in the Information Technology Department budget. SECTION 3. The Facilities and Equipment budget of the Information Technology Fund is hereby increased by Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety One Dollars ($9,291). SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 5. The actions taken in this ordinance do not constitute a project requiring environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SECTION 6. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Assistant City Attorney Chief Information Officer Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 3338) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Downtown Streets, Inc. Contract Title: Approval of Amendment No. One to Contract With the Downtown Streets, Inc. To Consolidate Various Contracts Under One Umbrella Contract in the Amount of $156,868 for the Second Year of a Three-Year Contract for Trash and Litter Clean up in Areas of the Downtown Corridor, Various City Parks and Facilities, and Outreach to Homeless Individuals in the Downtown Area. From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council approve, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute, the attached Amendment No. 1 to Contract with Downtown Streets, Inc. (DST) (Attachment A) in order to consolidate three contracts with DST under one master contract, as amended, for the second year of a three-year contract in the amount of $156,868 for trash and litter clean up in areas of the downtown Palo Alto corridor, various City parks and facilities, and for outreach services to homeless individuals in the downtown area. Background DST was founded by the Palo Alto Business Improvement District (BID) in the hopes of reducing panhandling, to provide re-entry skills to the homeless and to clean downtown’s streets. DST is the face of a program, aimed at reducing homelessness by modeling positive behavior among the homeless population. By participating in the program the homeless individuals are able to get housing and other life support credits. Additionally, participants are in a unique position to provide personal outreach and discourage inappropriate behaviors amongst other homeless individuals, particularly in the City’s parking garages. Each member of the DST is evaluated on their individual performance and is recognized for their accomplishments. The skills learned through this program can then be used by the individuals to seek further employment. The City has been using the DST since 2006 and because of the increased DST presence in the City of Palo Alto Page 2 downtown public parking garages, the homeless problem in the downtown area has been somewhat reduced. The downtown business district should be maintained in a safe, clean and appealing manner. Downtown Palo Alto attracts visitors, shoppers, diners, employees and local residents who expect a positive experience when using downtown services. Not only is a clean shopping environment an important civic priority, it is essential to maintaining a healthy and vital economic environment which continues to generate healthy tax revenues. Previously, the Public Works Department and two Divisions within the Community Services Department had issued separate contracts with Downtown Streets, Inc. for various services. These services included 1) Litter removal and outreach in the City’s five downtown parking garages, removal of overflowing debris from receptacles along University Avenue and litter removal from sidewalks and alleys (Public Works Department); 2) Removal of trash, litter and debris at various City parks and facilities (Open Space, Parks and Golf Division, Community Services Department); and 3) Outreach to homeless individuals in the downtown area (Office of Human Services – Community Services Department.) It is the intent of this contract amendment to consolidate the three contracts with one contract for all the services mentioned above. Discussion Under the direction of the Purchasing Division, Administrative Services Department (“Purchasing”), three separate contracts’ scopes of work with DST will be consolidated. Consolidation of contracts is required whenever services, which are deemed by Purchasing to be similar, will be awarded to the same contractor consistent with the requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. DST provides specialized client-based outreach, litter removal and landscape services, which is a unique combination of services received from one provider. The combination of all three scopes of services enables DST to interact directly with homeless individuals, which invariably will reduce homeless populations in public areas and can assist in maintaining the highest standards of cleanliness. To staff’s knowledge, there is no other social service agency which provides all three services. Resource Impact The Public Works’ scope of services and the Human Services’ outreach services will not require the use of General Fund resources. These services are reimbursable through the downtown parking assessment district which are held within the Special Revenue, Special Districts Fund, whereby cleaning and maintenance services are reimbursable through permit fees charged in the downtown parking assessment district area. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The Open Space and Parks Division will use general fund resources to fund the portion of services that relate to park maintenance. Policy Implications Approval of the consolidated agreements in one contract amendment is consistent with existing City policies, including Policy C-20 of the Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan: ”Support and promote County, City and non-profit services addressing the needs of the low income and unhoused community especially in the areas of temporary housing, food, clothing health care, mental health and transportation;” and Program C-19: “Develop improvement plans for the maintenance, restoration and enhancement of community facilities, and keep these facilities viable community assets by investing the necessary resources.” Environmental Review These services do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A - Amend_No1 vendor signed copy 12 11 12 (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3312) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Additional Funds for Contracts with Riezebos Holzbaur Design Firm Title: Approval of Amendment One to Contract with Riezebos Holzbaur Group to Add $37, 212 for Design Work for the Library and Administrative Services Departments for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $121,212 From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve Amendment One to Contract S12144615 with Riezebos Holzbaur Group LLC (vendor) to add $37,211.50 for design work for the Library and Administrative Services Departments for a total contract amount not to exceed $121,211.50. (See Attachment A) DISCUSSION The Library Department would like the consultant to work on brand development to create a positive image for the Library that will resonate with residents, which is also consistent with City of Palo Alto branding. The services will include a plan for use, a style guide, as well as additional support with web services and social network points of contact with the public to ensure brand consistency. These services will create a greater sense of unity throughout the library system in its messaging, outreach, and marketing efforts. The Administrative Services Department would like the consultant to do a brief redesign of the Long Range Financial Forecast document in FY 2013, followed by a more comprehensive overhaul of the document the following year Several departments have been utilizing the consultant for design work, including Community Services (the Enjoy Catalog), the City Manager?s Office (City branding), and Utilities. The combined compensation for these services is already $84,000. Therefore the proposed additional work for the Library and Administrative Services Departments requires Council approval. City of Palo Alto Page 2 RESOURCE IMPACT The compensation required for the above referenced contracts will come out of the FY 2012 funds available In the Library and ASD Budgets. No additional funds will be required. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Contracts to design City publications do not constitute projects under the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, no environmental assessment is needed. Attachments:  Attachment A: Contract Amendment 1 for S12144615 Riezebos Holzbaur (PDF) AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. S12144615 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND RIEZBOS HOLZBAUR GROUP This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S12144615 (“Contract”) is entered into December 10, 2012 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and RIEZBOS HOLZBAUR GROUP, a California corporation, located at 847 Sansome Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, California, Telephone: (415) 983-3700 (“CONTRACTOR”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of Pollution Prevention Public Outreach and Graphic Design Support; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 5 is hereby amended to read as follows: “ 5. COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not to exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any: The total maximum lump sum compensation of dollars ($ ); OR The sum of dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of dollars ($ ); OR A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of One Hundred Twenty One Thousand, Two Hundred Eleven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($121,211.50).. . .” SECTION 2. Section 7 is hereby amended to read as follows: “7. INVOICING. Send all invoices to the CITY, based on the specific project. Attention: Project Manager for PublicWorks, Julie Weiss, Environmental Compliance, 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Email: Julie.Weiss@CityofPaloAlto.org , Telephone: (650) 329-2117; Project Manager for Libraries, Monique le Conge Ziesenhenne, Director, 270 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Email: Monique.leconge@cityofpaloalto.org , Telephone (650)329-2403; and Project Manager for Administrative Services, Nancy Nagel, Senior Financial Analyst, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Email Nancy.Nagel@CityofPaloAlto.org , Telephone: (650) 329-2223. Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY. CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt. . . .” 1 Revision July 25, 2012 2 Revision July 25, 2012 SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “A” entitled “Scope of Services”. b. Exhibit “C” entitled “Compensation”. SECTION 4. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney RIEZBOS HOLZBAUR GROUP By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Public Works Project - Pollution Prevention Public Outreach and Graphic Design Support Introduction To fulfill its responsibilities as an operator of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), and as a co-permittee in the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint source Pollution Control Program, the City of Palo Alto is required to develop and administer a series of pollution prevention and outreach programs targeting residents, businesses and industry to reduce the quantity of pollutants entering the sewer and storm drain systems. Outreach is directed by City of Palo Alto staff within the Public Works Department, Environmental Compliance Division for the RWQCP. The RWQCP is owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto, but is funded by and provides service to its six partner agencies: East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford. Because lower South San Francisco Bay has been listed as an impaired water body, the RWQCP public outreach program must be effective and search for new opportunities to inspire behavior change in target groups. I. Scope of Work Task 1–Develop Integrated Outreach Strategies and Materials Examples of RWQCP audiences include: residents regarding less-toxic pest control and correct disposal of pesticides, pharmaceuticals, mercury-containing products, vehicle fluids and other potential water pollutants; businesses and industry regarding plastics elimination, expanded use of recycled water for irrigation and toilet flushing and environmental compliance requirements; other government agencies that the City collaborates with to achieve water pollution goals. The consultant shall assist the Environmental Compliance Division with developing integrated outreach strategies and materials for audiences primarily within the RWQCP service area. Specifically the consultant shall: a) Develop an annual outreach plan working with project manager at the start of each calendar year–unless otherwise specified– incorporating traditional and new media. b) Develop, enhance and maintain the RWQCP’s new social media components to include: i) Facebook–responses will be performed primarily by RWQCP staff. Account access must be available to several RWQCP staff for flexibility in responding. The consultant will assist with account maintenance, troubleshooting and related training for staff and assume at least one message each per week; ii) Assist staff in exploring and possibly integrating the use of Twitter, blogs, social networks, video sharing sites, interactive online media, games and other methods as feasible given staff time resources; c) When practical and relevant, incorporate the effective use of community-based social marketing (CBSM) defined as “the systematic application of marketing along with other concepts and techniques to achieve specific behavioral goals for a social good” to foster behavior change d) Create traditional outreach materials and provide graphic design services to include: Rev. July 11, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\OTHERS - ADRIAN\Contract Amendments\S12144615 Riezebos Holzbaur Amend 2\S12144615 Amend 2 Exhibit A FINAL.doc i) Utility bill inserts, print ads, factsheets, newspaper articles, displays, brochures ii) Promotional items for schools, special events, and businesses. iii) Customized illustrations and artwork for a variety of formats (displays, brochures). iv) High-resolution photographs with a regional context (e.g., local wildlife, Bay habitats). v) Images, charts and graphs clearly explaining complicated information or a compelling call to action vi) Videos and animated images for theater and online advertising vii) Movie making, including story and script development, animation and graphics e) coordinate with in-house and outside printers. Any artwork designed for this contract shall become the property of the City of Palo Alto. Task 2– Advertising Administration The consultant shall assume administrative responsibilities for the placement and payment of advertising. The consultant shall: a) Establish $25K of the total contract amount for advertising in local theaters, papers, and other venues. Printing of any materials will be paid for separately by RWQCP unless otherwise negotiated. b) Receive approval for all ads and ad scheduling by the project manager before placement c) Interact with advertising venues to schedule and confirm ad placement and duration of run d) Ensure accurate billing and timely payment e) Provide a balance of the ad budget with each billing cycle and copies of paid invoices itemizing where ad placement occurred f) Upon request, the consultant will provide a detailed report on ad placement in each outreach venue listing which ads ran, total run dates and costs. g) Upon request, place ads and/or utilize creative materials not designed by the consultant for outreach material production as needed. Administrative fees for placement of these ads shall not exceed those that are for ads designed by the consultant. Task 3–Web Content The consultant shall assist RWQCP staff in developing and maintaining web content and creative elements for the RWQCP www.cleanbay.org website which services the RWQCP service area, and for the RWQCP information on the City of Palo Alto website www.cityofpaloalto.org which services Palo Alto residents and businesses solely. Technical maintenance of both websites is performed by staff in addition to an existing contractor for www.cleanbay.org. Task 4– Media Relations The consultant shall: a) work closely with RWQCP staff to cultivate relationships with media within its service area with the goal of increasing local media coverage about water pollution prevention. Because the RWQCP’s service area is confined to a small geographic location outreach strategies and media contacts must be appropriately targeted and Rev. July 11, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\OTHERS - ADRIAN\Contract Amendments\S12144615 Riezebos Holzbaur Amend 2\S12144615 Amend 2 Exhibit A FINAL.doc timed to avoid conflict with other Bay Area agency pollution prevention programs and to complement regional media and outreach efforts. b) work with staff to develop and maintain a comprehensive outreach resource list that includes local community newsletters and outreach opportunities specific to the RWQCP service area. II. Samples The bidder is required to: a) submit at least five (5) samples of work relevant to the scope of work specified in this proposal. In addition, the Consultant shall provide a minimum of two examples each of: b) Audience Research – identifying the various segments of a population and the issues/concerns of each plus the best ways to reach and engage them. c) Multi-cultural marketing – adapting campaigns to address the interests and concerns of various cultural and socio-economic groups d) Marketing and distribution plans e) Goal tracking The consultant may be asked to assess the audience awareness level via focus group studies and/or an analysis with the City and its Partner Agency. The consultant shall work with staff to then develop appropriately targeted outreach and campaign strategies and measurable evaluation criteria for each campaign or program. III. Environmentally Preferable Practices and Green Business Certification The City is a Santa Clara County Certified Green Business. The City encourages the businesses it works with to adopt environmentally preferable practices and to that end the consultant: a) will maximize the use of environmentally preferable printing practices such as using vegetable-based inks, sourcing of (and printing on) at least 30% post consumer recycled content paper and preferably 100% post-consumer content processed chlorine-free. b) will place the recycled-content logo and paper specifications (e.g., “Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled content, process chlorine free paper”) on all printed materials. c) Preference will be to Certified Bay Area Green Businesses http://www.greenbiz.ca.gov/ or to those who are actively enrolled in the program with the intention of completing certification within twelve months of the award of contract. 2. Libraries Project – Library Branding Palo Alto’s residents are progressive, affluent, influential, intellectual, and the City consists of a diverse community of people of all ethnicities and backgrounds. One of the challenges of branding the City of Palo Alto Library is understanding how we can appeal to this audience. In order to create a positive image for the Library that will resonate with residents, CONSULTANT proposes to create a unique and original brand for the Library. CONSULTANT shall provide the following services:. Rev. July 11, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\OTHERS - ADRIAN\Contract Amendments\S12144615 Riezebos Holzbaur Amend 2\S12144615 Amend 2 Exhibit A FINAL.doc Brand Development BRAND SURVEY CONSULTANT will conduct an internal brand survey in which it will survey City of Palo Alto Library employees to find out what they think about the Library’s identity and evaluate whether they like it or dislike it, as well as why or why not. STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT Utilizing the findings from the internal brand survey, CONSULTANT will come up with several options for brand positioning and develop core messages for the City of Palo Alto Library. VISUAL DEVELOPMENT Upon selection of a core message, CONSULTANT will begin development of the visual identity of your brand, including the logo and visual look and feel, as well as creation of brand guidelines for specific design applications. Deliverable will include a City of Palo Alto style guide. Brand Launch CREATIVE SERVICES Design of touchpoints as specified in the cost proposal. WEB REFRESH Utilizing the look and feel of the refreshed City of Palo Alto Library identity, CONSULTANT will provide page assets to the Client to ensure brand consistency (as specified in the cost proposal). Brand Maintenance AS-NEEDED CREATIVE SERVICES Ongoing, as-needed custom design services Every interaction the City of Palo Alto Library has with its audience is called a “touchpoint.” Touchpoints are defining moments of truth, each one is responsible for crafting your identity. The task of CONSULTANT is to help the City of Palo Alto Library to capitalize on these moments of truth and to present the strongest public identity possible. The first step is to identify the Library’s touchpoints and determine which are the Librarys highest priority touchpoints. Based on our assessment of the City of Palo Alto thus far, we have identified the following existing touchpoints: • Website • Brochures • Flyers • Signage • Letterhead • Banners/Posters • Facebook Our goal is to work closely with the City of Palo Alto Library to improve upon each of these touchpoints as itemized in the cost proposal, Library’s core brand message is effectively conveyed, and apply the Library’s new visual identity cohesively and consistently. Rev. July 11, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\OTHERS - ADRIAN\Contract Amendments\S12144615 Riezebos Holzbaur Amend 2\S12144615 Amend 2 Exhibit A FINAL.doc Rev. July 11, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\OTHERS - ADRIAN\Contract Amendments\S12144615 Riezebos Holzbaur Amend 2\S12144615 Amend 2 Exhibit A FINAL.doc 3. Administrative Services Project – Long Range Financial Forecast Document and Budget Book Cover 2012-2013 Introduction: The Administrative Services Department prepares annual Proposed and Adopted Budget documents, as well as a Long Range Financial Forecast. The department needs assistance in updating the cover of the Budget document, and in overhauling the format of the entire Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF). The CONSULTANT shall complete two phases of work for the Administrative Services Department. Phase I In phase one, the CONSULTANT shall update the format of the Long Range Financial Forecast as well as update the Budget document cover. The following steps are envisioned:  Explore a range of creative concepts for both documents.  The Long Range Financial Forecast is a 4-color document of approximately 30 pages.  Present two distinct creative concepts to the City for selection.  Allow up to two rounds of client edits.  Produce both the Long Range Forecast document and the Budget cover according to the designs approved by the City, after receiving the text and/or other content from the City team. Phase I will take place in the December 2012 to February 2013 timeframe, so as to allow presentation of the Long Range document to the City Council in February. Phase II Phase II will take place in 2013 and will involve a more complete revision of the LRFF format than occurred in Phase I, and/or a continuation and completion of the Phase I revision. Whereas Phase I comprises a format update, Phase II will comprise a format overhaul. Similar steps are envisioned:  Explore a range of creative concepts for the LRFF document  Present up to two distinct concepts to the City team  Implement a layout based on the concept(s) selected by the City team.  Present revised layouts to the City.  Edit and fine-tine the layouts according to feedback from the City.  Produce the LRFF document according to the new layout, after receiving the text and/or other content from the City team. EXHIBIT C SCHEDULES OF FEES CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR according to the following rate schedules. The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to Contractor, including both payment for services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Eleven Dollars and Fifty Cents ($121,211.50). Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to City. 1. Public Works Project - Pollution Prevention Public Outreach and Graphic Design Support; Detail Rate Schedule 1. Final Total $84,000.00 Rev. July 11, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\OTHERS - ADRIAN\Contract Amendments\S12144615 Riezebos Holzbaur Amend 2\S12144615 Amend 2 Exhibit C FINAL.docx Rev. July 11, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\OTHERS - ADRIAN\Contract Amendments\S12144615 Riezebos Holzbaur Amend 2\S12144615 Amend 2 Exhibit C FINAL.docx 2. Libraries Project – Library Branding; Detailed Rate Schedule Task I – Brand Development Service: Fee Brand Survey $600.00 Core Message Development $1,900.00 Visual Development (Logo, Look, Feel) $7,500.00 Style Guide $2,800.00 Total $12,800.00 Task II – Brand Launch Service: Fee Collateral System $7,500.00 (Envelope, Letterhead, templates)** Web Refresh $93/hr Total $7,500.00 Task III – As-Needed Brand Maintenance Service: Fee Take One Flyer $1,000 Per Flyer Brochures $2,000 Per Brochure Poster $2,500.00 Per Poster Postcards $850.00 Per Postcard Total $4,000.00 2. Final Total (All Three Tasks) $24,300.00 Rev. July 11, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\OTHERS - ADRIAN\Contract Amendments\S12144615 Riezebos Holzbaur Amend 2\S12144615 Amend 2 Exhibit C FINAL.docx 3. Administrative Services Project – Long Range Financial Forecast Document and Budget Book Cover 2012-2013; Detail Rate Schedule Phase I – Brief Redesign of Long Range Financial Forecast Document, FY 2013- 2023 Task I - Long Range Financial Forecast Document Fee $1,125.00 Creation of 1 concept for 30-page Long range Financial Forecast 4-color interior, and cover designs. Includes up to 1 round of client edits Task II Fee $1,562.50 Production of 30-page Long range Financial Forecast interior and cover. Final deliverable will be a print-ready high resolution pdf file. Task III – Budget Book Cover Fee $350.00 Creation of 2 concepts for Budget Book cover. Includes up to 1 round of client edits. Final deliverable will be a print-ready high resolution pdf file. Phase I Total (All Three Tasks) $3,037.50 Phase II – Complete Redesign of Long Range Financial Forecast Document, FY 2014-2024 Task I - Long Range Financial Forecast Document Fee $3,500 Creation of 1 concept for 30-page Long range Financial Forecast 4-color interior, and cover designs. Includes up to 1 round of client edits Task II Fee $5,200 Production of 30-page Long range Financial Forecast interior and cover. Final deliverable will be a print-ready high resolution pdf file. Phase II Total (Two Tasks) $8,700 Contingency for Phases I and II: $1,174 TOTAL: $12,911.50 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3346) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Our Town Grant Application Submission Title: Approval To The Division Of Arts & Science, Community Services Department To Submit A Grant Application To The National Endowment For The Arts For An Our Town Grant From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1) Support the submission of an application for an Our Town Cultural Planning and Design grant through the National Endowment for the Arts; 2) Authorize the Mayor to author a letter in support of the grant application; and 3) Authorize the City Manager of his designee from the Community Services Department to manage the grant, including submission of the grant, reports and requests for reimbursement. Executive Summary The “Our Town” grant from the National Endowment for the Arts (Attachment A, Grant Summary) will support creative place-making and planning for Rinconada Park (Park) as a central innovative corridor linking Palo Alto’s cultural and educational facilities. Working in harmony with the Rinconada Park Master Plan (Plan) planning efforts, the intent of the grant application is to secure funding in order to create a cultural plan and design – including the Art Center, Children’s Theatre, Junior Museum and Zoo, and Public Art program - to be implemented in coordination with the Rinconada Park reconstruction phases. The intent of the creation of temporary public art as an element of the planning and design process is to create more synergy between the City of Palo Alto’s cultural facilities and park facilities and expand the possible uses within Rinconada Park itself to offer broader opportunities for community engagement. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background Rinconada Park contains beautiful open space, playgrounds, an old growth forest, a pool and tennis facilities. The Park hosts countless community events, barbeques and family celebrations each year. The Park is also surrounded by many of Palo Alto’s creative and educational venues such as the Palo Alto Community Theatre, the Children’s Theatre, the Palo Alto Art Center, the Junior Museum and Zoo, the Lucie Stern Community Center, the Children’s Library and the Main Library, the Boy Scouts office and the Girl Scout House. Anecdotally, we often find that users who come to the park for one function may not know about the existence of other facilities around the campus. The formulation of a master plan for the Park has been in process for the past year. The City’s Public Works and Community Services Department has facilitated several community meetings to date, enjoying the input of a very vocal and engaged citizenry. While there has been early discussion of incorporating public art into the plan, the Our Town Grant will allow cultural and arts planning and design to move forward in a more cohesive manner, thereby supporting the goals of the Master Plan’s process. The cultural and educational facilities surrounding the Park are more than the sum of its parts. The Park is a vital cultural destination for residents and visitors alike. By visually and programmatically linking the facilities residing at Rinconada Park, Palo Alto has the opportunity to create a major destination. By re-imagining the Park as a cultural corridor, the City has the opportunity to draw broader audiences and engage the community even more, especially those who are not currently aware of the many services and programs offered there. With the remodeling of the Art Center completed in October 2012, the renovation of the Main Library soon to begin, a capital campaign being studied for the Junior Museum and Zoo, the updates to the Stern Center, these old and beloved facilities are being updated in ways that will increase their appeal to the public they serve. This is an opportunity to cohesively tie together the multitude of creative, recreational and educational opportunities available through the adjacent sites. The grant proposal, while for design and planning, includes temporary public art projects that engage the community as a major element of the cultural district planning. Discussion The Division of Arts & Science has been in close contact with Public Works Landscape Architect Peter Jensen, project manager for the Plan. While there have been general discussions about ways in which public art can assist with wayfinding and connections to the various facilities and users of the Park, having a Cultural Planning and Design Grant that is guided by the Plan will greatly assist in the success of the Park and project as a whole. While there is a large swimming population that comes to the Park’s pool on a regular basis for swim meets, there is a missed opportunity to engage those families in programming at the Art Center or the Children’s Theatre. Conversely, regular visitors to the Junior Museum and Zoo may not have explored the City of Palo Alto Page 3 Children’s Library. While this grant would only fund the planning element, including extensive community outreach and engagement, the City of Palo Alto would have the opportunity to apply again in two years for additional funds for the implementation of that grant. Resource Impact The National Endowment for the Arts’ Our Town Grant funds for cultural planning and design in amounts between $25,000 and $200,000, with the average being $75,000. Staff is currently determining the request amount. The applications are due January 14, 2013 and awards will be announced early summer 2013. The City of Palo Alto would then have up to two years for the creation of the cultural plan. Staff time would be used to match grant funds. The Mayor is required to write a letter of support for the project, indicating and confirming that this is the Our Town proposal that the City of Palo Alto supports. Policy Implications Staff will fully comply with the rules and policies for grant submission as outlined in City Policy 1-12: Grant and Funding request Applications. Submission of a grant application for the enhancement and improvement of Rinconada Park and adjoining community facilities is consistent with Policy C-19 of the Community Services Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan: “Develop improvement plans for the maintenance, restoration and enhancement of community facilities, and keep these facilities viable community assets by investing the necessary resources.” Environmental Review Submission of a grant proposal is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A - FY 2013 Our Town Application Guidelines Grant Program Description (HTM) Attachment B - Grant Funding Request Application (PDF) National Endowment for the Arts About Us Our Town Grant Program Description Art works to improve the lives of America's citizens in many ways. Communities across our nation are leveraging the arts and engaging design to make their communities more livable with enhanced quality of life, increased creative activity, a distinct sense of place, and vibrant local economies that together capitalize on their existing assets. The NEA defines these efforts as the process of Creative Placemaking: "In creative placemaking, partners from public, private, nonprofit, and community sectors strategically shape the physical and social character of a neighborhood, town, tribe, city, or region around arts and cultural activities. Creative placemaking animates public and private spaces, rejuvenates structures and streetscapes, improves local business viability and public safety,and brings diverse people together to celebrate, inspire, and be inspired." Ann Markusen, Markusen Economic Research Services Anne Gadwa Nicodemus, Metris Arts Consulting From Creative Placemaking Through Our Town, subject to the availability of funding, the National Endowment for the Arts will provide a limited number of grants,ranging from $25,000 to $200,000, for creative placemaking projects that contribute toward the livability of communities and help transform them into lively, beautiful, and sustainable places with the arts at their core. Our Town will invest in creative and innovative projects in which communities, together with their arts and design organizations and artists, seek to: l Improve their quality of life. l Encourage greater creative activity. l Foster stronger community identity and a sense of place. l Revitalize economic development. Through Our Town projects, the NEA intends to achieve the following outcome: Livability:American communities are strengthened through the arts. See "Intended NEA Outcome" for more details. Partnerships A key to the success of creative placemaking is involving the arts in partnership with committed governmental and private sector leadership. All Our Town applications must reflect a partnership that will provide leadership for the project. These partnerships must involve two primary partners: a nonprofit organization and a local government entity. One of the two primary partners must be a cultural (arts or design) organization. RELATED MATERIALS Director's Welcome (video) Our Town Communities Our Town Webinars NEA ARTS Magazine on Creative Placemaking Creative Placemaking (pdf) 2011 & 2012 grants (by state) 2011 & 2012 grants (by type) Sample Application Narratives Page 1 of 5FY 2013 Our Town Application Guidelines: Grant Program Description 12/12/2012file://C:\Documents and Settings\esolhei\Local Settings\Temp\MinuteTraq\paloaltocityca@paloaltocityc... Additional partners are encouraged and may include an appropriate variety of entities such as state level government agencies, foundations,arts organizations and artists, nonprofit organizations, design professionals and design centers, educational institutions, real estate developers, business leaders, and community organizations, as well as public and governmental entities. You may find it helpful to contact your local arts agency as you begin the process within your community. Projects The Arts Endowment plans to support a variety of diverse projects across the country in urban and rural communities of all sizes. Please review the list of grants on our website to see the types of projects that have been funded recently through Our Town and the related Mayors' Institute on City Design 25th Anniversary Initiative. Our Town projects should represent the distinct character and quality of their communities and must reflect the following principles: l A systemic approach to civic development and a persuasive vision for enhanced community livability. l Clearly defined civic development goals and objectives that recognize and enhance the role that the arts and design play at the center of community life. l An action plan aligned with the project vision and civic development goals. l A funding plan that is appropriate, feasible, indicates strong and wide community support,and includes a well-conceived strategy for maintaining the work of the project. l Artistic excellence of the design and/or arts organizations, designers, or artists involved with the project. Projects may include arts engagement, cultural planning, and design activities such as: Arts Engagement Arts engagement projects support artistically excellent artistic production or practice as the focus of creative placemaking work. l Innovative programming that fosters interaction among community members, arts organizations, and artists, or activates existing cultural and community assets. l Festivals and performances in spaces not normally used for such purposes. l Public art that improves public spaces and strategically reflects or shapes the physical and social character of a community. Cultural Planning Cultural planning projects support the development of artistically excellent local support systems necessary for creative placemaking to succeed. l Creative asset mapping. Page 2 of 5FY 2013 Our Town Application Guidelines: Grant Program Description 12/12/2012file://C:\Documents and Settings\esolhei\Local Settings\Temp\MinuteTraq\paloaltocityca@paloaltocityc... l Cultural district planning. l The development of master plans or community-wide strategies for public art. l Support for creative entrepreneurship. l Creative industry cluster/hub development. Design Design projects that demonstrate artistic excellence while supporting the development of environments where creative placemaking takes place, or where the identity of place is created or reinforced. l Design of rehearsal,studio, or live/work spaces for artists. l Design of cultural spaces –new or adaptive reuse. l Design of public spaces, e.g., parks, plazas,landscapes, neighborhoods, districts, infrastructure, bridges, and artist-produced elements of streetscapes, l Community engagement activities including design charrettes, design competitions, and community design workshops. We understand that creative placemaking projects are often multi-year, large-scale initiatives. Please specify in your application which phase or phases of your project are included in your request for NEA funding. All phases of a project --except for construction, purchase, or renovation of facilities as noted below --are eligible for support. All costs included in your Project Budget must be expended within your period of support. If relevant to your project, you will be required to provide information in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and/or the National Historic Preservation Act. Funding under Our Town is not available for: l Projects that do not involve the required partnership that will provide leadership for the project. Partnerships must involve at least two primary partners: a nonprofit organization and a local government entity. One of the two primary partners must be a cultural (arts or design) organization. l Activities that are not tied directly to long-term civic development goals. l Projects where the arts, design, or cultural activity are not core to the project's plan. l Capacity building initiatives for artists that are not integral to a broader civic development strategy. l Construction, purchase, or renovation of facilities. (Design fees, community planning, and installation of public art are eligible; however, no Arts Endowment or matching funds may be directed to the costs of physical construction or renovation or toward the purchase costs of facilities or land.) l Costs (and their match) to bring a project into compliance with federal grant requirements. This includes environmental or historical assessments or reviews. l Subgranting or regranting, except for local arts agencies that are designated to operate on behalf of their local governments or are operating units of city or county government. (See more information on subgranting.)Subgranting activity by designated local arts agencies must be directly relevant to the Our Town project Page 3 of 5FY 2013 Our Town Application Guidelines: Grant Program Description 12/12/2012file://C:\Documents and Settings\esolhei\Local Settings\Temp\MinuteTraq\paloaltocityca@paloaltocityc... activities. l Financial awards to winners of competitions. l Fund raising or financing activities. Note: The Grants for Arts Projects guidelines provide additional information on what we do not fund. Intended Outcome Through Our Town projects, the Arts Endowment intends to achieve the following outcome from our strategic plan: Livability:American communities are strengthened through the arts. The anticipated long-term results for Livability projects are measurable community benefits, such as growth in overall levels of social and civic engagement;arts-or design-focused changes in policies, laws, and/or regulations; job and/or revenue growth for the community; or changes in in-and-out migration patterns. You will be asked to address the anticipated results in your application. If you receive a grant, you will be asked to provide evidence of those results at the end of your project. Given the nature of Livability projects, benefits are likely to emerge over time and may not be fully measureable during the period of a grant. You will need to provide evidence of progress toward achieving improved livability as appropriate to the project. Before applying, please review the reporting requirements for Livability. We recognize that some projects involve risk, and we want to hear about both your successes and failures. Failures can provide valuable learning experiences, and reporting them will have no effect on your ability to receive NEA funds in the future. Beyond the reporting requirements for all grantees,selected Our Town grantees may be asked to assist in the collection of additional information that can help the NEA determine the degree to which agency objectives were achieved. For example, Our Town grantees may be asked to participate in surveys or interviews,and/or may be asked to assist in publicizing and promoting these data collection efforts. You may be contacted to provide evidence of project accomplishments including, but not limited to, work samples, community action plans, cultural asset studies, programs, reviews, relevant news clippings, and playbills. Please remember that you are required to maintain project documentation for three years following submission of your final report. We may publish grantees' reports and products on our website. Please note that all federal grantmaking agencies retain a royalty-free right to use all or a portion of grantees' reports and products for federal purposes. Deadline Date You are required to submit your application electronically through Grants.gov, the federal government's online application system. The Grants.gov system must receive your validated and accepted application no later than 11:59 p.m.,Eastern Time, on January 14, 2013. We strongly recommend that you submit at least 10 days in advance of the deadline to give yourself ample time to resolve any problems that you might encounter. We will not accept late applications. Page 4 of 5FY 2013 Our Town Application Guidelines: Grant Program Description 12/12/2012file://C:\Documents and Settings\esolhei\Local Settings\Temp\MinuteTraq\paloaltocityca@paloaltocityc... The Grants.gov Contact Center is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. National Endowment for the Arts · an independent federal agency 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20506 Privacy Policy Important Notices Contact Us USA.gov Page 5 of 5FY 2013 Our Town Application Guidelines: Grant Program Description 12/12/2012file://C:\Documents and Settings\esolhei\Local Settings\Temp\MinuteTraq\paloaltocityca@paloaltocityc... City of Palo Alto (ID # 3241) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: GIS Support and Maintenance Contract Amendment Title: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Contract With Geodesy in the Amount of $135,000 for Development and Maintenance Support Services for the City's Geographic Information System Software From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the Amendment No. One to professional services agreement (Attachment B) for the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) software in the amount of $25,000 for fiscal 2013, $50,000 for fiscal 2014 and $50,000 for fiscal 2015. The total contract amount for fiscal 2012 to 2015 shall not exceed $1,060,268. Executive Summary On September 12, 2011, the Council approved a “scope of work” agreement with the City’s GIS vendor, Geodesy (City Council Staff Report #1968) for development support of new computer applications linked to the GIS. The purpose of this CMR is to amend the Geodesy contract to meet continued City GIS support needs and deliver new GIS initiatives defined in the three-year GIS strategy plan. These services were being provided by a retired City employee who had been brought back on staff on an hourly basis. New CalPers rules restrict such re-employment, so the City is amending its contract with our existing vendor to provide these services. Funding for the contract amendment is provided through salary savings in the department’s budget. - This amendment is the most cost-effective and highest quality route to ensure the City meets its GIS needs. Background The GIS provides accurate citywide property, utility, and infrastructure information to Staff and the public. It is a vital component of the City’s infrastructure management program. GIS is an integral part of the City’s information infrastructure to support several mission critical City of Palo Alto Page 2 information systems, including the Police Computer Aided Dispatch System, Records Management System, Utilities Computer-Aided Design and Drafting System, and Enterprise Resource Management Program (SAP.). GIS also provides information to numerous external agencies, cities, counties, public utilities, and Stanford University. The Information Technology’s Enterprise Systems-GIS team currently is responsible for GIS helpdesk support, troubleshooting, component updates, business rules configuration, system backups, feature dictionary changes requested by users, user access, security protocols, mission critical systems interface support, and the delivery of GIS strategy plan. The staff team consists of one full-time employee and one FTE hourly employee. Discussion The following additional services will be performed by Geodesy in support of the GIS project for fiscal year 2013 – 2015. This work plan will include the following examples and other tasks on an as-needed basis. A service request will be created to track the deliverables and cost. Analyze and design GIS data exchange with surrounding jurisdictions, including cities, counties, public utilities, and Stanford University. Update foundation base map as appropriate with this information. Analyze and update foundation base map data to meet new requirements from city staff, other public agencies and the public Acquire and analyze quarterly updates of Santa Clara County (County) Recorder’s office map documents, tasks include, identifying areas affecting Palo Alto’s foundation base map, editing all cadastral data impacted by information on these documents, i.e. parcel lines, subdivisions, parcel maps, certificates of compliance, easements, and others by using distance and bearing methods within the Encompass Traverse tool set, and linking all relevant documents to appropriate features in the foundation base map by using GIS-based document management functionality. Acquire and analyze quarterly updates of the County Assessor’s office of its most current parcel rolls for Palo Alto. Tasks include: comparing these listings with the GIS data to identify changes in cadastral data affecting the foundation base map and reconciling these changes and make edits as necessary by using the tools and techniques described previously. Act as technical liaison with vendor performing scanning of documents in preparation for the inclusion of digital data into DOX, the GIS-based document management system used by the City of Palo Alto Page 3 City. Transfer data to Geodesy for automated indexing; perform quality control and after analysis of documents failing to automatically index, manually index incorrectly tagged files. Verify linkage of files to GIS foundation base map, using the DOX document management tool. Notify user departments of deliveries on an on-going basis. Assist in determining requirements for new projects to convert paper documents to digital form and link to GIS Work with City’s Real Property staff to review (paper) archive of consummated transaction files. Identify cadastral data changes made by those transactions, i.e easement deeds, right-of-way transfers, etc, edit the GIS foundation basemap to reflect these changes and link a digital copy of the file together with other relevant documents to the affected parcels in the GIS. Conceive, create and update GIS training exercises, using both PowerPoint and Video-based (Camtasia) software for exercises linked to GIS applications. Assist GIS staff in teaching in-house training classes on GIS applications, demonstrating all functionality of Encompass software in the context of the City’s operations. Perform other tasks as assigned by the City’s GIS Manager SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT Geodesy was selected on account of the following reasons: Experience: Geodesy’s staff has unique qualifications to perform the tasks described above, with over 25 years of experience building and maintaining the CIty’s Geographic Information System Efficiency and productivity: Because Geodesy’s staff has been working closely with the City’s GIS team during the past several years, it is available to begin immediately, providing trained, knowledgeable resources from the first day on site. Dedicated resource: Geodesy has dedicated one resource to support the City, on site, as needed. Timeline City of Palo Alto Page 4 The time period for this request will be from January 2013 to June 2015. Resource Impact This contract amendment will require mid-year budget adjustment to enterprise Systems Division Operation Expense in the Information Technology Internal Service Fund. Policy Implications This contract amendment does not represent any change to existing City policies. Environmental Assessment Approval of this amendment does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no environmental assessment is required Attachments:  CMR 2463 (DOC)  GIS contract C12141134 (PDF)  C12141134 Geodesy Amend 1 Partially Executed (PDF)  C12141134 W-Geodesy; CopyOfFullyExecutedContract;Current (PDF) ATTACHMENT A: CMR 2463 Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached contract with Geodesy in an amount not to exceed $230,692 for development and maintenance support services for the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) software, including $209,720 for basic services and $20,972 for additional services. 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to exercise the option to renew the contract for up to two additional years. Background On September 12, 2011, the Council approved a “scope of work” agreement with Geodesy (City Council Staff Report #1968) for development support of new computer applications linked to the GIS. This contract is for the execution and delivery of that scope of work. Discussion The proposed contract with Geodesy is for the development services ($164,720 approved in Staff report #1968) with the addition of $45,000 for on-going maintenance and support for existing applications software, resulting in a total contract amount of $209,720 for basic services. Development Support Services The GIS provides accurate Citywide property, utility, and infrastructure information to Staff and the public. It is a vital component of the City’s infrastructure management program. GIS is a central element of the City’s information infrastructure that has been integrated with several other major information systems, including the Police Computer Aided Dispatch System, Records Management System, Utilities Computer-Aided Design and Drafting System, and Enterprise Resource Management Program (SAP). Services provided under this agreement will further improve the integration of GIS with these and other systems. Dox is the City’s Document Management System developed by Geodesy. Several years ago, Dox replaced the Building Optical Disc Storage System (BODS) as the City’s document repository. The Building Department, Planning and Community Environment Department, Real Estate Division, Public Works Engineering Division, City Clerk’s Office, Fire Department, and Police Department have all adopted DOX as their document management system. Hundreds of thousands of documents, that were locked in the BODS’ proprietary database, have been extracted, indexed, and stored in the open standards database used by DOX, allowing any authorized user access to them. Further enhancements to this tool will enable Staff, and where appropriate, the public to more easily access and view information stored in the system. Furthermore, improved access will reduce Staff workload and improve customer service because citizens will no longer be required to travel to the City to request this same information. Support for ongoing input of new documents is included in this contract. ATTACHMENT A: CMR 2463 In the public safety area, GIS-based tools (CADStat) support the City’s Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system making real-time incident information available in the Dispatch Center, as well as police and fire mobile units. At a glance, dispatchers can view dispatched incidents, and the location of mobile assets, using Automated Vehicle Location technology. This provides Staff with a “big picture” of what’s going on as well as specifics of the incident they are responding to. This agreement will extend these capabilities to other mobile devices, including smartphones and tablet devices. Geodesy will be instrumental in integrating CADStat with the new multi-jurisdiction CAD system developed jointly by the City of Mountain View, City of Los Altos, and City of Palo Alto over the coming year. In Fiscal Year 2010-11, the City’s Utility Engineering Division implemented a new utility management system (Topobase) as its core tool for designing and drafting utility infrastructure projects. Throughout that process, Geodesy provided support for data migration and synchronization between Topobase and the City’s GIS. Under this agreement, Geodesy will continue GIS/Topobase support as well as develop system enhancements, including network model synchronization, GIS utility macro updates, and improved data editing using mobile devices. Previously, Geodesy modified the City’s Pavement Management System (PMMS) to conform to requirements of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). PMMS far exceeds the capability of MTC’s StreetSaver software in its GIS display and analysis capabilities. PMMS currently maintains data in a Microsoft Access database allowing the entire master database to be taken to the field in support of pavement survey activities. Under this agreement, Geodesy will migrate the PMMS data from MS Access to MS SQL Server. This will provide a more reliable and secure backup of Staff work, as well as make the current state of the survey available to authorized users in the City. Geodesy will provide other services under this contract to further enable Staff to take advantage of GIS including: - Mobile User Data Mining capabilities for Police Department management; - Web Page Setup Support providing a common and consistent template for context specific web maps; - Extending SAP Work Orders to the GIS, which will allow work order data to be viewed by a broader audience in an easily accessible, map-oriented format; and - Emergency Damage Assessment Consolidation application, which will support the efforts of CERT volunteers. Training on the use of applications affected by these changes is included under this contract. As part of this training, improved documentation and help screens will be developed. Tasks identified in the scope of services (in Exhibit A) are consistent with the objectives of the GIS Strategic Plan. ATTACHMENT A: CMR 2463 Maintenance and Support Services Geodesy will provide maintenance and support for the Encompass GIS software applications and components used by Palo Alto. The support will be in the form of telephone, e-mail, and periodic on-site support to Palo Alto’s technical staff for those applications and components. Geodesy will maintain all the Encompass GIS software applications and components in working order and apply any fixes and required changes to the software to maintain that state. Geodesy will maintain all related developer-level documentation. Upon request, Geodesy will backup Palo Alto’s GIS data at their facilities. SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT Geodesy has been instrumental in the development of the City’s GIS and related applications, including many of the applications previously mentioned. Geodesy’s unique understanding of the City's specialized GIS system, experience in developing GIS applications for the City, and expertise in the City’s GIS software environment make it necessary to render the award as a sole source contract. RESOURCE IMPACT Funds for the new development portion of this contract ($164,720) are budgeted in CIP 10215. Funds for maintenance and support ($45,000) are part of the I.T. operations budget. Based on the Technology Fund Strategic Plan, the Enterprise Fund will pay 60 percent and the General Fund will pay 40 percent of the expenses. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This agreement does not represent any change to existing City policies. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Approval of this agreement does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no environmental assessment is required. City of Palo Alto (ID # 3251) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program Tree Grant Title: Adoption of a Resolution to Apply for Grant Funds for the Environment Enhancement and Mitigation Program for Tree Plantings to Mitigate Impacts of the Highway 101 Auxiliary Lane Construction From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends Council approve a resolution (Attachment A) to authorize the City Manager or his designee to submit a grant application to Caltrans for a California Natural Resources Agency, Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEMP) grant that would provide up to $350,000 for the planting of trees for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project, PE-13011. Background State funding is available to mitigate the environmental impacts of transportation facilities (projects). The EEMP was established by the Legislature in 1989. It offers a total of $10 million each year for grants to local, state, and federal governmental agencies and to nonprofit organizations. Eligible projects must be directly or indirectly related to the environmental impact of the modification of an existing transportation facility or construction of a new transportation facility i.e. road widening would be mitigated by planting trees in the City right- of- way. Expected increases to vehicle traffic will add pollutants to the air, including carbon dioxide, which can be sequestered by planting trees and other suitable plants. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion The EEMP grant does not require matching funds to be supplied, however due to the competitive application process, existing Capital Improvement Project(s) (CIP) need to be identified as the City’s commitment at the time of the submittal. Every EEMP project must be directly or indirectly related to the environmental impact of the modification of an existing Transportation Facility, or the environmental impact of the construction of a new Transportation Facility. A Related Transportation Facility is defined as a public street, highway, mass transit guideway or their appurtenant features (e.g. park and ride facilities, high- occupancy vehicle lanes, transit stations, etc.) The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan was adopted by Council in January 2003 and funding of the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor project PE-13011 was approved in the FY 2013 Capital Budget. The project is currently in the design phase and the scope includes new landscaping and tree planting duringconstruction. The Charleston/Arastadero project could be defined as being indirectly related to the current widening work being done on Highway 101 by Caltrans and approval of this grant will allow additional planting thereby mitigating traffic impacts by maintaining environmental health for Palo Alto residents. Grant applications are due no later than January 4, 2013. Award notices are scheduled to be supplied by September 2013 with an expected project completion date of June 2015. Trees would l be planted between November through March during the winter of 2013-14 or 2014-15 dependent upon the timeline established for the Charleston/Arastrero project. Funds from the grant award will be on a reimbursement basis for actual direct costs of trees including related site preparation and installation costs. Resource Impact The grant amount of up to $350,000 will supplement or provide funding in the existing Charleston/Arastradero Corridor project PE-13011 for up to 300-500 trees dependent upon the final design. Funding for these trees and associated costs City of Palo Alto Page 3 will be included in the construction budget when submitted for Council approval and reimbursed once invoices are submitted to Caltans. Policy Implications Application for a grant to improve City landscaping is consistent with City policy. Environmental Review California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents for this project have been completed as required to be supplied as addendums to the grant application. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan was prepared in 2004. Attachments:  Resolution #3251 (DOC) Resolution of the City of Palo Alto Endorsing submittal of an application for grant funds from the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted AB 471 (Chapter 106 of the Statutes of 1989), which is intended to provide $10 million annually for a period of 10 years for grant funds to local, state and federal agencies and nonprofit entities for projects to enhance and mitigate the environmental impacts of modified or new public transportation facilities; and WHEREAS, the Natural Resources Agency has established the procedures and criteria for reviewing grant proposals and is required to submit to the California Transportation Commission a list of recommended projects from which the grant recipients will be selected; and WHEREAS, said procedures and criteria established by the Natural Resources Agency require a resolution certifying the approval of application by the Applicant's governing body before submission of said application to the State; and WHEREAS, the application contains assurances that the Applicant must comply with; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, if selected, will enter into an agreement with the State of California to carry out the environmental enhancement and mitigation project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE The City of Palo Alto (GOVERNING BODY) 1. Approves the filing of an application for the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program for grant assistance. 2. Certifies that said Applicant will make adequate provisions for operation and maintenance of the project. 3. Appoints Walter Passmore, Urban Forester as agent of the City of Palo Alto to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project. Approved and Adopted the _________ day of ____________________, 2_____________. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution Number _______________ was duly adopted by the (GOVERNING BODY) following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: ______________________________________ (CLERK/SECRETARY FOR THE GOVERNING BODY) CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 17, 2012 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Adoption of Resolution Declaring Results of the Consolidated General and Special Municipal Elections Held on November 6, 2012 On December 10, 2012 the results for the November 6, 2012 General and Special Elections were received from the Registrar of Voters. Attached is the resolution canvassing the results of the November 6, 2012, General and Special Elections. ATTACHMENTS:  : 8262029 Reso Special Election (PDF)  : Election Results (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 NOT YET APPROVED 1 121211 sh 8262029 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Results of the Consolidated General and Special Municipal Elections Held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012 R E C I T A L S A. On November 6, 2012, a general municipal election was duly held in the City of Palo Alto pursuant to the provisions of Article III, Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto for the purpose of electing four members to the City Council, each for a full term of four years expiring December 31, 2016; B. On November 6, 2012, a special election was consolidated with the general municipal election and duly held in the City of Palo Alto pursuant to Part 3 of Division 10 of the Election Code, commencing at Section 10400 and Education Code Section 5342, elections may be partially or complete consolidated for the purpose of submitting Measure C to the voters of the City, in the form set forth below: Shall the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to permit three medical marijuana dispensaries to operate in Palo Alto in any commercial or industrial zone subject to prescribed zoning criteria? C. Due and legal notice of the general and special municipal election was given as required by law; D. On the 6th day of November 2012, at 7:00 a.m., the polls were duly and regularly opened for the general municipal election and the polls were continuously kept open until 8:00 p.m.; E. The Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County has conducted a complete and official canvass of the returns of the election; F. Article III, Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto requires the Council to act as the canvassing board to canvass the results of such elections; and G. On December 17, 2012, the Council of the City of Palo Alto met at its usual place of meeting, canvassed the returns of the general and special municipal elections and declared the results thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: NOT YET APPROVED 2 121211 sh 8262029 SECTION 1. The Council finds and declares that: (a) A general municipal election was duly and regularly held on November 6, 2012, according to the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, Resolution Number 9254, and the election laws of the State of California; (b) The total number of votes cast in the City at the municipal election for the purpose of electing four council members for full terms including those votes cast upon absentee ballots was 70,847 on 32,606 ballots (85.1% turnout); (c) The total number of votes given and cast at the municipal election, including votes cast upon absentee ballots, was as follows for the candidates for City Council for full terms: MARC BERMAN 13,057 PAT BURT 13,301 TIMOTHY GRAY 7,668 LIZ KNISS 17,445 GREG SCHMID 13,627 MARK WEISS 5,749 TOTAL 70,847 (d) Marc Berman, Pat Burt, Liz Kniss and Greg Schmid being the four candidates receiving the highest number of votes for the office of Council Member for a full four-year term, were duly and regularly elected for terms of four years commencing January 1, 2013, to serve as Council Members of the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 2. The Council finds and declares that: (a) A special election consolidated with the general municipal election was duly and regularly held on November 6, 2012, pursuant to the Government Code Section Part 3 of Division 10 of the Election Code, commencing at Section 10400, Elections Code Section 9222, and the election laws of the State of California for the purpose of considering Measure C. NOT YET APPROVED 3 121211 sh 8262029 (b) The total number of votes cast in the City at said Special Election, including votes cast upon absentee ballots, was 29,190 on 32,606 ballots. (c) The total number of votes given and cast for Measure C at said election, including votes cast upon absentee ballots, was as follows: YES 10,868 NO 18,322 TOTAL 29,190 (d) The results do not have a majority of votes for the Measure, therefore the Measure is not approved. SECTION 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference is the statement of the results as required by Section 10264 of the California Elections Code. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ _______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Attorney City of Palo Alto (ID # 3382) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2014 Infrastructure Finance Measure Update Title: Update on Planning for Potential Infrastructure Finance Measure for 2014 Ballot From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council accept this report providing an update on planning for a potential infrastructure finance measure for the 2014 ballot. This has been placed on consent because of the volume on the action agenda and because the related contract award for public opinion research is also on the consent agenda. Background On September 18, 2012, the City Council adopted the plan and high level schedule of the work to be completed over the next two years for a potential 2014 infrastructure finance measure (included as Attachment A). This staff report provides an update on initial planning efforts and strategy development, community outreach, and follow-up items from the September 18, 2012 meeting, as well as, a more detailed timeline of the work to be completed through 2014. Discussion This report provides an update on the following plan components: 1. Core Strategy Team 2. Planning & Opinion Research 3. Community Outreach & Engagement 4. Plan Design/Review City of Palo Alto Page 2 1. Core Strategy Team The first step of the plan is to assemble a core strategy team. Given the complexity of the work to be completed over the next two years, staff established a Management Team overseeing three tracks of work: 1) planning and opinion research, 2) community outreach and engagement, and 3) technical (project plan/design). The City Manager’s Office is leading the project. A Leadership Advisory Team has also been established to assess key policy issues and recommendations, with the City Manager making final recommendations to the Council at key milestones. Attachment B provides an organizational chart and identifies the core members of the Leadership Advisory Team, Management Team and working groups that are assembled. It is also envisioned that the City’s Chief Communication’s Officer will play a key role in the community outreach and engagement work. The recruitment for this position is underway. 2. Public Opinion Research Since September, staff has proceeded with retaining assistance of outside experts in two areas: 1) public opinion research and 2) public communications and educational outreach strategy. On the consent agenda this evening, Council will consider entering into an agreement with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates (FM3) to conduct opinion research for the City over the next two years. FM3 has extensive knowledge in public opinion research and a proven track record providing services on successful ballot measures. FM3 conducted the opinion research for the City’s successful Library bond measure in 2008 and has worked with numerous public agencies in California. There are four phases of the opinion research beginning with a feasibility survey in March 2013. If the research indicates that a finance measure(s) to support infrastructure improvements is potentially feasible, the second phase is to conduct focus groups over the summer. The third phase is a refinement survey to be conducted in the fall of 2013, and a final tracking survey in the spring of 2014 prior to Council’s decision whether to place a measure on the 2014 ballot. Proceeding with each phase of the research is dependent on the results and is at the discretion of the City. Below is a summary timeline of the research phases. The four phases are described in more detail in the contract award (Consent Item #12). Opinion Research Timeline Research Phase Timeframe Phase 1: Feasibility Survey February-April 2013 Phase 2: Focus Groups July-August 2013 Phase 3: Refinement Survey September- October 2013 Phase 4: Tracking Survey April-June 2014 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Council requested that staff return with a recommendation about engaging a Council Committee or subcommittee to vet key policy issues over the next two years. Staff is recommending that the incoming Mayor appoint two to three Council members as part of the Committee assignments in January 2013 to work with staff on an ad hoc basis on the public opinion research, and other areas to be determined such as community outreach and ballot preparation, as needed. A similar approach was used in 2008 on the library bond measure. Based on the anticipated limited scope of these assignments, staff anticipates at this time that they will be temporary ad hoc committees not subject to the Brown Act. It is anticipated that the appointed members may participate in two to three planning meetings during each phase of the opinion research and the development of the communication plan and review draft documents via email. The appointed members may also be asked to assist with ballot preparation in early 2014 should the City Council elect to proceed with a finance measure. 3. Community Outreach & Engagement Consistent with the plan, a solicitation is underway to retain the services of a professional strategic communications and educational outreach firm to develop a community outreach plan and assist with its implementation. The communications firm will work with the City and the City’s polling firm to:  Develop and manage strategies focused on the finance measure’s feasibility.  Support the development of survey instruments and tracking polls on communications/messaging and analyses and application of results.  Recommend how to structure/define the finance measure(s).  Develop, refine, and target key messages and themes.  Develop a communications plan.  Implement community outreach and education activities prior to Council’s decision to place a measure(s) on the ballot. The City issued a request for proposals for the communications strategist on November 8, 2012. Staff held a pre-proposal conference on November 28, with six vendors attending. Proposals are due to the City on December 11, with staff evaluation of the proposers in December. Interviews with the top candidates are planned in early January. Staff anticipates bringing an agreement forward for Council consideration in January 2013 and commencing work in early February 2013 in alignment with the first phase of opinion research. To date, reporting on infrastructure related issues has been on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) report, and related City Manager Reports, as well as current projects described on various webpages on the City’s website. Additionally, the City has distributed construction updates to impacted neighborhoods, emails to various project City of Palo Alto Page 4 subscriber lists, posts to social media sites, emails to the Palo Alto Neighborhood group, alerts to the media, updates provided in the Mayor’s Message newsletter, and City Manager Comments at Council meetings. Additionally, space for text messages and flyers in the utility bills has been reserved over the next six months. In preparation for the communication consultant’s work, staff is reviewing all infrastructure-related topics on the City’s website in order to assess what information currently exists and how to make it more accessible to the community. This initial review, to be completed in January, will help inform early infrastructure educational efforts. These efforts will become more strategic as the City has more refined information about community perspectives and priorities as a result of the City’s opinion research. A key element of the City’s community outreach strategy is to engage a Citizen Advisory Committee. The purpose of the advisory committee is to supplement City leadership with external community partners and leaders to help build broad-based consensus, provide input to finance measure planning, and to be partners in informing the community about the City’s infrastructure needs. Staff is currently conducting research on best practices on the development of a Citizen Advisory Committee and recommends utilizing the expertise of the City’s polling and communications consultants to develop a plan to engage and support a Committee. Staff is committed to returning to Council with recommendations in early 2013 based on the experience and suggestions of the City’s polling and communications consultants. 4. Plan/Design Review The initial feasibility survey will focus on the projects reviewed by City Council at its September 18, 2012 meeting: 1. Public Safety Building 2. Bike/Pedestrian Plan 3. Bike Bridge 4. Byxbee Park 5. Fire Stations 6. Streets (also includes Charleston/Arastradero and accelerated resurfacing) 7. Sidewalks (surface catch-up) 8. Cubberley (replace/expand) 9. Parks catch-up 10. Animal Services Center 11. Playing Fields (golf course) 12. Post Office 13. Ventura Community Center 14. School Childcare Sites At the September 18 meeting, staff provided a series of one page summary sheets for each project. The project sheets provided a project description, the estimated project cost and basis of the estimate, information on identified and potential funding sources City of Palo Alto Page 5 that may offset the need for public financing, and other variables or considerations that may affect project timing, cost, or viability. Council requested staff develop a one page summary worksheet of similar information that identified all the projects, estimated cost, potential funding, net cost, importance of project, availability of funding, and public support. Attachment C provides a draft of the worksheet. Staff will continue to update and refine the worksheet as new information is available. Council also requested staff return to Council with a strategy and timeline for refining project costs. This will occur as staff works with the public opinion research consultant to develop questions for polling that will provide information about the public’s support for infrastructure projects. It is important to refine the cost estimates used as much as possible at the current levels of project design. The goals of the near-term work on cost estimates are as follows:  verify the cost estimates and update them as necessary to reflect any changes to the project scopes  define and utilize a consistent set of assumptions about project contingencies, soft costs, and construction escalation  develop new cost estimates for newly defined projects such as the Ventura Community Center and School Childcare Sites There are a variety of factors influencing the project cost estimates. In some instances, such as the Public Safety Building and the Cubberley (replace/expand) projects, ongoing processes and Council policy decisions will inform the cost estimates. Given the number of projects and the extensive variables that may impact cost estimates, the need for accurate project estimates must be balanced with the resources that are used to refine the estimates. The initial baseline survey will focus on public support for projects and some preliminary cost estimates or ranges of costs. The table below describes staff’s proposed work on the cost estimates, to be completed prior to the initial public opinion polling in spring 2013. Project Initial Estimated Cost (in millions) Level of Effort Needed Public Safety Building 47 Staff review of project scope, project design and construction contingencies, construction year escalation, and soft costs such as design and environmental clearance. Update estimates as appropriate for consistency. Byxbee Park 3.6 Sidewalks (surface catch-up) 3.7 Cubberley (replace/expand) 83* Parks catch-up 9.8 Playing Fields (golf course) 6 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Bike/Pedestrian Plan 25 Consultant peer review of existing construction costs estimates. Staff review of project scope, project design and construction contingencies, construction year escalation, and soft costs such as design and environmental clearance. Update estimates as appropriate for consistency and accuracy of construction costs. Bike Bridge 10 Fire Stations 14.2 Streets 9.75 Animal Services Center 6.9 Post Office 10 Ventura Community Center tbd Develop new cost estimate. Define scope and estimate construction cost with consultant assistance, applying consistent contingencies and soft costs such as design and environmental clearance. School Childcare Sites tbd *City’s estimated portion $83M; total estimated cost $200M. Timeline The draft working schedule is included as Attachment D. Staff will continue to develop and refine the timeline and schedule based on the results of the opinion research, decisions about the strategy and priorities for the infrastructure finance measure, and the communication plan. Staff will also continue to provide regular informational updates to the Council on the progress of work. Attachments:  Attachment A. Strategy and High Level Schedule (PDF)  Attachment B. Organization and Core Teams (PDF)  Attachment C. Project Summary Sheet (PDF)  Attachment D. Project Schedule (PDF) Attachment A. High Level Work Plan & Schedule Opinion Research/ Strategic Planning • Assemble Core Team • Identify Priority Projects & Costs •Retain Expertise • Conduct Feasibility Research • Assess Baseline Results for Feasibility • Track/Reassess Support •Act to Place Measure on Ballot (Policy ‐June/ Official ‐July 2014) RFP 20 1 3 JFMAMJJASONDJ 20 1 4 JFMAMJJASON 20 1 5 Community Outreach •Retain Communications Strategist •Conduct Preliminary Community Outreach •Develop Communication Plan • Implement Outreach & Engagement Program • Engage Citizen Advisory Committee RFP Preliminary Plan/Design Review(as applicable) •Refine Project Costs • Develop/Update Schematic Designs • Conduct Environmental Review • Council & Committee Review/Approval Ballot PreparationOpinion Research/ Strategic Planning • Prepare Ballot Measure • Prepare Synopsis •Adopt Resolution of Necessity •Adopt Ordinance Calling Election • File Ordinance •Hold Election Attachment B. Organization, Management and Leadership Teams Attachment C. Infrastructure Project Summary Sheet (all costs/revenues in millions of dollars) Project Estimated Cost Potential Funding Net Cost Importance Ranking Public Support Ranking Annual Operating Revenue Other One Time Costs Public Safety Building 47 27 20 tbd tbd 1.4 tbd Bike/Pedestrian Plan 25 1.2 23.8 tbd tbd Bike Bridge 10 5 5 tbd tbd Byxbee Park 3.6 0 3.6 tbd tbd Fire Stations 14.2 0 14.2 tbd tbd Streets 1 9.75 0.45 9.3 tbd tbd Sidewalks (surface catch‐up)3.7 0 3.7 tbd tbd Cubberley Replace/Expand 200 117 83 tbd tbd Parks Catch Up 9.8 0 9.8 tbd tbd Animal Services Center 6.9 0 6.9 tbd tbd Playing Fields (at Golf Course)6 0 6 tbd tbd tbd Post Office 2 10 0 10 tbd tbd 1.2 3 Ventura Community Center tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd School Childcare Centers tbd tbd tbd tbd tbd Surface Catch Up 5.1 0 5.1 Buildings Catch Up 4.5 0 4.5 Cubberley Deferred Maintenance 6.9 0 6.9 Civic Center 16 0 16 Los Altos Treatment Plant 202 tbd Airport 550 Golf Course 8.1 7.6 0.5 Municipal Services Center 93 93 0 Regional Water Quality Control Plant 2 88 88 0 Energy/Compost Facility 100 100 0 Sum: 674.6 444.3 230.3 2.6 3 1 Streets project is defined as completion of the Charleston/Arastradero project with acceleration of the overall street resurfacing program; this placeholder estimate is for the Charleston/Arastradero project and does not yet include additional cost for accelerated resurfacing 2 Project cost figures have been updated since the 9/18/2012 City Council meeting Pr o j e c t s ap p r o v e d by Co u n c i l fo r in i t i a l pu b l i c op i n i o n re s e a r c h Ot h e r pr o j e c t s no t pl a n n e d fo r pu b l i c op i n i o n re s e a r c h The project information and cost estimate information on this sheet represent staff’s best information at this time. Staff will continue to refine the information as new and more precise information becomes available. ID Task Name Start Finish 1 1 Public Opinion Research Tue 1/1/13 Tue 7/1/14 2 1.1 Feasability Survey Sun 1/13/13 Mon 4/15/13 3 1.1.1 Review Past Surveys & Background Material Tue 1/15/13 Fri 2/1/13 4 1.1.2 Conduct Kick Off Meeting Fri 2/1/13 Fri 2/1/13 5 1.1.3 Develop Survey QuestionnairFri 2/1/13 Fri 3/1/13 6 1.1.4 Pre‐test Survey, Evaluate, RefFri 3/1/13 Fri 3/8/13 7 1.1.5 Conduct Feasility Survey Fri 3/15/13 Fri 3/22/13 8 1.1.6 Present Top Line Results and Findings to City and Key Stakeholders Mon 4/1/13 Mon 4/1/13 9 1.1.7 Council Evaluates Results & Determines Next Steps Mon 4/15/13 Mon 4/15/13 10 1.2 Focus Groups Mon 7/1/13 Mon 9/2/13 11 1.2.1 Conduct Kick Off Meeting Mon 7/1/13 Mon 7/1/13 12 1.2.2 Develop Recruitment Plan Mon 7/1/13 Sun 7/14/13 13 1.2.3 Develop Moderator Guide Sun 7/7/13 Thu 8/1/13 14 1.2.4 Complete Focus Group RecruSun 7/14/13 Thu 8/1/13 15 1.2.5 Conduct Focus Groups Thu 8/1/13 Thu 8/15/13 16 1.2.6 Provide Key Findings to City Mon 9/2/13 Mon 9/2/13 17 1.3 Refinement Survey Mon 9/2/13 Fri 11/1/13 18 1.3.1 Council Evaluates Results & Determines Next Steps Fri 11/1/13 Fri 11/1/13 19 1.4 Tracking Survey Sat 3/1/14 Thu 5/1/14 20 1.4.1 Council Makes Policy Decision on Whether to Pursue Sun 6/1/14 Sun 6/1/14 21 2 Communication & Engagement Strategy Wed 11/7/12 Mon 7/14/14 22 2.1 Vendor Selection Wed 11/7/12 Mon 1/28/13 23 2.1.1 Release RFP for Infrastructure Communications Wed 11/7/12 Tue 12/11/12 24 2.1.2 Evaluate Proposals Wed 12/12/12 Fri 12/21/12 25 2.1.3 Interview and Select Communications Vendor Mon 1/7/13 Fri 1/11/13 26 2.1.4 Council Considers Contract anMon 1/28/13 Mon 1/28/13 2/1 4/1 4/15 7/1 9/2 11/1 6/1 1/28 O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S 2013 2014 Attachment D. Draft Project Schedule 12‐12‐2012 Page 1 ID Task Name Start Finish 27 2.2 Communications and Outreach Mon 1/14/13 Mon 7/14/14 28 2.2.1 Review Past Infrastructure Outreach Efforts Mon 1/14/13 Thu 1/31/13 29 2.2.2 Conduct Kick Off Meeting Fri 2/1/13 Fri 2/1/13 30 2.2.3 Develop Messaging from Feasibility Survey Results Mon 4/1/13 Fri 4/12/13 31 2.2.4 Develop Communications Strategy and Implementation Plan from Survey Results Mon 4/1/13 Tue 4/30/13 32 2.2.5 Implement Outreach & Engagement Program Wed 5/1/13 Mon 7/14/14 33 2.2.6 Refine Messaging after Focus Groups Thu 8/15/13 Thu 8/15/13 34 2.2.7 Update Messaging after Refinement Survey Fri 11/1/13 Fri 11/1/13 35 2.2.8 Refine Messaging after Tracking Survey Thu 5/1/14 Thu 5/1/14 36 2.3 Citizen Engagement Mon 4/15/13 Mon 7/14/14 37 2.3.1 Engage/Support Citizen Advisory Committee Mon 4/15/13 Mon 7/14/14 38 3 Plan Design and Review Mon 12/3/12 Sat 3/15/14 39 3.1 Review Existing Cost Estimates Mon 12/3/12 Thu 1/31/13 40 3.2 Develop Consultant Scope of ServMon 12/17/12 Fri 1/18/13 41 3.3 Engage Consultant Fri 1/18/13 Fri 1/18/13 42 3.4 Refine Existing Cost Estimates and Develop New Ones Fri 1/18/13 Fri 3/15/13 43 3.5 Continue to Refine Plan Design/Cost as Applicable Fri 3/15/13 Sat 3/1/14 44 4 Ballot Preparation Mon 6/2/14 Mon 8/4/14 45 4.1 Preparation of Synopsis of Ballot Sun 6/1/14 Sun 6/15/14 46 4.2 Council Adopts Resolution of Necessity Mon 7/14/14 Mon 7/14/14 47 4.3 Council Adopts Ordinance Calling Election Mon 7/21/14 Mon 7/21/14 48 4.4 Last Day for City Clerk to File Ordinance Mon 8/4/14 Mon 8/4/14 2/1 8/15 11/1 5/1 1/18 7/14 7/21 8/4 O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S 2013 2014 Attachment D. Draft Project Schedule 12‐12‐2012 Page 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3380) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Opinion Research for Potential 2014 Infrastructure Finance Measure Title: Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance and Approval of a Contract with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $90,000 for Public Opinion Research Services Related to a Potential 2014 Infrastructure Finance Measure From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends: 1. City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract between the City and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates for a two year period through November 2014 with the option to renew for up to two additional one year terms for a total amount not to exceed $90,000 for the term of the contract. 2. City Council approval of the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $90,000 to fund the contract. Background On September 18, 2012, the City Council approved a comprehensive plan and schedule for evaluating a potential infrastructure finance measure on California’s November 2014General Election ballot. As a part of this plan, the City is seeking the services of a City of Palo Alto Page 2 professional polling firm that can prepare and conduct a series of community opinion polls/assessments over the next two years to identify: 1. Level of support for infrastructure projects and improvements 2. Specific projects and improvements that are community priorities 3. Type of funding mechanism the community is willing to support 4. Level of tax threshold the community is willing to support 5. Optimal election timing 6. Effective themes/messages 7. Potential issues The research will be used to inform the City Council and the community regarding current sentiment towards the City’s infrastructure, to help evaluate the feasibility of passing a funding measure in November 2014, and to help shape successful themes for public communication and education about the City’s infrastructure. Discussion The City released a request for proposals (RFP) for public opinion research in August 2012. Six firms submitted proposals ranging from $85,000 to $155,000. 1. EMC Research 2. Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates 3. Hill Research Consultants 4. Lincoln Parks 5. Moore Information 6. Public Opinion Strategies An evaluation committee comprised of staff from Administrative Services, City Manager’s Office, Public Works and a member of the former Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission evaluated each firm's submittal in response to the RFP relative to the following criteria: City of Palo Alto Page 3 1. Strategic direction and overall design of the research proposed 2. Quality and completeness of proposals 3. Cost and business value to City 4. Experience and track record with similar projects The following firms were selected for oral presentations: 1. EMC Research 2. Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates 3. Hill Research Consultants Upon staff’s evaluation of the proposals and oral interviews, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates (FM3) was selected as the recommended firm. FM3 has extensive knowledge in public opinion research and a proven track record providing services to public agencies that have had successful ballot measures. FM3 conducted the opinion research for the City’s successful Library bond measure in 2008 and has worked with numerous public agencies in California. Timeline FM3 is providing a four-phased approach to the opinion research with results of each phase informing whether to proceed with the next phase, at the City’s discretion. The initial feasibility survey will be conducted in the spring of 2013, followed by focus groups in the summer, a potential refinement survey in the fall, and a final tracking survey in early 2014 to inform the Council’s final decision whether to proceed with a revenue measure in November 2014. Resource Impact The amount of the contract with FM3 is $90,000 and staff recommends a transfer from the Budget Stabilization Reserve via a Budget Amendment Ordinance to the City Manager’s operating budget. Attachments:  Attachment A: Fairbanks Agreement 12-11-2012 (PDF)  Attachment B: CMO Polling BAO (DOCX) CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C13147584 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULIN, MET'" AND ASSOCIATES, INC FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 6th day of December, 2012, ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULIN, METZ AND ASSOCIATES, INC a California Corporation, located at 2425 Colorado Avenue, Suite 180, Santa Monica, CA 90404, Telephone: (310) 826-1183 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to conduct some community opinion and research polls ("Project") and desires to engage a consultant to conduct the polling and research in connection with the Project ("Services"). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit "A" in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from December 6, 2012 through November 14, 2014 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 ofthis Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. The CITY retains the option to renew for up to two additional one year terms. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is ofthe essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "8", attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault ofCONSOLTANT SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-l", entitled "HOURLY . RATE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part ofthis Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit "C". CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit "A". SECTION 5. INVOICES In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-l "). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the CITY's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The CITY will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. OUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, ifpermitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. 2 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\OTHERS -ADRIAN\RFPs\RFP147584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambig11itjes jn the work prodllct SJlbmitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (I 0%) of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experLence of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the CITY manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the CITY manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the CITY manager or designee. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the CITY manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Dave Metz, Partner, Email: Dave@FM3research.com, Telephone: (510) 451-9521 as the Director to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Shakari Byerly, Vice President, Email: Shakari@FM3research.com as the Project Manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement 3 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S:\ASO\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\OTHERS -ADRIAN\RFPs\RFP147584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perrow the Services jn an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The CITY's project manager is Sheila Tucker, Sheila Tucker, Assistant to CITY Manager, Office of the CITY Manager, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329-2452, Email: sheila.tucker@CITYofpaloalto.org. The project manager will be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor ofthe CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, ifany, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the CITY Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation ofthe suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. 3 Professional Services Rev, June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENTBUYER-CM FOLDERS\OTHERS -ADRIAN\RFPs\RFP147584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147S84 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision ofthis Agreement, or ofthe provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver OraDY other tenn, cQvenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, Of of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other tenn, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term ofthis Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subjectto the approval of CITY's Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification, CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The CITY Manager may suspend the perfonnance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 5 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S;IASDIPURCH\SOLlCITA TJONS\CURRENT BUYER·CM FOLDERS\OTHERS· ADRlAN\RFPs\RFP147584 Poll;ng s,,,,;ces\RFP147584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the CITY Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSIJLTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSUL TANTwill be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the CITY Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16,19.4,20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. 6 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\OTHERS -ADRIAN\RFPs\RFP147584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the CITY Clerk CITY of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2 . CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant" as that term is defined by the Regulations ofthe Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENT ALL Y PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REOUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the CITY's Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the CITY's Zero Waste Program. Zero 7 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\OTHERS -ADRIAN\RFPs\RFP147584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147S84 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste req'ljrements' • All printed materials provided by Consultant to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the CITY's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the CITY shall be purchased in accordance with the CITY's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the CITY, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24. I. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions ofthe Charter of the CITY of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply 8 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S:IASDIPURCHISOLICITATIONSICURRENT BUYER·CM FOLDERSIOTHERS . ADRIANlRFPsIRFPI47584 Polling ServicesIRFPI47584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. Ifa court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part ofthis Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section l798.81.5(d) about a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform CITY immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without CITY's express written consent. /I /I /I /I /I /I /I /I /I I I II 9 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S:IASDlPURCH\SOLlCITATIONSICURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERSIOTHERS -ADRIANIRFPsIRFPI47584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL-doc 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULIN, METZ AND ASSOCIATES, INC CITY Manager By: __ (N~----,-'-\ -:-K-:7~fh=. __ _ Name:_7.-(),:,-IfV:.c:.ct:O-'!f)"'~L.M,--,.'-7--___ ~ Title:_---'~L.:t:"-'i''''':)_.11)''___=__G /V'-'--'-( __ _ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. CITY Attorney Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": EXHIBIT "C-1 ": EXHIBIT "D": SCOPE OF WORK SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE OF RATES INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 10 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S:IASDIPURCII\SOLICITATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIOTHERS • ADRIANlRFPsIRFPI47584 Polling ServicesIRFPI47584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES The primary work* product will be a series of community opinion polls relating to a possible bond or other revenue measure for infrastructure projects and improvements. Other work products will most likely include the following, as deemed necessary by the CITY and the CONSULTANT: I) Consultation with City staff, and possibly City Council members and members of the community, on the design of the questionnaire. 2) Telephone interview polls conducted using generally-accepted polling practices. 3) Focus groups conducted using generally-accepted qualitative research practices. 4) Preparation of a variety of statistical tables and analyses. 5) Preparation of draft and final reports of the data with key findings. Reports will include visual presentation, executive summary, written report, and strategic analysis. 6) Meet with and present to City representatives, City Council, members of the community and others as needed to review results and discuss findings. This could include attendance and presentation at Council Committee and Council meetings. 7) Overview of current polling practices and uses for City staff members. 8) Any other tools or processes that would be useful in understanding current community opinions. *CONSUL TANTS -Staff from your firm assigned to this project shall be present during the interviews and should be the same individuals assigned to work on this project from beginning to end. PHASE 1: FEASIBILITY SURVEY Questionnaire Design: CONSULTANT recommends that the CITY begin with a feasibility survey of 600 local voters that would take the average respondent approximately 20 minutes to complete. A sample size of 600 interviews is consistent with prior polling conducted on behalf of the CITY and is associated with a margin of error of +/-4.0 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. Interviews will be conducted with a sample of voters representative of the general population of Palo Alto voters, including voters that fall within the demographic of "cell-phone" only households. The survey questionnaire development process will begin with an initial kickoff meeting between CONSULTANT and CITY staff, and any other partners who will be involved in the project. The meeting will provide a comprehensive discussion about major issues regarding the CITY, its public safety and infrastructure needs, and any other issues that should be explored in the survey. After the initial meeting, CONSULTANT will draft the questionnaire, maintaining close phone and e-mail contact with the CITY to follow up on issues discussed during the kickoff meeting. CONSULTANT will present a first draft of the survey questionnaire for review and comment by CITY staff. After collecting feedback, we will revise and refine the survey questionnaire. We foresee proceeding through several drafts of the survey, incorporating feedback before each revision, to arrive at a final questionnaire that obtains the information desired. 11 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\OTHERS -ADRIAN\RFPs\RFPI47584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc Before commencing interviewing, CONSUL TANTwill secure the approval of the appropriate CITY representative on the final version of the questionnaire. Pre-Testing: Once approved for fielding, the questionnaire will be pre-tested with a sufficient number of respondents to assure ease of administration and flow. Such testing will also verify the length of the questionnaire and the survey questions' clarity and comprehensibility. The results of the pre-test will be reviewed with the client in order to determine if any adjustments need to be made before interviewing proceeds. Interviewing: CONSULTANT has well-established procedures to supervise the interviewing process and to verify that interviews were conducted according to specifications. The day after interviewing has been completed CONSULTANT will e-mail the CITY "top line" results of the survey. These results will present the overall percentage of respondents that chose each answer to each ofthe survey's questions. Deliverables: Upon conclusion of the survey project, the CITY will have received from CONSULTANT all of the documents listed below. All documents can be provided in hard-copy and electronic form, depending on the client's preference: .(' Final survey qnestionnaire .(' Topline survey results (the survey questionnaire with response percentages for each response code) .(' Cross-tabulated results (responses to all survey questions segmented by demographic, geographic, attitudinal and behavioral subgroups of the population) .(' Comprehensive written report (a written summary and analysis of the survey's results- including tables and graphs -with an executive summary, conclusions and strategic recommendations) .(' In-person PowerPoint presentation of key findings (color slides highlighting important findings and conclusions) .(' Raw data from the survey in electronic form (delivered in a file format chosen by the CITY) PHASE 2: Focus GROUPS If the first phase of research indicates that a finance measure( s) to support infrastructure improvements is feasible, CONSULTANT will proceed with a second phase of research, at the CITY's discretion, which will potentially include a set of two focus groups. Should the CITY provide approval to conduct focus groups, the demographics of the groups would be determined by the results of the feasibility survey, and would be targeted to segments of the 12 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S;\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER"CM FOLDERS\OTHERS" ADRIAN\RFPs\RFP147584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\Cl 3147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc electorate that are not firmly for or against the proposed ballot measure(s). Focus Group Discussion Guide Design: CONSIILTANT will draft the discussion gllide based upon the analysis of the feasibility poll in consultation with the CITY. CONSULTANT will then present a first draft ofthe discussion guide to the CITY for review and comment. After collecting feedback from staff, CONSULTANT will revise and refine the discussion guide. Before the groups are conducted, CONSUL TANTwill obtain the approval ofthe appropriate CITY representative for the final version of the discussion guide. Implementation: CONSULTANT proposes that the focus groups be conducted on a weekday evenings; such evenings are generally the time at which the widest possible spectrum of participants are available to join a discussion. Each focus group will consist ofa two-hour moderated discussion with a carefully-selected group of ten to twelve local voters. The groups would be held at a dedicated focus group facility in the South Bay, and CITY staff would be welcome to attend and observe the groups live on-site from an observation room through a one-way mirror. The groups would be video-and audio-taped, and verbatim transcripts will be provided. Upon completion of the focus groups, CONSULTANT staff would debrief the observers about the results of the sessions. Reports and Presentations: Results of the focus groups can be presented both in-person and in writing. The written report would present key data in tabular and graphic form, and will include key selected quotes from focus group participants. CONSULTANT can also make a detailed PowerPoint presentation of the focus group results -integrated with survey data -to the project team. Deliverables: In summary, upon conclusion of the focus groups, the project team would have received from CONSULTANT all of the deliverables listed below. ,{ Final focus group moderator's guide ,{ Verbatim written transcripts offocus group discussions ,{ Comprehensive written and/or graphic report of results (a written summary and analysis of the focus groups, with conclusions and recommendations) ,( Video and audio recordings of the focus groups PHASE 3: REFINEMENT SURVEY If the second phase of research continues to indicate that a finance measure(s) to support infrastructure improvements is feasible, CONSULT ANT will proceed with a third phase ofresearch, at the CITY's discretion, which will a survey of 600 likely voters, 15-20 minutes in length, to refine the ballot measure proposal(s) based on information gather in the first and second research phases. The research process for the refinement survey will follow the same process used in the development 13 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 20JO S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\OTHERS -ADRIAN\RFPs\RFP147584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc of the feasibility survey. Should the CITY provide approval to conduct this phase of research the content of the survey will reflect the key findings of the feasibility survey and the focus groups. PHASE 4: TRACKING SURVEY Should the prior research show sufficient public support to move forward with one or more ballot measures, CONSULTANT recommends conducting a short tracking survey of 400 local voters, no more than 10 minutes in length, before the CITY makes a final decision to place a measure on the ballot. The tracking survey would offer an opportunity to detect any critical changes in public opinion since the time of the baseline and refinement surveys, and would verify that public support for the proposed measure is sufficiently strong to allow a reasonable chance of approval. 14 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S\ASDIPURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\OTHERS -ADRIAN\RFPs\RFPI47584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147584 W·Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc Week 7-8 • Prepare preliminary reports of findings and recommendations Week 9-10 • Present final report and graphic presentation of results to the CITY and key stakeholders Phase 2 Focus Groups Week 1 • Authorization to proceed • Initial call to discuss parameters of the research in light of feasibility study findings • Finalize recruitment plan • Develop draft recruitment screeners Week 2 • Circulate initial focus group moderator's guide Week 3-4 • Finalize moderator's guide • Complete focus group recruitment WeekS • Conduct focus groups Week 6-7 • Transcripts and DVD recordings available Week 8 • Provide report of key findings and recommendations to the CITY The work plans for Phases 3 and 4 of the research will follow a course similar to that of Phase I. 16 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S:IASDIPURCHlSOLICITATIONSICURRENT BuvER-eM FOLDERSIOTHERS -ADRIANlRFPsIRFPI47584 Polling ServicesIRFPI47584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services perfonned in accordance with the tenns and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-J up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit "A" ("Basic Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $90,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $90,000.00. Any work perfonned or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perfonn the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY's project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $90,000.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $90,000.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE Task I (Feasibility Survey) Task 2 (Focus Groups) Task 3 (Refinement Survey) Task 4 (Tracking Survey) Sub-total Basic Services Reimbursable Expenses Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses Additional Services (Not to Exceed) Maximum Total Compensation 14 NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT $28,250.00 $18,000.00 $26,250.00 $16,500.00 $89,000.00 $1,000.00 $90,000.00 $0.00 $90,000.00 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER~CM FOLDERS\OTHERS ~ ADRIAN\RFPs\RFP147584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147584 W~Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the CITY of Palo Alto's policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for CITY of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $500.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY's project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-l. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY's and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be considered as additional services: 15 Professional Services Rev. June 2, 2010 S\ASDlPURCII\SOLlCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER·CM FOLDERS\OTHERS . ADRIAN\RFP,\RFPI47584 Polling Servic,,\RFPI47584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc EXHIBIT "C-l" HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE TITLE/POSITION HOURLY RATE Senior Vice President Dave Metz $150.00 Vice President Shakari Byerly $120.00 Vice-President Renato Villacorte $120.00 Research Assistant Greg Lewis $100.00 18 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\OTHERS -ADRIAN\RFPs\RFP147584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maul\in FINAL.doc EXHIBIT "D" INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CON I RAe 1 OkS 1 0 1 HE ell y OF PALO At I 0 leI I r }, A 1 I HEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR 1 HE 1 ERNI OF I HE CON 1 RAe"1 -------- OBTArN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE rN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-: VII, OR IDGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A WARD IS CONTrNOENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S rNSURANCE REOUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH YES YES YES YES NO YES OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY BODILY rNJUR Y $1,000,000 $1,000,000 GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDrNG PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LIABILITY COMBINED. BODILY rNJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE, COMBINED PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, rNCLUDrNG, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, rN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE rNSURANCE COVERAGE HERErN DESCRIBED, rNSURING NOTONL Y CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSUL T ANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL rNSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES, L INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A, A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY, C, DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL. II, CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE, III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF TIlE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRlED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS, B. CROSS LIABILITY 19 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:IASDIPURCH\SOLICITATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIOTHERS -ADRlAN\RFPsIRFPI47584 Po1iing Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maullin FINAL.doc THE NAMING OF MORE TIlAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT TIllS ENDOR5EMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHAI I NQTlNCRFASF THE TOTAl I lAB" lTV OF THE COMPANY UNDER TIllS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION I. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON·PA YMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TIllRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON·PA YMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 20 Professional Services Rev June 2, 2010 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER·eM FOLDERS\OTHERS -ADRIAN\RFPs\RFP147584 Polling Services\RFP147584 Contract\C13147584 W-Fairbank Maslin Maull in FINAL.doc ORDINANCE NO. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $90,000 FOR PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH RELATED TO POTENTIAL INFRASRUCTURE FINANCING MEASURE The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 18, 2012 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2013; and B. On September 18, 2012 the Council approved a comprehensive plan and schedule for evaluating a potential infrastructure financing measure on California’s 2014 General Election ballot; and C. The City of Palo Alto issued a Request for Proposals in August 2012, for public opinion research on the potential financing measure; and D. Following the formal solicitation process, the City of Palo Alto selected Fairbanks, Maslin, Maulin, Metz and Associates (FM3) to conduct a series of research on public opinion through early 2014; and E. Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) is needed to execute the contract; and F. City Council authorization is needed to amend the Fiscal Year 2013 Operating Budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. The sum of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) is hereby appropriated to Other Contracts in the City Manager’s Department and the Budget Stabilization Reserve is correspondingly reduced. SECTION 3. The General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is hereby reduced by Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) to Twenty Seven Million Two Hundred Seventy One Thousand Dollars ($27,271,000). SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 5. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 6. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. City of Palo Alto (ID # 3396) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: SAP license Contract Amendment Title: Approval of Appendix 10 Contract Amendment with SAP Public Services Inc. For Software Maintenance Support Services to the City of Palo Alto From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute, the attached Appendix 10, which is an amendment to the contract between the City of Palo Alto (the City) and SAP Public Services, Inc. (SAP) in the amount of $1,779,911.33, to support MySAP.com Solution Suite and Industry Solution for Utilities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff recommends the approval of a contract amendment with SAP for essential software maintenance support in the amount of $1,779,911.33, which includes $333,481.00 for new licenses. Of the $1,779,911 sum, $1,446,430.33 will be payable over a five-year period at $289,286.07 per year. The sum covers five systems: Financial system, Industry Solution of Utilities (IS-U), Electronic Utilities Customer Service (UCES), Customer Relationship Management (CRM), and Business Intelligence (BI). BACKGROUND The City implemented SAP?s Enterprise Resource Planning system in 2003. The Implementation of Industry Solution of Utilities (IS-U), Electronic Utilities Customer Service (UCES), Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and Business Intelligence (BI) followed in 2009. These applications support Finance, Payroll, Budget, Utilities, and Public Works functions and customers and are now fully integrated into a city-wide platform under one SAP contract. To ensure business continuity, it will be crucial to secure 24x7 mission-critical supports from SAP. In addition, City is using SAP-delivered software enhancements to meet on-going legal regulation and compliance requirement. City of Palo Alto Page 2 On December 10, 2012, the Council approved a settlement agreement with SAP in the amount of $333,481.00, for (a) Named User license fees of $120,481 and (b) Cross Industry Software License fees of $213,000. These new licenses are needed to support increasing software usages and meet software license agreement compliance requirements. DISCUSSION Services covered under the maintenance contract include: 24x7 global support and quality check for financial system, Industry Solution of Utilities (IS-U), Electronic Utilities Customer Service (UCES), Customer Relationship Management (CRM), and Business Intelligence (BI), access to global customer support portal to download software corrections and changes to meet legal and regulatory requirements, and access to service market for content, best practice, and software release and technology updates License purchase covered by Appendix 10 is for (a) Named user license: 143 of Professional User License and 127 of Employee User License, and (b) Cross Industry License: 110,000 of Billing (Consumption Based Contracts and 10,000 of e-Invoicing and Contract Accounting (e-ICA) TIMELINE, RESOURCE IMPACT, POLICY IMPLICATIONS Funds for the SAP License Maintenance is budgeted as an IT operating budget item under the Technology Fund - Enterprise Systems Service and Maintenance, Software Application Maintenance. The new license purchase will be paid from Technology Fee Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The award of a contract amendment does not constitute a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines, thus no environmental assessment is required. Attachments:  Palo Alto SAP Appendix 10 (12-4-12 SAP executed) (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3389) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Rail Legislative Advocacy Services with PEG Title: Authorization for the City Manager to Enter Into a One-Year Contract with Professional Evaluation Group/The Ochoa & Moore Law Firm, P.C. (PEG/OM) in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $125,000 for Rail Legislative Advocacy Services From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation The City Council Rail Committee (CCRC) voted 3-0 (Vice Mayor Scharff absent) to recommend the City of Palo Alto renew its contract with the Professional Evaluation Group/The Ochoa & Moore Law Firm, P.C. (PEG/OM) for rail legislative advocacy services. Staff is requesting the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a one-year contract with Professional Evaluation Group/The Ochoa & Moore Law Firm, P.C. (PEG/OM) in an amount not to exceed One-Hundred Twenty Five Thousand dollars ($125,000) (Attachment A). Executive Summary The City first retained professional services for rail legislative advocacy services in February 2010. The most recent contract with PEG/OM is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012. The CCRC, after conducting a review, recommended the contract with PEG/OM be renewed. The CCRC was particularly impressed with this firm’s work over the last calendar year. In conjunction with the recommendation to move forward with contract renewal, the CCRC gave direction related to CEQA legislation contract language and cost sharing opportunities. Specifically, the CCRC directed that the contract scope be revised to allow for expanded CEQA representation. This is due to the fact that CEQA “reform” will be a major focus of State Legislators in 2013, and changes could impact the City of Palo Alto beyond just High Speed Rail. Therefore, it is critical the City have an advocate that can keep the City informed about potential comprehensive CEQA legislation, as well inform State Legislators about the City’s concerns. Given the shared concerns with nearby jurisdictions, the CCRC also directed staff to City of Palo Alto Page 2 explore cost sharing opportunities with local cities. Staff has incorporated expanded CEQA language in the attached contract and will be contacting nearby cities in early 2013 about cost shearing opportunities. John Garamendi Jr., principal of PEG, was formerly the Executive Associate Athletic Director, External Affairs for U.C. California on an interim basis while he served as U.C. California’s Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations. Mr. Ralph M. Ochoa, partner with OM, serves on the Board of Trustees for the U.C. Merced Foundation. Timeline and Resource Impacts The contract term would be one-year from January to December 2013. The cost for this contract is One-Hundred Twenty Five Thousand ($125,000), including certain travel expenses. The funds will be provided from the City Council Contingency fund. Staff will include this contract for discussion during the mid-year budget review to replace the City Council Contingency fund. The City will incorporate provisions in the contract that if other cities in the area decide to use the same firm for high-speed rail consulting then there will be a corresponding reduction in cost to the City of Palo Alto. Attachments:  A - C13148578 Signed by Consultant_12-2012 (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3400) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2013 Council Priority Setting Process Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Adopt Process for Establishing 2013 Council Priorities From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation The Policy and Services Committee recommends that the City Council approve the process to be used at the Annual Retreat to identify the 2013 Council Priorities as outlined in this staff report. Background On October 1, 2012, the City Council approved the Council Priority Setting Guidelines included as Attachment A. The guidelines define a Council priority and lay out the purpose, process and general parameters for annual priority setting. Consistent with these guidelines, the Council established December 1 as the deadline for Council to submit 2013 priorities to staff. In addition, the City Clerk’s Office requested input from the public on Council priorities under this same timeline. After the submittal period closed, staff is to collect and organize the Council recommended priorities into a list and provide to the Council no later than two weeks in advance of the 2013 Retreat. Each year the Policy and Services Committee, at its December meeting, is to review the priorities suggested and consider making recommendations to the City Council about the process that will be used to identify priorities at the Annual Retreat. The recommended process is to be forwarded to the Council for adoption. At the Policy and Services Committee December 11, 2012 meeting, the Committee reviewed the input received from the Council and the community, discussed the priority setting process, and approved the recommendations as outlined below. The staff City of Palo Alto Page 2 report and supplemental material provided for the the Policy and Services Decemebr 11 meeting is included as Attachment B. The staff report includes input received from the Council and the community on recommended priorities for 2013. Discussion The Policy and Services Committee recommends that the Council adopt the following process to be used at the Council’s Annual Retreat in February 2013 to identify the 2013 Council Priorities: 1) Establish a two member committee consisting of Council Member Klein and Council Member Schmid to work with the City Manager’s Office to group the Council priority suggestions into categories for use at the retreat, including information on items potentially actionable in 2013 in each category. 2) During the first hour of the retreat each Council Member would have a chance to talk for six minutes advocating and clarifying his or her priorities and placing any of them in a different category if he or she so chooses. At the end of the hour, Council Members would be free to change or delete any of their priorities; and 3) During the second hour, Council Members would work to refine each of the remaining categories and identify those specific actions that could be accomplished during the current year. At the end of the hour there would be a rank order voting with a goal to narrow to three priorities for 2013. Attachments:  Attachment A. Priority Setting Guidelines (PDF)  Attachment B. 12-11-2012 Policy and Services Staff Report (PDF) City of Palo Alto City Council Priority Setting Guidelines Approved by City Council: October 1, 2012 Last revised: October 1, 2012 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 October 1, 2012 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 should 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. The City Clerk will provide timely notice to the public to submit proposed priorities by December 1. The Policy and Services Committee shall recommend to the Council which suggestions if any shall be considered at the City 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 generally have a three year time limit. Attachment A City of Palo Alto City Council Priority Setting Schedule Last Updated: 8/17/2012 Attachment A City of Palo Alto (ID # 3370) Policy and Services Committee Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 12/11/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2013 Council Priority Setting Process Title: Recommendations for 2013 Council Priority Setting Process From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee discuss and consider making recommendations to the City Council on the process to be used at the Annual Retreat to identify the 2013 Council Priorities. Background On October 1, 2012, the City Council approved the Council Priority Setting Guidelines included as Attachment A. The guidelines define a Council priority and lay out the purpose, process and general parameters for annual priority setting. Consistent with these guidelines, the Council established December 1 as the deadline for Council submitting 2013 priorities to staff. In addition, the City Clerk’s Office requested input from the public on Council priorities under this same timeline. As the Council directed, after the submittal period closes, staff is to collect and organize the Council recommended priorities into a list and provide to the Council no later than two weeks in advance of the 2013 Retreat. Each year the Policy and Services Committee, at its December meeting, is to review the priorities suggested and consider making recommendations to the City Council about the process that will be used to identify priorities at the Annual Retreat. The recommended process is to be forwarded to the Council for adoption. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion This staff report provides the input received from the Council and the public on the priorities to be reviewed and considered for 2013. In addition, staff has provided some information on past practices for reviewing and identifying the 2013 priorities. Input from City Council and Community Staff received input on recommended priorities from Council members and community members. Attachment B provides a summary of the Council recommended priorities and the detailed recommendations that each Council member submitted. Attachment C provides a summary of the input received from the community and the correspondence from each of the community members. Past Practices and Procedural Options The City’s past practices for establishing the Council’s annual priorities has ranged from formal processes of Council submitting priorities and scoring/voting on proposals to more informal reviews and discussions at Council Retreats. In the past few years, the Mayor has worked with the City Manager to develop the agenda for the Annual Retreat and the process for facilitating the Council’s discussion on priorities. The objectives and specific projects 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. Timeline Staff will provide a list of the input received and the Policy and Services Committee’s process recommendations no later than two weeks in advance of the retreat. At this time, the Council’s 2013 Annaul Retreat has not been scheduled, however it is typically held each year in January. Attachments:  Attachment A. Priority Setting Guidelines (PDF)  Attachment B. City Council Recommended 2013 Priorities (PDF)  Attachment C. Community Recommended 2013 Council Priorities (PDF) City of Palo Alto City Council Priority Setting Guidelines Approved by City Council: October 1, 2012 Last revised: October 1, 2012 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 October 1, 2012 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 should 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. The City Clerk will provide timely notice to the public to submit proposed priorities by December 1. The Policy and Services Committee shall recommend to the Council which suggestions if any shall be considered at the City 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 generally have a three year time limit. Attachment A Attachment B. Summary of City Council Recommended 2013 Council Priorities and Detailed Correspondence Date Name Priority Area Councilmember Price 1. Funding and Planning for Infrastructure Improvements (including new facilities) 2. Environmental Sustainability 3. Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being Councilmember Holman 1. Healthy City/Healthy Community 2. Walkable Streets, Livable Neighborhoods 3. Downtown/Commercial Development Cap Councilmember Klein 1. Infrastructure 2. Technology 3. Downtown Councilmember Scharff 1. Build a Parking Garage 2. Infrastructure 3. Increase Resident and Visitor Enjoyment of our Commercial Areas 4. Technology Councilmember Schmid 1. Investigate the Impacts of Rapid Commercial Growth 2. Assure that the Cities Commercial Sites are Vibrant and Attractive 3. Grow HSRAP Funding by 10‐20% Councilmember Shepherd 1. Connecting in Multiple Ways: Transit, Shuttle, Internet, Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) etc. 2. Public‐private Partnerships 3. Infrastructure Strategy and Funding (revenue measure) Councilmember Elect Berman 1. Infrastructure Improvements 2. Land Use and Transportation, with an Emphasis on Parking 3. City Finances Councilmember Elect Kniss 1. Misuse of the PC 2. Traffic and Downtown Parking Issues 3. Quality of Life City Council Recommended Priorities *Additional detail on proposed priorities attached. Page 1 of 1 December 6, 2012 Councilmember Price 1. Funding and Planning for Infrastructure Improvements (including new facilities). With the results of the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission and several presentations to City Council, this focus area would continue work that has begun. A critical timetable has also already been established in preparation for a potential bond measure, including examining of various potential revenue sources and public private partnerships. The problem statement and needs have been clearly identified. This broader effort will require concerted effort and work by many departments, the Council, and the community. 2. Environmental Sustainability. While this concept should be integrated into all that we do, the monitoring of our progress across departments is still needed. We need to be more explicit about our progress while identifying areas of further work and promise. Many of the items within this current focus area have been completed but additional work needs to be identified. The work on additional collaborations with business, technology, and academic institution still needs refinement, for example. 3. Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being. With the recent hire of a Project Safety Net manager, PSN work continues to be more collaborative and focused. While significant progress has been made there is much that needs to be expanded and coordinated to ensure stronger work in education about mental health, suicide prevention, and youth well‐ being. Many milestones have been achieved: establishment of MOUs with provider organizations, educational and community‐based groups, the PSN structure, the PSN Report identifying initiatives and actions that need to be accomplished and strategic planning work. The retention of this focus area is important because it notes the significance, concern, and value of this work in the community. This focus area also supports additional partnerships and collaborations and options for funding to further the work. It sends a clear message and call to action about the mental health and well‐being of our youth. Councilmember Holman 1. Healthy City/Healthy Community http://www.enotes.com/healthy‐communities‐reference/healthy‐communities Examples of actions Council might pursue: a. Adopt a Healthy City/Healthy Community policy b. Identify and pursue opportunities to expand HSRAP funding c. Incorporate Compassionate Communities programs 2. Walkable Streets, Livable Neighborhoods Examples of actions could include: a. Increase sidewalk widths to meet El Camino Real Design Guidelines and Grand Boulevard Initiative & Principals b. Strengthen development standards to deliver buildings that better relate to the street through frequent building entrances, windows, etc. as described in LEED‐ND and the Grand Boulevard Initiative c. Evaluate incorporation of such project components as increased public spaces, canopy, community gardens, and art 3. Downtown/Commercial Development Cap Examples of what is known or assumed to be included: a. Complete the Development Cap Study b. Incorporate study of Ground Floor Retail protections c. Incorporate update of parking standards and requirements Councilmember Klein 1. Infrastructure. By this I mean acting on the IBRC report, readying ourselves for a possible 2014 revenue measure for infrastructure and the various items we refer to as Cubberley. 2. Technology. We talk a lot about using technology to enhance the City’s job performance and its ability to interact with our citizens but we have yet to develop an overarching technology plan. Items we could engage under this rubric: Should we have a 311 plan or its equivalent? Is it time for us to go a Smart Grid System? Should we have an official Innovation Program in the City Manager’s Office? 3. Downtown. We are going to be studying the parking problem downtown and the square footage cap and we’re going to consider what’s appropriate at 27 University. This priority would include those issues but also ask and try to answer broader questions such as: What do we see as Downtown’s future? What do we want Downtown to look like from a strictly architectural standpoint? Could we—or should we‐‐ underground the railroad tracks and thus expand Downtown? Councilmember Scharff 1. Build a Parking Garage. Address the downtown parking issues by committing to build a parking garage where it will do the most good. a. We have an additional 7.6 million going to the infrastructure Reserve Fund. This combined with the money in the parking fund allows us to build a parking garage if we so choose. b. This garage would not have to be encumbered by Parking Assessment rules and the City could choose to permit it to draw the maximum number of cars out of the neighborhoods. The City would have a free hand to determine how best to do this. This would open up a lot of possibilities on how to address the parking issues. 2. Infrastructure. This has been a defacto priority and should be a formal priority until we accomplish the goals that we started with the Blue Ribbon Task Force. 3. Increase Resident and Visitor Enjoyment of our Commercial areas. Possible thoughts as to how to accomplish this: a. Phase out non‐conforming non‐retail uses b. Protect existing retail uses c. Expand Ground Floor retail uses in mixed use areas d. Build retail linkages and corridors to the SOFA area e. Extend a Percent for Art Policy to non‐municipal projects f. Look at sidewalk widths and uses g. Look at making King Plaza a vibrant area with Food Trucks or outside cafe with tables and chairs like a European plaza h. Look at sidewalk widths and uses i. Encourage public spaces and the use of public spaces, e.g. free wifi hot spots with tables 4. Technology. Identify areas of the City that technology could be used to: a. Increase productivity b. Save money or resources (sustainability) c. Increase transparency d. Increase residence convenience or quality of life e. More efficiently use existing resources (i.e. parking) Councilmember Schmid 1. Investigate the impacts of rapid commercial growth Potential Actions: Complete the update of the Development Cap, including the areas directly abutting the Downtown; take a comprehensive look at the parking issue and the current parking gap; establish better criteria for measure traffic (e.g. time per segment); understand the link between Economic Development and City Finances‐‐answer the question of how the city benefits from expansion of office space and retail. 2. Assure that the cities commercial sites are vibrant and attractive Potential Actions: Look at the sidewalk widths and uses; expand ground floor retail in mixed use areas; encourage public spaces, art and canopy; foster relationship to neighboring buildings through LEED‐ND. 3. Grow HSRAP funding by 10‐20% Potential Actions: Look at the range of city activities that can be helped with a modest expansion of HSRAP funding: seniors, Downtown Streets Team; counseling at the Opportunity Center; Vehicular Dwelling program; etc. Councilmember Shepherd 1. Making the connection in multiple ways: transit, shuttle, Internet, FTTP, etc. Focus on getting Palo Alto to move smart, and connect. 2. Public‐private Partnerships. Help focus our community on how to build capacity for all the services and opportunities we offer. I hope to see a full time staff member assigned to supporting the activities. I have already reached out to community members for their thinking and efforts. 3. Infrastructure Strategy and Funding (revenue measure) Councilmember Elect Berman 1. Infrastructure Improvements 2. Land Use and Transportation, with an emphasis on parking 3. City Finances Councilmember Elect Kniss 1. Misuse of the PC. Stated in many ways, but clearly the public feels the developers have more influence than appropriate. 2. Traffic and downtown parking issues. Traffic in particular, and its increase, along with bikes, walkers, etc. 3. Quality of life. Sense of being “taken over” by wealthy (and therefore privileged) new homeowners. Losing the “community” feel of Palo Alto. Overcrowding in the schools, as well. Attachment C. Summary of Community Recommended 2013 Council Priorities and Detailed Correspondence Date Name Priority Area 1 11.28.12 Liz Browne Stagnant water in street gutters ‐ mosquito breeding/exposure to West Nile virus 2 11.28.12 Ken Dinwiddie Stagnant water in street gutters 3 11.18.12 Pat Marriott 1. Recommends distinguishing between mandatory priorities vs. discretionary priorities; focus on discretionary priorities 2. Infrastructure 4 11.14.12 Sharleen Fiddaman 1. Financial (balanced budget) 2. Traffic 3. Street parking 4. Insufficient parking 5. Drop ABAG 5 11.08.12 Larry and Zongqi Alton 1. Downtown area parking relief 2. Reducing City salaries/benefits in line with industry 3. How to keep zoning regulations from being waived for developers 4. Improve streets, sidewalks, landscaping, buildings in downtown Palo Alto 5. Restrooms in Johnson Park and others 6. Increase support for our senior center 7. Bicycle paths and crossing over 101 on University Ave. 6 11.17.12 Jeff Hoel Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) *Demonstrates how FTTP aligns with current Council Priorities/email provides links to resources to provide a broader context for FTTP 7 11.23.12 Andy Poggio Fiber to the Premises Community Recommended Priorities Page 1 of 2 December 6, 2012 Attachment C. Summary of Community Recommended 2013 Council Priorities and Detailed Correspondence Date Name Priority Area Community Recommended Priorities 8 11.21.12 Christina Llerena (on behalf of Project Safety Net Steering Committee) Community Collaboration for Youth Bell Being ‐ Project Safety Net 9 11.26.12 Bill Terry Fire safety in Foothills 10 11.28.12 Jo Guttadauro Affordable Housing 11 11.28.12 Robert and Mary Carlstead 1. Honest and "transparency" 2. Reduce ALL unnecessary spending and have strict audits 3. Reduce the size of number of personnel 4. Repair the infrastructure 5. Stop the incessant utility 'green' harping and deluge of "don't" reminders 6. Rein in the Utility Department and cut back on the amount our utilities pad the General Fund 7. Concentrate on the wellbeing of those who live here,not focus on those who want to and for whom we have no more room *Additional detail on proposed priorities attached. Page 2 of 2 December 6, 2012 ,. , From: Ken Dinwiddie <kend@daise.com> Date: November 28,2012, 1:16:47 PM PST To: <donna.grider@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Focus 2013 Priorities Donna, For many years, the gutter in front of our home at 543 Jackson Drive has accumulated water from rain or irrigation runoff. The problem is even more serious further toward Edgewood Drive, with a sizable pond following each rain. Noting that a segment of sidewalk/gutter was recently replaced on Hamilton Avenue at the intersection with Jackson Drive, we are hoping that similar action may transpire soon on Jackson Drive. Ken Dinwiddie 543 Jackson Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303-2832 kend@daise.com 1 From: Pat Marriott [mailto:patmarriott@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 5:17 PM To: Council, City; Liz@knissforcouncil.com; marc@voteberman.com Cc: Grider, Donna Subject: Priorities Council Members, Each year there is considered and considerable debate about the Top 5 Council Priorities. And each year there is debate over the meaning of a priority. The November 13, 2012 document calling for public input for 2013 priorities says, "A Council Priority is defined as a topic that will receive particular, unusual and significant attention during the year./I I'm pleased to see that the city is attempting to define "priority./I However, I think part of the confusion comes from the distinction between what I will call mandatory priorities and discretionary priorities. Mandatory Priorities Discretionary Priorities Legal imperatives Not required by law Drive the budget in funding and staffing Funded if there is money available after the mandatory priorities have been funded Must be city priorities, not just council priorities, Do not necessarily require participation of all i.e., Council, Commissions and Staff must all march branches of the city government to these priorities Cannot change from year-to-year Can change year-to-year if they can be achieved in a year Examples: Finances and core services, e.g., public Examples: Youth well-being safety, roads, infrastructure See Cities must define core services at http://sfgate.com/cgi- bin[article.cgi7f=[c[a[2010[03[08[EDL21CBFUP.DTL In the past, annual discussions and retreats have mixed the two. For example, the 2012 priorities are 1. City Finances (obviously essential for both mandatory and discretionary priorities) 2. Land Use & Transportation Planning (awfully broad and subject to interpretation) 3. Emergency Preparedness (mandatory) 4. Environmental Sustainability (also subject to interpretation) 5. Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being (discretionary and very vague) 1 http://gigao m. com/2012/ 11/09/ gotta-get-a-gig-kc-sta rtu ps-a re-b uyi ng-hom es-to-get-google-fi be r / 3. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS. Part of emergency preparedness is having a telecommunications network that is ultra-reliable and has enough capacity. FTIP meets these requirements. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-crawford/hurrican-sandy-infrastructure-recovery_b_2079116.htm I 11-06-12: "The Two Key Investments To Build Back Better Post-Sandy" Susan Crawford. (Fiber is one.) http://isen.com/blog/2012/11/storm-recovery-chattanooga-style-versus-sandy-and-athena/ 11-09-12: "Storm Recovery --Chattanooga Style versus Sandy and Athena" David Isenberg. 4. ENVIRONMENTALSUSTAINABILITY A citywide municipal FTIP network can be used to implement smart grid. Smart grid can schedule the recharging of electric cars so that the electrical grid doesn't have to be beefed up. 5. COMMUNITY COLLABORATION FOR YOUTH WELL BEING A citywide municipal FTIP network can contribute to the well being of the community generally, including our youth. Thanks. Jeff Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 PS: Perhaps Council members should take a moment to reflect on the merits of using retreats to pick priorities. As far as I know, the very first Council retreat at which priorities were identified formally occurred on May 15, 2000, at the Foothills Interpretive Center. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-archive/2000/000515.htm I Frank Benest (in his 36th day as Palo Alto's City Manager) invited Council to playa parlor game: fill flip charts with ideas for priorities, and then vote for them using an allocated number of colored stick-on dots. Council Member Mossar objected in principle, saying that colleagues might propose and vote for their own parochial pet projects, knowing full well that the City would have to do all the really important things anyway, whether or not this parlor game identified them as priorities. "Humor me," said Frank. In 2009, during Jim Keene's first year as City Manager, the process evolved into picking a hierarchy of 3 priorities, 16 strategies for accomplishing the priorities, and 75 actions for accomplishing the strategies. As I remember it, Council picked the priorities during the retreat, and then staff made up the strategies and actions later, more or less based on Council's discussion during the retreat. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/15359 The City invested in some gee-whiz animated "See-It" software for displaying priorities, strategies, and actions on computer screens --including displaying an assessment of how well actions had been accomplished. 2 Leif Erikson, Youth Community Services Roni Gilenson, LMFT, Adolescent Counseling Services. Terry Godfrey, Parent and Partners in Education Shashank Joshi, MD, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Linda Lenoir, Palo Alto Unified School District Jessica Lewis, City of Palo Alto, Teen Services Christina Llerena, MSW, Project Safety Net Director Pat Markevitch, Parks and Recreation Commissioner Sigrid Pinsky, Council of PTA's Minka van der Zwaag, City of Palo Alto Human Services From: robert/marycarlstead [mailto:rhmlcar7@att.net] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 11:16 PM To: Grider, Donna Cc: robert/marycarlstead Subject: Council priorities Sent of November 30th STICK TO THE BASICS. NO PIE-IN-THE SKY ISSUES. 1. Honest and "transparency" !!Restore resident confidence in city management which has been shattered. by the 27 Arrillaga project. 2. Reduce ALL unnecessary spending and have strict audits 3. Reduce the size of number of personnel. 4. Repair the infrastructure - starting with streets in north Palo Alto. 5. Stop the incessant utility 'green' harping and deluge of "don't' reminders. 6. Rein in the Utility Department and cut back on the amount our utilities pad the General Fund. 7.Concentrate on the wellbeing of those who live here,not focus on those who want to and for whom we have no more room. Mary Carlstead 147 Walter Hays Drive Palo Alto,CA 94303 1 12/11/2012 Councilmember Scharff Revised Council Priorities 2013 It has come to my attention that I should have only submitted 3 suggested priorities. Here they are: 1. Build a Parking Garage-Address the downtown parking issues by committing to build a Build a Parking Garage where it will do the most good. a. We have an additional 7.6 million going to the infrastructure Reserve Fund. This combined with the money in the parking fund allows us to build a parking garage if we so choose. b. This garage would not have to be encumbered by Parking Assessment rules and the City could choose to permit it to draw the maximum number of cars out of the neighborhoods. The City would have a free hand to determine how best to do this. This would open up a lot of possibilities on how to address the parking issues. 2. Increase Resident and Visitor Enjoyment of our Commercial areas. Possible thoughts as to how to accomplish this are: a. Phase out non-conforming non-retail uses b. Protect existing retail uses c. Expand Ground Floor retail uses in mixed use areas d. Build retail linkages and corridors to the SOFA area e. Extend a Percent for Art Policy to non-municipal projects f. Look at sidewalk widths and uses g. Look at making King Plaza a vibrant area with Food Trucks or outside cafe with tables and chairs like a european plaza. h. Encourage Public spaces and the use of public spaces, e.g. free wifi hot spots with tables. 3. Technology Identify areas of the City that technology could be used to: a. Increase Productivity b. Save Money or resources (Sustainability) c. Increase Transparency d. Increase residence convenience or quality of life. e. More efficiently use existing resources (i.e. Parking) 2 12/11/2012 Councilmember Pat Burt - Council Priorities 2013 The following recommendations are intended to follow the new Council adopted Priority Setting Guidelines”. At the same time, the Priorities should not be as specific as actions or plans. Recommended Priorities: I have tried to avoid terms that are subjects, for example “Infrastructure”. Instead the Guidelines suggest topics that and will receive “particular, unusual and significant attention” should be achievable within three years or less, such as “Infrastructure Strategy and Funding 1. Infrastructure Strategy and Funding This has been the top Council priority over the past year, even though it was not officially defined as a Priority. The need to re-build our aging infrastructure and adequately invest in its maintenance has been the subject of Council initiatives for over 15 years (and resulted in a $10 Million per year Infrastructure Management Plan). However, our current goal is the large task of developing a strategy and funding sources for major remaining infrastructure needs. 2. Technology Innovation Use of technology in city government is not new, nor will it end in three years. However, including it as a priority is intended to identify it as an area of ‘particular and significant attention’ over the next three years. Consistent with the vision of the City Council and City Manager, we have already begun a focused program of transforming our use of technology to improve efficiency and reduce costs, improve service, and conserve resources. 3. The Future of Downtown The council and staff have recently discussed a variety of important and converging downtown issues including; neighborhood parking, parking garages, traffic, the development cap, downtown TDM programs, the and the 27 University/Intermodal Center Master Plan. We have already recognized that most of these issues will be emphasized in the coming 1-2 years. In addition, I believe that it remains important for the Council to state our enduring “Core Values” (or Guiding Principles) as a community. These values have comprised the majority of what the Council has defined as Priorities in recent years. By establishing our new Guidelines, the Policy and Services Committee has moved the Council toward more clear and meaningful actual Priorities, but we have not included discussion of the purpose and importance of defining our core community values. Clearly, these lasting values are important the past and present Councils and the community. Consequently, included is a separate set of prospective values. I hope that we will have part of our discussion at the January retreat on this subject and either act upon the Core Values or agendize the subject for future consideration. 3 12/11/2012 Core Values: 1. Sustainable City Finances 2. Emergency Preparedness 3. Environmental Sustainability 4. Youth Well Being 5. Valued Quality of Life City of Palo Alto (ID # 3222) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Pilot Compostables Collection Program Title: Approval of Pilot Residential Compostables Collection Program and Adjustment to Refuse Collection Frequency From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize staff to implement a Pilot Residential Compostables Collection program for a one-year period in a small geographic area that will be evaluated and selected by Public Works Environmental Services Division Staff. Executive Summary Staff is proposing a small residential compostables collection pilot program that would recover the compostable kitchen wastes that are currently disposed at a landfill. The pilot would have two key features. First, food scraps would be placed in the green carts (instead of the black carts), and second, all wastes would be placed in either the green or blue carts, eliminating the need for separate collection of garbage (black carts). The 12-month pilot would start in March 2013 and necessary data will be collected to determine the feasibility of applying the program to the residential sector citywide. The goals of the program are to: 1) increase diversion from landfills, helping to achieve the City’s Zero Waste Goal; 2) determine if cost savings are possible through the elimination of separate garbage collection; 3) simplify the waste sorting for residents; and 4) reduce the number of garbage truck trips each week thereby reducing greenhouse gas generation. Background City of Palo Alto Page 2 On October 2, 2012, staff presented staff report #3099 to the Finance Committee with information about two possible options for a pilot program that would collect residential compostable material. Staff was following up on a previous Finance Committee request to consider cost reductions to the Refuse Fund by reducing the frequency of the City’s refuse collection. Staff identified the collection of food waste and other compostable materials as the optimal way to reduce collection frequency and also help the City achieve our goals of Zero Waste and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By collecting residential food scraps and food soiled paper, approximately 6,000 tons of material could be diverted from the landfill to create a commercially available compost. The two options presented to the Finance Committee were: 1) Every Other Week Garbage Collection Option – This option would reduce the collection frequency of garbage and at the same time redirect all compostable waste (primarily yard trimmings and bagged food scraps and food soiled paper) to the green carts to be collected weekly. All recyclable materials and bagged landfill items (e.g., pet waste, diapers, and bathroom wastes) would be placed in the blue recycling carts and also collected weekly. The remaining inert non-compostable garbage (e.g., aseptic containers, foil beverage pouches, granola bar wrappers, metallic paper, ceramics, hoses, rubber bands) would be collected every other week. 2) Two Cart System (No separate Garbage Cart) – This option would completely eliminate the need for a separate garbage collection (black carts) and would redirect all compostable waste (primarily yard trimmings and bagged food scraps and food soiled paper) into the green carts. All recyclable materials and bagged landfill items (e.g., pet waste, diapers, and bathroom wastes) along with the non-compostable inert garbage would be placed in the blue recycling carts and also collected weekly. This option would require the small amount of remaining non-compostable garbage (in the blue cart) to be sorted out at a materials recovery facility (MRF). This is a different paradigm than what is in place now. Instead of residents sorting the recyclables and non-compostable garbage at home, non-compostable garbage is separated from the recyclables at a sorting facility. Currently, there are no communities City of Palo Alto Page 3 in the Bay Area that have implemented this type of program. Note that the City’s options are somewhat limited by a State health and safety regulation which requires certain types of wastes (known as putresiible waste) to be collected weekly. During the Finance Committee meeting on October 2, 2012, committee members expressed their initial preference for the simpler two cart system “no garbage cart” option for households and to ensure that program costs would not dramatically increase if the program were to be rolled out throughout the community. To gather public comments, staff led two community meetings in early November 2012 to discuss the two pilot options, the pilot’s evaluation criteria, and the community’s opinions and concerns. The community meetings also included a survey, which was taken both before and after the meeting. Over 40 members of the public attended the meetings The community responded unfavorably to the “no garbage cart option” before hearing the public presentation on the survey; however, the community responses taken after the public presentation showed a change toward acceptance of the two cart system. Once both options were presented, community members could see that the mimimal inert waste remaining in option one “every other week garbage collection” cart could be placed into the blue cart with little impact to the quality of the recyclable materials. Community members asked many questions about how the pilot would address where to place problem wastes, like diapers, pet waste, and bathroom waste. These wastes, which are currently being bagged by residents, would be placed in the blue cart. Discussion Staff had discussions and received operational input from GreenWaste (the City’s contracted waste collector and processor) and the City’s partners at the Sunnyvale Material Recovery and Transfer (SMaRT) Station. Additionally, staff received input from the Finance Committee, the public through two community meetings and an online survey. Staff has selected to propose the two-cart system City of Palo Alto Page 4 – weekly collection for green and blue carts only, no black cart collection because:  It is a simpler, more convenient system;  Separate garbage collection can be eliminated completely, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and congestion;  The Finance Committee members favored the simpler system; and  A majority of residents at the community meetings supported it once it was explained. Specifically, staff is proposing a pilot where residents in the pilot route would only have two carts. Yard trimmings and all compostable material (primarily food scraps and food soiled paper), will be placed in the green cart. Large compostable items, like pizza boxes, could be placed directly into the cart without a bag. Current recyclables and landfill items will be placed in the blue cart. The landfill items, which for the most part are currently bagged by residents, would be bagged and placed in the blue cart. Landfill items include: pet waste, diapers, bathroom waste (e.g., dental floss, hygiene products, band aids), and inert garbage that cannot be recycled or composed (e.g., aseptic containers, foil beverage pouches, granola bar wrappers, metallic paper, ceramics, hoses, and rubber bands). This waste could be bagged together or separately. The bagged landfill materials in the blue cart would be separated from the recyclables at the GreenWaste Charles Street MRF in San Jose and landfilled or, if possible, recovered. The green cart material would continue to be taken to the SMaRT station, where bagged food scraps and food soiled paper would be separated from the yard trimmings. Both the yard trimmings and the food scraps would then be separately trucked to the Z-Best Composting Facility in Gilroy to be composted in separate units, producing different compost products. Both the green cart and the blue cart will be collected by GreenWaste once a week as required by the California State Health Code. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Currently, residential food scraps and food soiled paper are included in the garbage carts and eventually sent to the landfill. This food waste is compostable and should be diverted from the landfill – increasing the City’s diversion rate and moving the City closer to the Zero Waste goals. Neighborhood: Staff is in the process of finalizing the identification of a neighborhood for this pilot. The pilot would cover one day of one garbage route, which is approximately 700 homes. The neighborhood would be selected by the following criteria: 1) the neighborhood is defined by clear neighborhood boundaries; 2) the neighborhood has a mix of single-family and multi-family homes; 3) the neighborhood’s current garbage, recycling, and yard trimmings routes can easily overlap so that data from the pilot can be easily compared to the existing collection routine; and 4) the neighborhood has an existing and active neighborhood association with a strong outreach presence. Staff would conduct community meetings with the selected neighborhood, mailing out packets to explain how the pilot will work, and providing information and answering questions with door-to-door visits. If the public raises substantial concerns at the public meeting then staff will consider appropriate changes and advise Council. Residents would receive a pilot “tool kit,” which would include a small two-gallon kitchen container for food scraps, a few compostable bags to start, and a guide on which carts different items should be placed. Compostable bags are available at most local grocery stores. Timeframe: The pilot would cover a full twelve months and could begin as early as March 2013. This will allow pilot participants to evaluate how effectively the pilot works in different seasons (the fall tends to produce more yard trimmings) and provide an opportunity for staff to survey pilot participants at multiple times throughout the pilot. After 6 months of the pilot program, Staff will conduct an evaluation of the pilot and if substantial problems are found then appropriate corrections will be made and Council will be notified. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Outreach: Pilot participants would receive a variety of outreach materials to help build understanding of the pilot program. Outreach would include: 1) a letter introducing the pilot and its timeline; 2) public meeting(s) to explain the pilot and answer questions; 3) newsletter articles and emails by the neighborhood association about the pilot; 4) a toolkit delivered to each pilot residence consisting of a food scrap collection bucket, a comprehensive guide listing the appropriate cart for different wastes, cart stickers with sorting information and compostable bags; 5) cart tags with pilot information; and 6) staff would be available to answer questions during regular business hours. Evaluation Criteria: The pilot will be designed to examine how this change in service will impact collection, processing, and disposal costs, the community’s willingness to use the service, diversion rates, greenhouse gas production, and quality of the recycled material and compost. The pilot will be evaluated using five categories to establish whether the pilot should be rolled out to the entire community. The evaluation criteria categories include: 1. Costs: The pilot will show whether residential compostables collection and modified services are cost effective. The pilot will also determine the impacts on the City’s contract and fixed costs with GreenWaste, the SMaRT Station and the Kirby Canyon “put-or-pay” agreement for a citywide roll out. Additionally, staff will determine the potential cost impacts to residential rates and customer utility bills if the service were to expand citywide. 2. Convenience: The pilot will help provide answers to questions about how easy or difficult it is to use the two-sort system, as to whether food waste should be placed in bags, and to see if odors or other nuisance issues arise. Some households may also need to increase their cart size from the current standard (i.e., shifting from a 64 gallon cart to a 96 gallon cart). Staff will ask the pilot participants to complete pre-, mid-, and post-surveys to help evaluate convenience related questions. 3. Diversion rates: The pilot will help staff determine if the pilot helps divert more materials from the landfill. The shift from the current three-sort system to the two-sort system shifts some of the responsibility of material separation from the individual households to the SMaRT and GreenWaste City of Palo Alto Page 7 MRFs. The pilot will help answer whether this system diverts more compostable and recyclable materials from the landfill. The projected diversion rate of the pilot will need to be compared to comparable cities that collect food wastes in a three-sort system. 4. Material quality: Much like diversion rates, material quality may be altered by the shift to a two-sort system. Staff will work with GreenWaste and the SMaRT Station to evaluate and quantify the impacts on the quality and marketability of the materials through audits of the materials. 5. Greenhouse gas reduction: By reducing a cart, GreenWaste will be able to reduce the number of truck trips on the street. The reduction in trucks and changes in service levels may alter the carbon footprint of the collection system. Staff will also need to evaluate the life-cycle costs related to both the additional sorting needed to remove contamination from the green cart as well as the final use of the compost. The pilot will also help determine what modifications may be needed if the pilot expanded to the entire community. Timeline The pilot is scheduled to begin in March 2013. The pilot will last for a full year from 2013 to 2014. This will allow staff to determine if seasonal changes impact the program. In 2014, staff will return to Council with a full report on the outcomes of the pilot, and if recommended for Citywide adoptions, staff will present needed modifications to the pilot, costs, and other impacts. Resource Impact Funding for the pilot is currently included in the FY 2013 Refuse Fund operating budget. GreenWaste, SMaRT and Kirby Canyon increased fees will be negligable during this pilot. Staff will be engaged in extensive outreach efforts with the pilot neighborhood and participants with outreach costs estimated at approximately $12,000. Policy Implications City of Palo Alto Page 8 The pilot is consistent with the City’s Zero Waste Operational Plan and Climate Protection Plan both adopted in 2007 to provide for the collection and diversion of all compostable materials. Environmental Review This pilot collection project would be for information collection purposes and would qualify for a Class 6 Categorical Exemption consisting of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. City of Palo Alto (ID # 3333) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 1095 Channing CUP Approval Title: Public Hearing: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment Allowing the Operation of a New Pre- Kindergarten Program Within an Expanded Building and an After-School Day Care Program Associated with an Existing Private School (K-8 Program) at 1095 Channing Avenue. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends Council approve the attached Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), modifying the existing CUP for the St. Elizabeth Seton School to allow the establishment of a pre-school program in an existing K-8 private school, to be located within a previously approved building designed to house Kindergarten and Pre-K classroom and after school day-care program activities. Executive Summary The City Council pulled this item from the November 5, 2012 Consent Calendar and scheduled it as a public hearing item, in response to a neighbor’s comments about her concern regarding the fence solution along the Church driveway, noting that the Church had suddenly changed the placement of the fence with respect to the surveyed property line. Her survey and fence concerns and the applicant’s response are described in this report. The requested Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would amend the existing operations of a private Catholic school to add a new Pre-Kindergarten program. The Pre-Kindergarten program would have the same school hours as the existing school, which also features pre- and after-school day care for all school students. The school is located in a residential zone, primarily accessed from Channing Avenue and bordered by single-family homes. The school CUP has been in place for decades and amended over time, and the number of students enrolled in the school has City of Palo Alto Page 2 varied over time because there was no stated limit to the number of students in previous CUPs for the site. The total number of students would be limited to 315 students per this CUP, as clearly stated in the CUP documents and during the staff presentation to the Planning and Transportation Commission on June 13, 2012. The pre-K and Kindergarten students would be housed in the same building. The building is 2,423 square feet larger than the modular building it will replace; the building was approved in July 2012 via the Architectural Review (AR) process and there was no appeal of the AR decision. The associated site improvements include restriping of an existing parking lot to provide 44 parking spaces, an increase of four spaces from what currently exists on the site. The existing circulation patterns of drop-offs before and after school would be unchanged but, because of the new pre-K and associated after school pre-K program, the number of vehicles circulating on the site would increase. The hours of the Pre-K program are consistent with the existing hours of the school, including the after-school hours. After two hearings, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) voted 4-1-1-1 to recommended approval, subject to an additional requirement pertaining to the height, funding and location of a perimeter fence. A meeting was held with neighbors, staff and the applicant subsequent to the October 3, 2012 PTC meeting, resulting in individual fence solutions appropriately tailored to each property and ensuring preservation and enhancement of existing screen vegetation. The solutions are described further in the Discussion section. Neighbors’ concerns about pick-up pattern, associated noise pollution, and a cap on the student number were expressed to the PTC. On October 22, 2012, the neighbor requesting the hearing (Ms. Rita Vrhel) asked that Council pull the item off Consent to address her remaining issue. This report includes an updated section regarding the survey, fence and vegetation along the Church driveway. The discussion describes Ms. Vrhel’s concerns, staff’s determinations and alternative solutions. The RLUA’s revised condition #26 reflects staff’s recommendation to increase the driveway fence height to eight (8) feet and require screen vegetation as desired by Ms. Vrhel and acceptable to the applicant, and includes further specificity on ivy removal to address Ms. Vrhel’s concern. The condition does not, however, specify where on Church property the new eight foot fence would be installed, so that the two parties may work this out on a separate timeline and not in a Council hearing setting, based upon the surveys and the final terms of the personal license agreement. Background The CUP application was tentatively approved in July 2012 by the Planning Director, in conjunction with the Architectural Review (AR) application for a new building and site improvements. A neighbor requested a hearing by the Planning and Transportation Commission on the CUP application. None of the neighbors requested a hearing on the AR City of Palo Alto Page 3 application, so the AR approval has become effective. The Director’s approval conditions included a student enrollment cap, since previous CUPs did not cite a numerical limit. Student Enrollment The conditions of CUP approval imposed by the Planning Director included placement of a maximum cap on the total number of students enrolled. This was described during the staff presentation to the PTC at the June 13, 2012 public hearing. The neighbors have been seeking a lower cap, a total student enrollment of 300 students, as expressed to the PTC during the October 3, 2012 hearing. None of the CUPs previously issued for this site contained a cap to limit the total number of students attending the private school. There has been some confusion on this point given comments by staff to the PTC on October 3, 2012. The number of students enrolled in the school has varied over time. The prior student population on the campus may have dramatically exceeded 315 students decades earlier, though the enrollment numbers are lower today. The current enrollment is reportedly 265 students. The applicant has described why 315 students is the number needed to operate a Catholic school; statements are reflected in the June 13th and October 3rd PTC meeting minutes on this point. An enrollment of 315 students, including the preschool, would translate to 31.5 students per class. The students would be distributed among the pre-K through 8th grade classrooms. This maximum number of students per classroom would be less than or consistent with the current public school maximum: 32 students per classroom. The cap of 315 students stated in the Director’s tentative CUP approval has been carried forward in the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) for Council approval. The RLUA Approval condition #4 requires an annual student enrollment report, and approval condition #3 states that the Planning Director can add conditions or terminate the CUP. PAMC Section 18.77.110 allows the Director to issue a notice of noncompliance for failure to comply with approval conditions, or when a use is conducted in a manner detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. Any CUP is technically subject to a noticed Directors Hearing, if the noncompliance is not corrected within a specified timeframe, with the opportunity for affected parties to attend an participate in the hearing. 2007 CUP The most recent CUP approved for the site was for an application submitted in 2007 [07-PLN- 00188]. The 2007 CUP application included a traffic report that cited an enrollment at that time of 270 students. The 2007 CUP allowed for the addition of a modular Kindergarten classroom. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The traffic study reflected the existence of an after-school care program. The 2007 CUP included this condition: “All conditions of the previous use permits shall remain in full effect.” Another condition of the 2007 CUP noted the property owner’s responsibility to ensure intensity of use and parking demand does not exceed on-site parking supply. The 2012 CUP is based upon the provision of four additional parking spaces, designed to meet the additional demand anticipated from the new Pre-K program. There is no evidence that the school anticipated expanding the number of students beyond the 270 students enrolled at that time, but there was also no cap placed on the number of students with the 2007 CUP. 1999 CUP The previous CUP [99-UP-6], associated with Architectural Review approval 99-ARB-57 (Attachment I), modified a 1987 CUP. The 1999 ARB staff report (Attachment K) indicates the Use Permit had recently been approved. Attachment H is the 1999 Building Permit allowing the convent expansion for educational purposes. 1987 CUP The 1987 CUP [87-UP-40] (Attachment E), amended the 1959 and 1964 CUPs [59-UP-26 and 64- UP-7]. In total, the CUPs from 1959 through 1999 conditionally allowed for the location and operation of a church, rectory, convent and school and the use of a portion of the first floor of the existing convent and then expanded convent for a Kindergarten classroom and afterschool daycare. Hours of Operation and Circulation The hours of operation of the existing school, which include the pre- and after-school hours, are 7 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday. Currently, and pursuant to the 1987 CUP, circulation is operating via one-way entry from the easternmost driveway to a one-way exit from the westernmost driveway, shown on Plan Sheet A1.1, and the side parking lot is also used for Kindergarten drop-offs and pickups. The October 3, 2012 PTC report describes a split drop-off system that allows for continuation of the 1987 pattern of drop offs for 1st through 8th graders at the front of the building, and the use of a side parking lot for both pre-K and Kindergarten student drop-offs. The report highlighted what seemed to be a mutual agreement between the applicant and neighbors. The report described why transportation staff supported the proposal for drop-offs and pick- ups, and noted that the on-site circulation pattern allows for avoidance of an otherwise potentially detrimental impact - queuing of cars on Channing Avenue during the peak PM period – given the potential additional number of students above the current enrollment. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Neighbors’ concerns about pick-up patterns (2:45- 6 pm) and associated noise pollution were expressed to the PTC. Following the PTC hearing, the hearing, requester spoke again with the applicant to try to resolve her concerns about pick-ups. Staff believes that the issue regarding pickups has been addressed since, as of October 24, 2012, the school principal has committed to the following solutions, as negotiated between the hearing requester and applicant: 1. Establishing extended daycare parking in front of the school from approximately 3:30 to 5:30 pm, for grades 5 - 8. 2. Opening the west gate for additional parking as needed. This will reduce vehicles going to the side parking lot and accommodate any additional vehicles generated from increasing enrollment to capacity. The applicant has prepared a plan reflecting this in the plan set provided to Council. Transportation and planning staff had previously identified an area on-site toward the front/west side of the property (on-site). Transportation is supportive of this change, as long as use of the side parking lot (east side) is still allowed if necessary to avoid queue spill-backs onto Channing Avenue. Condition of approval #9 reflects the wording that has been reviewed by the hearing requester, to ensure the revision to the circulation is fully acceptable. Continuity of Afterschool Program The before-school and after-school program for school students grades K-8 is a typical component of schools, even public schools. Staff research yielded that the hours often begin at 6:30 or 7 am and end at 6 pm. The Church has stated that in 1987, the school began the practice of providing after school care (though not mentioned in the 1987 CUP). The CUP process in 1987 and 1999 included noticed public hearings by the Zoning Administrator (Attachment J). Attachment I shows that afterschool care for school students was taking place in the convent building prior to 1999. The 2007 traffic study reflected the existing after-school care program for the school’s students. The after school care practice was not challenged through the CUP hearing process in 1999, nor in 2007 through the request-for-hearing process. PTC Review The PTC reviewed the current CUP application and heard from the public during two hearings, on June 13 and October 3, 2012. The original concerns of the hearing requester, and attempts by the applicant to address them, were described in the June 13, 2012 report, and the October 3, 2012 report (Attachments M and B). The October 3, 2012 PTC minutes (Attachment C) further illuminate the neighbors’ concerns and the PTC’s consideration thereof. City of Palo Alto Page 6 The person requesting the hearing had originally expressed a number of concerns as described in the June 13, 2012 PTC report, and had requested clarification. These concerns included mislabeling of specific uses on the plans, the requirement for a landscaped strip around the parking lot areas adjacent to residential uses and amount of landscape screening in the perimeter area, the number and amount of parking spaces on the existing site as compared to what was proposed, and vehicular circulation plan for pick up and drop off of students on the site. The June 13, 2012 PTC meeting minutes are attached to this report (Attachment N). Between the hearings, the applicant met with neighbors to address concerns raised at the June 13, 2012 PTC hearing regarding traffic circulation related to the additional students anticipated, and trash and noise issues. The October 3, 2012 report (Attachment B) summarizes the applicant’s efforts with the neighbors on these issues, the timeline for the outreach process (between June 27 and September 26, 2012), the offer of concessions or agreements for modifications designed to resolve concerns, and the permit history and status of improvements to the school. The applicant provided information to the PTC at the hearing (Attachment L). The PTC meeting minutes of October 3, 2012 (Attachment C) reflect the vote (4-1-1-1) and the issues described by neighbors as discussed during the hearing and considered by the PTC. There were seven public speakers on June 13, 2012 and five public speakers on October 3, 2012. On October 3, 2012, neighbors focused on the perimeter fence and perimeter landscape buffer dimension, the pick-ups at the side entrance and total number of parking spaces for the uses on the site. The PTC resolved the fence concerns via imposition of an additional approval condition pertaining to a 250 foot (approximate) portion of the perimeter fence. The fence had been requested by neighbors to be eight feet tall, so the PTC motion was for a new fence that would be eight feet tall, placed adjacent to residential property at 1125, 1133, 1139 Channing Avenue and end midway at 41 Kent Place, serving to buffer noise from the side parking lot. The one “no” vote was due to the added condition, which requires the Church to pay the entire cost of the approximately 250 foot long fence, estimated at that time to cost $14,000. Staff noted during the hearing that a height Variance may be required by Council to implement the recommendation. This is discussed further in the Discussion section of this report. Architectural Review The Architectural Review (AR) approval on April 25, 2012, allowed replacement of the existing modular Kindergarten classroom with a one-story 3,383 s.f. building, representing a 2,423 s.f. net increase in floor area. The approval was handled at staff level, due to the minor amount of additional floor area. The existing modular building, permitted in 1999, is to be removed and replaced in roughly the same location adjacent to the existing K-8 school building. The approval became effective on May 10, 2012, since an ARB hearing was not requested nor was the decision appealed. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Discussion Issues and Solutions Subsequent to PTC Meetings On October 22, 2012, the hearing requester asked that Council pull the item from consent calendar in November to discuss her concerns regarding circulation; however, staff believes that her concerns have since been resolved. The RLUA reflects the recent solutions reached between the applicant and hearing requester regarding the revised afternoon traffic flow pattern and pick up, as described in the background section of this report. Perimeter Fences and Vegetation at Rear Property Lines On October 22, 2012, staff and the applicant met for nearly two hours with the hearing requester and the four owners of residential adjacent property benefitting from the PTC’s recommendation for a fully funded fence. The owners seemed satisfied by the individual fence and vegetation solutions discussed at that meeting, and a seven foot wood fence (solid wood to six feet above grade, with one foot of lattice on top) appeared to be the accepted solution to mitigate visual concerns. Staff is still supportive of the PTC condition requiring the Church to fund perimeter fences for the four property owners, but at a seven foot overall height. A seven foot fence would not require a Variance, nor would a building permit be required. Based upon conditions observed during the on-site meeting held with the four property owners, the Church will be working with these owners to implement and fund individual, per- property fence solutions. That is, the wood fences would be tailored to the individual circumstances of each of the four properties. The additional fencing material would provide limited sound attenuation but would provide visual and privacy benefits. The applicant proposed a construction that would feature noise buffering material between two layers of wood, to help provide some noise attenuation. Chain link fencing would be modified as needed following removal of ivy and compromised vegetation, to ensure school security. Asphalt paving would be removed and wheel stops installed to protect the landscape area, which would be used to plant additional vegetation (Carolina Laurel was the species discussed in the meeting) in key locations for screening purposes. RLUA Condition of Approval #26 reflects the requirements for seven foot tall fences, preserved and new perimeter vegetation, ivy removal and shrub maintenance, as discussed at the October 22, 2012 on-site meeting. It does not require an eight foot tall fence as had earlier been requested by some of these neighbors, and recommended by the PTC, since the neighbors appeared to be satisfied with the seven foot overall height. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Survey, Fence and Vegetation along Church Driveway The applicant’s survey is Attachment O to this report. Neighbor Rita Vrhel is procuring a second survey by a surveyor upon the recommendation of her attorney. Staff does not generally mediate or decide fence line survey issues, so the condition of approval directly addresses the height, landscaping and other features of the fence, depending on its location. The remaining issue for Ms. Vrhel is the placement and height of the fence along the driveway, and the associated vegetation. The applicant is willing to pay for and install a solid six foot fence in either of two locations. The applicant is also willing to include a two-foot tall lattice cap (extending the one-foot tall lattice cap by one foot) for a total fence height of eight feet, as long as it does not need to be engineered and no Variance is required. There are drawbacks related to either of the two solutions from Ms. Vrhel’s viewpoint: 1) The applicant prefers to place the fence six inches from the common property line, based on the Church survey, such that the footings do not cross over the property line. This would allow a planting strip along the driveway on the Church side of the fence, approximately 28 inches wide, to provide a tall vegetative screen for the benefit of Ms. Vrhel. Italian Cypress spaced at two to three feet on center along the driveway is recommended by the City’s Arborist, with Carolina Laurel placed at five feet on center as an alternative species that could still be accommodated in the space. The location would be approximately 14 inches closer to Ms. Vrhel’s property than the existing fence location, according the applicant’s survey. The drawback for Ms. Vrhel is the loss of the 14 inch width strip of land she has been using and potential need for trimming branches the existing trees on her property if an eight foot tall fence is installed. This is the one of the reasons she is having a survey prepared. 2) The applicant’s second choice is to install the fence along the existing alignment, which would provide an approximately 14 inch wide planting strip on the Church side of the fence (not enough width for screen vegetation on the Church side of the fence). With this option, the City’s Arborist recommends Italian Cypress planted where possible along the fence, among existing trees. The Church also proposed a ‘personal license agreement’ giving legal rights to Ms. Vrhel to use the approximate 14 inch width of land between the fence and the common property line (according to the applicant’s survey). Ms. Vrhel is not satisfied with the terms of the personal license agreement (Attachment P) since successive owners would inherit the need to forge a new agreement with the Church for legal rights to the land. This is the second reason she prefers to have an alternate survey prepared. The PTC had recommended that an eight foot tall perimeter fence was an acceptable solution along the rear property lines of the residential properties during on-site discussions with these neighbors. Staff has reviewed the City’s fence code and is able to support the eight foot tall City of Palo Alto Page 9 fence on the boundary with Ms. Vrhel’s property without the processing of a Variance, so long as the solid portion does not exceed six feet in height. Public Records Request The hearing requestor also submitted a records request, on October 10, 2012, and staff responded within several days, providing the specific planning entitlements cited by the requester, including some of the documents attached to this report. Additional research was undertaken by staff in response as well, and was provided to the hearing requestor within the requested timeline. Policy Implications The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. Environmental Review This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. Attachments:  Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (DOC)  Attachment B: October 3, 2012 PTC Staff Report (DOC)  Attachment C: October 3, 2012 DRAFT Excerpt of PTC Verbatim Minutes (DOC)  Attachment D: Tentative AR and CUP Approval Letter (PDF)  Attachment E: 1987 CUP Approval (PDF)  Attachment F: April 30, 2012 Request for Hearing (PDF)  Attachment G: September 26, 2012 Letter from Applicant (PDF)  Attachment H: 1999 Building Permit for 1105 Channing (PDF)  Attachment I: 1999 Planning Permit/AfterSchool Care Documentation (PDF)  Attachment J: 99-UP-6 Notice of Public Hearing (PDF)  Attachment K: 99 ARB Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment L: Applicant Submittal 10.3.12 (PDF)  Attachment M: June 13, 2012 1095 Channing Ave PTC report (DOC)  Attachment N: PTC minutes of June 13, 2012 (DOC)  Attachment O: Survey Layout Plan (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 10  Attachment P: Diocese personal license agreement1 (PDF) 1 DRAFT ACTION NO. 2012-xx RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR Conditional Use Permit Amendment 11PLN-00437 (John Miller, APPLICANT) On December 17, 2012, the Council conducted a public hearing and approved the application for amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of a Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten and after school day care program making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On November 29, 2011, John Miller on behalf of Elizabeth Seton School and Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, submitted for a Conditional Use Permit amendment associated with the operation of a new Pre-Kindergarten program within an expanded Kindergarten building, and an after school day care program, associated with an existing private school (K-8 program) at 1095 Channing Avenue. (“The Project”). B. Following staff review, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the conditional use permit application on April 25, 2012 and on April 30, 2012, within the prescribed timeframe, a request for a public hearing was submitted; additional information is contained in CMR #XXXX. C. On June 13, 2012, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and voted [4-0] to continue the project to a date uncertain to allow time for the applicant to work with the neighbors to have discussions regarding the proposed traffic pattern and the issues with trash and noise. D. On October 3, 2012, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and voted [4-1-1-1] to recommend that Council approve the project, subject to an addition condition of approval (Condition #26). The Commission’s action is contained in the CMR #3333. E. On November 5, 2012, the Council pulled the item off consent calendar and scheduled the item for public hearing to address a neighbor’s final concerns. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. 2 SECTION 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings. (1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, as conditioned, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed building is located on the eastern corner behind the existing church and convent, aligned with the main internal circulation, and will replace an existing undersized Kindergarten structure with newer and larger facility providing both Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten classrooms with extended daycare and shall be within the allowable square footage for the site. Additionally, the new structure will provide a prominent entrance at the existing parent drop off and parking area. The new classroom expansion proposes to meet the maximum student enrollment of 315 students allowed for the use and there shall be adequate parking spaces to accommodate this conditional use. The traffic pattern and vehicular circulation shall be conducted in an orderly way and shall not generate excessive trip demand. New trees and landscaping is proposed in the 5-foot setback between the building and adjacent residential property line to provide additional buffering and replace the trees that are proposed to be removed within the new building footprint. Conditions of approval have been imposed to ensure the project conforms to the submitted plans. (2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the zoning Ordinance. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project is replacing an existing 1999 Kindergarten/restroom addition with a larger Kindergarten/restroom and Pre Kindergarten/restroom addition with after school daycare program that would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The total proposed 3,383 square feet addition will include exterior changes and addition that will provide high quality design and site planning and shall be compatible to the existing structure in design and materials. The school shall be conducted in a manner that will support and promote the provision of comprehensive school and childcare services by public and private providers as a conditional use in R-1 zoning district and maintain Palo Alto’s varied neighborhoods while sustaining vitality of its public facilities. This finding can be made in the affirmative. 3 SECTION 4. CUP Approval Granted. CUP approval is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 5. Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by John Miller Architects and received September 26, 2012, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Planning and Community Environment Department Planning and Transportation Division 1. The proposed project shall be constructed and shall operate in substantial conformance with the revised project description stamped received September 26, 2012, and plans stamped received September 26, 2012, on file with the City in planning application no. 11PLN-00437, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. A copy of this approval letter shall be printed on the first page of the plans submitted for building permit. The building permit shall not be approved without this letter printed on the plan set. 3. The Director of Planning and Community Environment shall have continuing jurisdiction over this Conditional Use Permit amendment and reserves the right to revoke or terminate this permit, reaffirm this permit or modify the conditions or impose new conditions with respect to this permit. 4. The total enrollment for Elizabeth Seton School shall be limited to 315 students which will include the enrollment for new Pre-Kindergarten program for up to 30 students and the following hours of operation: Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Any increase in enrollment shall require a new conditional use permit amendment. The school shall also provide a mandatory annual student enrollment report to the city to document the cap of students that shall not exceed 315 (maximum allowed). 5. The applicable conditions of use permit 87-UP-40 (which amends use permits 59-UP-26 and 64-UP-7) shall apply. They are briefly itemized as below: 4 a. Parking space to be provided at a ratio of 1 space per each 4 seats b. Each parking shall be maintained for lifetime. c. No parking space shall be located within first 20 feet of the front property line. d. No parking permitted in the driveways. e. Driveways located between church and convent and between rectory and school shall have a minimum width of 14 feet. f. Exterior lighting shall be so arranged as to protect adjoining residential properties. To this end no light source, brilliant, reflection, or excessive, “spill light” shall be visible from adjacent residential properties. g. Location of three (3) foot wide privet to reach six feet in height at maturity to remain next to the existing chain link fence. h. Perimeter landscaping and the existing planting located between Kent Place and the existing cyclone fence shall be maintained and replaced to provide adequate screening. i. Any unauthorized lighting shall be removed or altered. j. There shall be no access or egress to or from Kent Place by vehicles or pedestrians. 6. The following City standard requirements (related to neighbors’ concerns) shall be followed: a. Trash and Recycling requirements shall be applied as per PAMC code section 18.23.020 (B)(iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view and shall be enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided as feasible. b. The school shall install covered trash and recycle containers at new location, as shown on site plan (Attachment C) with sufficient trash capacity to prevent overflow of trash. Additional garbage pick-up trucks will be scheduled after 8:00 am to avoid disturbance to neighbors in immediate vicinity. Warning Signs shall be posted throughout the site warning parents and visitors to turn down their cell phones and radios when entering and exiting the parking lot area. c. Lighting requirements shall be applied as per PAMC code section 18.23.030(B)(vii) Lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture, and (C) (ii) Timing device should be considered for exterior and interior lights in order to minimize light glare at night. 5 d. Perimeter Landscaping shall be provided as per PAMC code section 18.54.040(a)Each unenclosed parking facility shall provide and maintain perimeter landscaped strip at least five feet wide between and adjacent to a line defining the exterior boundary of the parking area and the nearest adjacent property line, not separated by a building, and Landscape screens shall form a dense visual buffer with a combination of trees and shrubs as per PAMC code section 18.54.040(f)(1) On sites abutting or opposite a residential site, a dense visual buffer shall be provided. In addition, trees shall be planted or shall exist at a ratio of not less than one tree per three hundred square feet of the landscaped screen or fraction thereof, and supplemented with shrubs and groundcover. The tree and landscape inventory shall be as per sheet A1.1 of revised plans dated September 26, 2012, and landscape inspection shall be as per condition of approval #25 below and new Redwood fences will be per condition #26. e. Noise shall be mitigated pursuant to PAMC code section 18.54.050 (g) Areas used for primary circulation, for frequent idling of vehicle engines, or for loading activities shall be designed and located to minimize impacts on adjoining properties, including provisions of screening or sound baffling. Warning signs will be posted throughout the site to alert parents and visitors to turn down their cell phones and radios when entering and exiting the parking lot area which shall be strictly followed and enforced by school staff. Other noise abating measurement proposed is the construction of a Redwood fence along the perimeter of the parking lot. Cost to be shared between the neighbors and the Church. Other noise abating measurement requested by neighbors’ is the construction of a Redwood fence along the perimeter of the parking lot. Neighbors are willing to share the cost with the Church. 7. With the exception of pastor office hours, no other routine church services or activities shall occur during the peak hours of operation of the Pre-Kindergarten, K-8 and after school extended day care program, especially during drop-off and pick-up times. All other activities shall be limited to assembly sizes such that the parking demand of these services plus the school classes is less than the 44 spaces for school and 26 spaces for church activities. 8. All drop-off and pick-up operations shall be contained within the project site and in the areas clearly designated as drop off/pick-up areas. The school shall have a split drop-off system. There will be a front drop-off for children 6 from 1st to 8th grade and side or walk-in drop-off for Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten children. There shall be an additional drop off area, further down from the front, which will be used as necessary. Dedicated school staff members shall be required to supervise and ensure that proper measures are in place. 9. School dismissal times shall continue to be between 3:00 PM to approximately 3:05. Students leaving immediately after dismissal shall be picked up at the side entrance (east side of school). Vehicles arrive starting at approximately 2:45 PM and queue in the side parking lot (east side of school/convent), which shall not backup on to Channing Ave. a. Students not picked up immediately after school stay for extended daycare in the classrooms or on the rear playground. Pick up is staggered from 3:30 PM until 5:30 PM and infrequently delayed pickups may stay to closing at 6:00 PM. b. Lower grades are signed out by the parents who park in the side parking lot and walk to the rear playground sign- out area c. Upper grades (5th - 8th) are signed out by parents who park in the front parking areas (between church and school building) and walk to the rear playground sign-out area. The west gate, by the science modular classroom, will be opened as needed to accommodate the vehicles. 10. Any changes proposed by the applicant to amend the striping on the side of the project site on the west side (where there is existing, legal noncomplying/inadequate back- up/aisle width) would require submittal of a revised striping plan to meet current Palo Alto Municipal Code requirements. The proposed parking layout showing 44 parking spaces for school, 26 parking spaces for church and 66 bike spaces is adequate for current scope of work. 11. The plans submitted for building permit shall include installation of bicycle parking with a capacity of 1 space for every 5 students or 63 bikes. The parking should be installed within 50 feet of the main entrance to the buildings or distributed around multiple buildings, with good visibility. The type of bike rack and location shall be approved by City Staff prior to installation (Inverted-U type are typical. ‘Wave’ or ‘school yard’ are not allowed). 12. Planning/Landscape Inspection: Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the project planner (650- 7 329-2471) to inspect and verify special conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors as per material board stamped received September 26, 2012, and shall contact the Public Works Arborist (650-496-5953) to inspect the site landscape plan. 13. The school grounds and area in the vicinity of the school shall be kept in a clean, litter free state. The school administration shall be responsible for control of litter of school students in the school vicinity. Public Works Department Public Works Engineering 14. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact the Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 15. FLOOD ZONE: The proposed improvements are located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Accordingly, the proposed construction must meet all of the City’s and Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) requirements for construction within a flood zone, such as: the finished bottom floor must be at or above the base flood elevation (BFE); the crawl space (if used) must have flood vents; and all construction materials and equipment below the BFE must be water-resistant. Garage/storage slabs can be below the BFE, but the garage/storage will then need flood vents. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations, and our website for more information. The plans must show the BFE on all applicable elevations, sections and details; must include a calculation of the required amount of flood vents; must include the flood vents on the elevations and foundation plan; must note all materials below the BFE as water-resistant; and must include the Elevation Certification Submittal Requirements for Construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area form, which is 8 available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website. Please note that FEMA recently (May 2009) changed the vertical datum of the flood zones. You must use the new vertical datum (NAVD88) on plans submitted for a building permit NOTE: Please correctly show the flood zone designation as AH27.7 16. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splash blocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines on our website. 17. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website. 18. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 19. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 20. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet 9 for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 21. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the building permit plan set that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. The work area must be coned or taped off while still leaving at least 4 feet of sidewalk for pedestrian use. If less than 4 feet of sidewalk is available for pedestrians, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works to close the sidewalk.” Public Works Arborist 22. The Tree Protection Report (TPR) prepared by Walter Fujii, Project Arborist, dated March 06, 2012, is approved and shall be incorporated into the building permit plan set as specified below. All tree protection measures specified in this report are incorporated herein as conditions of project approval, in addition to the other tree protection conditions outlined below. 23. The final plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on the relevant plan sheets: a) Sheet T-1_Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan available on the City website at (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urbancanopy.asp). Applicant shall complete and include the Tree Disclosure Statement and Inspections and monthly reporting by the project arborist are mandatory (All projects: check #1; with tree preservation report: check #2-6; with landscape plan: check #7). b) The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the TPR approved by the City shall be printed on Sheet T-2, (T-3, T- 4, etc) and added to the building permit sheet index. c) Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans, Type II fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing around Protected/Designated trees as a bold and dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (all permeable ground area surrounding the trunk) per instructions on Detail #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. d) Site Plan Notes. Include the following three notes in the following specified sheet(s) of the building permit plan set stating: i) Note #1 - On the Site Plan - "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, 10 watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-1 and the approved plans,” ii) Note #2 - All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans, utility plans and relevant sheets shall include a note referring to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees, stating: "Regulated Tree - before working in this area contact Walter Fujii, Project Site Arborist, at (415) 699-6269," and iii) Note #3 - All Utility plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of a protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 and note on site plan for instructions.” 24. The plans submitted for building permit shall include a landscaping plan showing details of new landscaping and tree relocation. Alternate planting may be approved with review of City’s Public Works Arborist. 25. The final landscape inspection, prior to occupancy approval, shall require review of the planting of new trees and landscaping as noted on sheet A1.1 of revised plans, dated September 26, 2012 with approved plans dated received February 15, 2012, and marked as “Exhibit A.” These include (1) 15-gallon Coast Live Oak, (1) 24” box Persian Ironwood, (1) 24” box Elegant Tristania and T-25 shall be Acer “October Glory” as replacement trees to be located as per the direction of the City Arborist. Persian Ironwood (T-14) shall be used for screening trees as required for neighbors’ backyards along south-east property line. Evergreen hedge consisting of (1) 5-gallon New Zealand Flax and (1) 5- gallon Carolina Cherry shall be planted at 5’ O.C. along the north-east property line as landscape screening and buffer for abutting residential parcels, and (1) 5-gallon New Zealand Flax as landscape screening at the south-west (front) corner of the property. Two Monterey Pine trees and two Glossy Privets are permitted to be removed as per tree schedule information on sheet A1.1 of revised plans dated September 26, 2012. All Ivy along the perimeter of parking lot shall be removed. 26. The church shall build on church property, and maintain, a new (8) eight-foot tall redwood fence along the driveway adjacent to 1125 Channing. The fence shall be a six feet tall solid wood fence plus a two foot tall lattice top with redwood siding and cement board noise-attenuation features as submitted to City staff October 26th, 2012. If the fence 11 is adjusted (based upon the Church land survey) to provide additional and adequate width for planting screening vegetation along the Church driveway, the Church shall plant Italian Cypress trees along the driveway planting strip at two to three feet on center (on the Church side of the fence). If the fence is placed in the same location as the existing fence, the applicant shall allow the owner of 1125 Channing to plant vegetation on Church property (assuming the Church land survey is correct) on the other side of the fence, to provide additional screening. Additionally, new six foot tall plus one foot tall lattice top wood fences with noise-attenuation, or modifications to existing fences as desired by mutual parties (residential property owner and Church), shall be built and paid for by the Church outside the chain-link fence and tailored to each property owner at 1125, 1133, 1139 Channing Ave. and ending midway at 41 Kent Place. Fences shall be built during the first stage of construction. A five foot wide landscape strip at the edge of the side parking lot shall be created along the common rear property line with 1125, 1133, 1139 Channing Avenue and ending midway along the side property line of 41 Kent Place. In the landscape strip, the Church shall keep the existing large trees and plant four (15 gallon) Prunus Caroliniana behind 1133 and 1139 Channing Avenue and 11 Prunus Caroliniana next to 1141 Kent Place side property line. The existing vegetation in the landscape strip behind 1125 Channing Ave shall be pruned with the assistance of the neighbor. All ivy shall be permanently removed in the landscape strip up to the common property line and removed and trimmed quarterly or as necessary by the church staff to keep the ivy under control. The Church staff will remove and keep trimmed all ivy which was planted on the Church property but has spread to the area between the fences at the back of 1125 Channing Avenue. Irrigation shall be added only as needed to establish the Prunus Caroliniana and discourage ivy re-establishment. The parking spaces along the property line with the rear of 1125, 1133, 1139 Channing Avenue shall be signed “staff” and have wheel stops. 27. A tree relocation plan shall be submitted to the City’s Public Works Arborist and approved prior to building permit issuance. 28. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees and new landscaping. For trees, detail #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans showing two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The 12 tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City’s Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. 29. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). 30. Landscape Planting notes shall include the following: “Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger shall be removed from the site. A turf-free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) shall be provided for best tree performance.” 31. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor of record shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division indicating that the required protective fencing is in place. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 32. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 33. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec.2.20 C&D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then “Trenching and Tunneling Distance,” shall be printed on the final plans. 34. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by Walter Fujii, Project site Arborist, at (415) 699-6269, with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the City for review. 13 35. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 36. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all Arborist Inspection Schedule measures; design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR, which are subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. A mandatory Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City Building Division beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the TTM, Addendum 11. 37. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 38. LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. Prior to final occupancy approval, the Planning Department (attn. project planner) and Public Works Arborist shall be in receipt of written verification from the project arborist that he/she has inspected all protected trees and irrigation, and that they are functioning as specified in the approved plans dated March 8, 2012 and as shown on Exhibit A. The inspections should include the following: i) Performance of Percolation & drainage checks is acceptable, ii) Inspection of Fine grading and all plantable areas for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots, and iii) Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. 39. MAINTENANCE. After final occupancy approval all required landscape and screening trees indicated in condition of approval shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version). Any screening tree that dies shall be replaced (with approved tree species and box size as shown on Exhibit A) or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. 14 40. Private Easement verification and allocation shall be the responsibility of the property owner and shall not be part of this approval. Building and Fire Department 41. Due to the new addition and expansion in use, the existing building, including restrooms, shall comply with all requirements of the 2010 Building and Fire codes and local ordinances. 42. Monitored NFPA 13 fire sprinkler and NFPA 72 fire alarm system shall be installed. 43. The Fire Department access roadway shall be a min 20 ft wide all weather surfaces and be capable of supporting a 75,000 lbs fire apparatus. The roadway shall have a min 13 ft 6 in vertical clearance. 44. Fire Department access roadway to be posted as Fire Lane-No Stopping. Fire Access roadway to meet the standards of the Palo Alto FD. 45. Submit plans and specs to the Palo Alto Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division for review, approval and permit prior to installation. Utilities Department Utilities Water Gas Wastewater 46. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. 47. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire sprinkler system or onsite fire hydrants to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property within 5 feet of the property line. 48. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility 15 construction showing the location for the new backflow preventers. 49. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 50. All new backflow preventer devices shall be inspected by the utilities cross connection inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to final sign off for the project. The applicant shall provide the City with the initial test certificates and name, address, and phone number of responsible party for subsequent annual testing for all backflows. 51. For existing backflow preventer devices, the applicant shall provide current annual test certificates and name, address, and phone number of responsible party for subsequent annual testing prior to final sign off for the project. 52. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the existing and new load information requested for utility service demands specifically for the added gas load in b.t.u.p.h. The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 53. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 54. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 55. The applicant shall be responsible for any upgrading the existing utility services as necessary to handle anticipated 16 peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility services. 56. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one foot above the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 57. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 58. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: 1) The pump(s) is limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less. 2) The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’ from the City clean out. 3) The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time shall not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 59. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with any new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 60. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Utilities Marketing 61. If this project includes over 1,500 square feet of landscape modifications, the landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by Utility Marketing Services, a division of the Utilities Department. Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading Permit, the applicant will need to comply with the City’s Landscape Efficiency Standards, which includes installation of a dedicated irrigation meter and approved backflow prevention device. Please submit the following items when applying for your Building and/or Grading Permit: 1) Landscape Water Use Statement 2) Water Use Calculations 3) Irrigation Plan 4) Grading Plan 5) Planting Plan 17 62. All documents and information to comply with the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards can be found on the City of Palo Alto Utilities website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/utilities. If you have any further questions, please contact Amanda Cox with Utility Marketing Services at (650) 329-2417. END OF CONDITIONS SECTION 7. Indemnity. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. SECTION 8. Term of Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the revised date of approval (November 5, 2012), pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: City of Palo Alto Page 1 PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Rina Shah, Project Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: October 3, 2012 SUBJECT: 1095 Channing Ave [11PLN-00437]: Request by John Miller, on behalf of Elizabeth Seton School and Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment allowing the operation of a new Pre- Kindergarten program within an expanded building, and an after school day care program, associated with an existing private school (K-8 program) at 1095 Channing Avenue. Zone: R-1. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per section 15301. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the requested Conditional Use Permit amendment (CUP) 11PLN-00437, with revisions reflected in Attachment D as presented to address neighbor concerns, and based upon additional findings and conditions as set forth in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). BACKGROUND On June 13, 2012, the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) held a public hearing and continued the item to a date uncertain to allow time for the applicant to work with the neighbors regarding the proposed traffic pattern and trash and noise issues. The June 13th P&TC report is included as Attachment B, and the meeting minutes are included as Attachment C of this staff report. Conditional Use Permit Review Process The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that property owners obtain a conditional use permit for certain uses within most zoning districts. Conditional use permit requests must be publicly noticed, reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission, and ultimately reviewed and approved by the City Council. The PT&C makes a recommendation to the Council, and the Council decision is final. These differ from permitted uses, which can be approved at a staff City of Palo Alto Page 2 level without public review. In this case, the Municipal Code requires that a conditional use permit request be approved prior to operation of a school in an R-1 zone and PAMC Section 18.76.010 (c) requires the following findings: (1) Not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (2) Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). As noted below, an expansion of a previously approved conditional use also requires P&TC review, as well as City Council review and approval, which is the case for this application. The conditional use permit process allows the public to be fully informed and participate in the review process, while allowing the P&TC and Council to place conditions on projects in order to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Permit History There have been numerous planning entitlements issued to this site over the past five decades. Table 1 outlines the CUP history details. This CUP application will amend 87-UP-40 (Attachment E). All applicable conditions of approval associated with conditional use permits 59-UP-26 and 64-UP-26 are applied as condition of approval #5 in the RLUA (Attachment A). Since 1959, the existing school has offered 1st through 8th grade education. The Kindergarten program began operation in 1987. The school is now requesting to add a new Pre-Kindergarten program to their existing Kindergarten through 8th grade school. Table 1 CUP NUMBER YEAR REASON FOR CUP 59-UP-26 1959 Church, rectory, residence, school 64-UP-7 1964 Off-street parking facilities, amend 59-UP-26 for perimeter parking requirements 87-UP-40 1987 Kindergarten classroom in Convent 99-UP-6 1999 Kindergarten classroom in new modular building 7PLN-00188 2007 Modular Science Classroom Structure 11PLN-00437 2011-2012 Add Pre-Kindergarten classroom and after school daycare DISCUSSION On June 27, 2012, a neighborhood outreach meeting was held by the Church where both parties met and discussed the issues related to the site. On August 20, 2012, a neighbor representative provided the staff with a written list of concerns. These concerns went beyond those described to City of Palo Alto Page 3 the P&TC at the 6/13/2012 public hearing. On September 26, 2012, the applicant provided a written response to the neighbors’ issues and concerns (Attachment G) and a revised project description (Attachment H). The school is able to address most of the neighbors’ concerns as listed in Attachment F. Traffic Circulation Traffic flow and student drop-off were the two most significant concerns expressed by the neighbors at the June 13th PTC meeting. Both parties are mutually agreeable to a split drop-off system where: (1) All cars will have one-way entry and one-way exit from Channing Ave; (2) There will be a front drop-off for 1st through 8th grades; and (3) All parents of Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten children will park in the parking lot adjacent to the Kindergarten room and walk to the Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten classrooms as per the revised site plan (Attachment D). There will be an additional drop off area (shown on Attachment D) which will be used when necessary. The pick-up times will vary because most children attend the extended daycare program, which remains open until 6 pm. The city’s traffic engineer supports the current circulation pattern at pick-up times. The cars begin to queue around 2:45 pm, circulate around the parking lot, pick up children at the side entrance, then exit onto Channing Avenue. This pattern avoids traffic queuing on Channing Avenue; however, the neighbors are still concerned that this pattern of traffic at pick-up times will be detrimental due to noise concerns. Maximum Number of Students. The school will balance the classroom sizes in all of their ten classrooms so as not to exceed the existing CUP school student cap of 315 students. Additionally, any proposal for an increase in the number of students would require a new CUP amendment. Staff is still supportive of the total student number, which will not exceed 315. A mandatory annual report of student enrollment shall be submitted by the school to the city. This requirement is included as condition of approval #4 in RLUA (Attachment A). Trash and Noise The school will install covered trash and recycle containers at a new location, as shown on the site plan (Attachment D), and conditions of approval # 6 (a), (b) and (c), in the RLUA (Attachment A), with sufficient capacity to prevent overflow of trash. Additional garbage pick-up trucks will be scheduled after 8:00 am to avoid disturbance to neighbors in immediate vicinity. Warning signs will be posted throughout the site to alert parents and visitors to turn down their cell phones and radios when entering and exiting the parking lot area which shall be strictly followed and enforced by school staff. Other noise abating measurement requested by neighbors’ is the construction of a Redwood fence along the entire perimeter of the parking lot. Neighbors are willing to share the cost with the Church. Following is a brief summary of the applicant’s response to neighbors’ concerns as listed in Attachment F: a. The cap for maximum number of students will remain at 315; City of Palo Alto Page 4 b. Drop-offs and pick-ups before and after school will occur on site. Cars will enter from the most easterly driveway from Channing Ave and depart from westerly driveway on to Channing Ave; c. The morning drop-off will be at the front of the school for Grades 1-8; The Kindergarten and Pre-K parents will park in the lot adjacent to the Kindergarten and walk the children to the classrooms. The pick-ups for all children will be at the new side entrance; d. Noise will be contained on site with adequate signs and posting of rules to be strictly followed. e. New Redwood fence will be built along the shared property line at the entrance driveway. The Church and the neighbor will share the cost; f. Lighting will be non-glaring and directed downwards away from surrounding residential properties; g. Trash enclosures will remain covered and locked at all times, except at trash pick- up time. Additional garbage pick-up times may be scheduled after 8 am; h. A pest control program will be implemented; all ivy along the parking lot perimeter shall be removed and replaced with green ground cover; i. Additional perimeter landscaping and screening with trees and hedges will be provided as per city arborist recommendation. Update on School Construction, The school secured a separate building permit on May 23rd to commence the remodel /repair of the existing elementary school restrooms for ADA compliance. A Temporary Use Permit (TUP) was issued on August 15th to allow Elizabeth Seton Catholic School to operate a Kindergarten classroom in a new temporary modular structure during the CUP process finalization and construction of the new Kindergarten building which is the subject of this CUP application. The neighbors’ representative was notified of the TUP. Unrelated Construction Noise Issue On August 15, 2012, a neighbor complained about noise due to storm repair work being carried out by the City’s Public Works Department. The church allowed the use of their parking for a temporary staging area. Neither the city workers nor the church were aware that the parking lot would be needed by the school. The staging area was immediately vacated. This situation caused confusion and delay in resolution of the neighbors’ concerns. TIMELINE This project is tentatively scheduled for Council Consent Calendar on November 5th, 2012. A minimum of three votes is required for Council to remove the item from the consent calendar. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. City of Palo Alto Page 5 ATTACHMENTS A. Record of Land Use Action B. PTC Report June 13th w/attachments C. Minutes of June 13th PTC meeting D. Site Plan (Revised)* E. Use Permit 87-UP-40 F. Neighbors’ Concerns List* G. Response to Neighbors’ Concerns* H. Revised Project Description* I. Plans (Commission only)* * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff COURTESY COPIES: John Miller, 579 Clyde Ave, Suite 300, Mountain View, CA 94043, Applicant Chuck Tully, 3290 Middlefield Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94306, Property Manager Evelyn Rosa, 1095 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Principal Rita Vrhel, 1125 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Appellant Lee Caswell, 1139 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, Neighbor PREPARED BY: Rina Shah, Project Planner REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Chief Planning Official DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 October 3, 2012 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 1095 Channing Avenue: (Continued from June 13th P&TC Meeting) 7 8 Acting Chair Michael: So we’ll proceed to the first matter on the agenda which is the application 9 for the Conditional Use Permit for 1095 Channing Avenue. This is a request by John Miller on 10 behalf of Elizabeth Seton School and the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, for a Conditional 11 Use Permit Amendment allowing the operation of a new Pre-Kindergarten program within an 12 expanded building, and an after school day care program, associated with an existing private 13 school which is K-8 program at 1095 Channing Avenue. 14 15 The Vice-Chair will introduce the speakers. 16 17 Vice-Chair Tanaka: The first speaker is John Miller. We would like a Staff Report. 18 19 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Amy French, Chief Planning Official. The project 20 before you is a continuation of the hearing that took place on this item on June 13th. It is an 21 amendment to an existing K-8 school site and church site to establish this Pre-K program and 22 extended Day Care program for these Pre-K children. The Planning Commission asked the staff 23 to continue the item so that the staff and the Applicant could receive some feedback from the 24 neighbors and try to resolve the issues that were brought up at the hearing. Some additional 25 issues were brought up during some of those discussions; the issues as noted in the staff report: 26 traffic, circulation, noise, landscape, and the cap to the number of the children at the school. 27 Some of those were reported out in the staff report for some resolution there. The Conditions of 28 Approval, Condition Number 4, talks about having to report to the City to verify that they’re not 29 exceeding the cap that was in place with the previous Condition. There are four Conditional Use 30 Permits on file with this property dating back to as far as 1959. The school began in 1959 at this 31 site and the kindergarten was brought about in 1987 and then in 1999 there were some additional 32 changes at this site. 33 34 Condition Number 5 in the Record of Land Use Action does make mention of those earlier Use 35 Permit Conditions that this project will relate to those applicable conditions, and itemizes them 36 in that Condition Number 5. The Extended Care Program is the same hours as has been 37 operating at the site since approximately 1998, 7 to 10 a.m., from 3 to 6 p.m., that’s been in 38 operation for the K – 8 school, and that will be the same hours for the Pre-K and extended care. 39 40 There are some items that include fencing; the church has agreed to pay 50 percent of the fencing 41 that commonly separating the properties, the residential properties, from the church on one side 42 from where the parking lot is on the driveway. The cap on the students is still 315 as in the 43 previous proposal for the property, and there are other things such as trash and vermin issues that 44 are going to be mitigated as described in the Conditions of Approval. 45 46 That pretty much concludes the staff report. The Applicant is here as is the staff who prepared 47 the report, Rina Shah. 48 49 2 Acting Chair Michael: So at this time are there any questions from Commissioners? Of the 1 staff? Commissioner Tuma. 2 3 Commissioner Tuma: We just received a stack of papers at places, one of which appears to be 4 something from one of the neighbors. And then there’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 pages of documents 5 that I think are from the neighbors, I’m not sure. Or from a neighbor, so, my question is, have 6 you all had a chance to review these? Do you have any points of view in terms of the contents of 7 this and I’m asking this question in the context of really trying to understand what issues remain 8 open in staff’s pages as well, but trying not to rehash things we’ve talked about before but trying 9 to get a sense of the results of the meetings and the documents we have. 10 11 Ms. French: I can say that I have not just now seen this stack here so perhaps during the public 12 testimony on this project I will have a chance to read thoroughly through this. I did have a 13 conversation with one neighbor, Rita Vrhel, who initially requested the hearing, and I heard from 14 her three to four items that she is concerned about, then I spoke with the Applicant, John Miller, 15 who is also here and some of these seem to have been resolved since the survey was done by the 16 Applicant. The neighbor doesn’t have a copy of that survey but the church has obtained the 17 survey from what I understand. 18 19 So some of these, I understand, they are not resolved. From Rita, Ms. Vrhels’ standpoint, she 20 would like the church to pay 100% of the cost of the fence and the church policy is 50%, the 21 applicant can elaborate more on that. She would like an 8 foot tall fence where a 7 foot tall fence 22 is the maximum. There are no building permits required for a 7 foot tall fence along the property 23 line there, though a variance would be required for an 8 foot tall fence. 24 25 There is the other item that was on key her list, which was the cars going by her property. I 26 spoke with the Applicant about that, so I don’t know if there are other neighbors that have that 27 concern. Ms. Vrhel continues to have a concern about additional cars driving by her home for the 28 pickup portion of the day. So that’s my understanding but I will go through this stack here. 29 30 Acting Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck? 31 32 Commissioner Alcheck: Yes, can you clarify real quick; you said the 7 foot tall fence is the 33 maximum. What is the requirement between a residential property and this type of property? 34 35 Ms. French: So this type of property is zoned R1, it’s got a Conditional Use Permit for a church 36 and school; being it is still R1 zoning, then a 7 foot fence is the maximum height. 37 38 Commissioner Alcheck: There is no requirement there be a fence. 39 40 Ms. French: There is no requirement that there be a fence. If it is a commercial property, we do 41 get that solid fence that is 8 feet tall, and it will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, 42 etc. So in the case of this, because it is residentially zoned and it is backed up to residential, if 43 there is a fence placed on the common property line or maybe even portionally on the residential 44 home side there’s no requirement for review by the ARB and there’s no Variance either as long 45 as it’s 7 feet tall. 46 47 Commissioner Alcheck: As long as it’s not more than 7 feet tall. 48 49 3 Ms. French: Not more than 7 feet tall, right. It’s kind of an odd thing because it’s not a 1 commercial property. 2 3 Commissioner Alcheck: If it was a commercial property then it would be a minimum of 8 foot. 4 5 Ms. French: I believe that’s in the performance standards under Chapter 18.45… 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: Solid redwood or something similar, something just solid. 8 9 Ms. French: Yes, solid redwood fence, I think Ms. Vrhel was considering a 6 feet fence with 2 10 feet lattice on top. 11 12 Acting Chair Michael: Are there other questions from Commissioners? One question I have 13 Amy is under the existing Conditional Use Permit, what is the enrollment cap on the school? 14 15 Ms. French: Its 315 students. The enrollment has not reached that high in actuality but the cap 16 cannot be 315 students. (This is actually inaccurate – the cap is proposed with this Use Permit). 17 18 Acting Chair Michael: And what we have before us there includes a request that there would be 19 some sort of annual report to the City about the actual enrollment. 20 21 Ms. French: Correct. And with all Conditional Use Permits there is capacity for a Directors 22 Hearing, should Conditions of a Use Permit not be fulfilled, or should problems arise that are not 23 nailed down to the Conditional Use Permit, so we do have that kind of outlet if there should 24 become an issue that we haven’t anticipated. 25 26 Acting Chair Michael: Ok so hearing no further questions from Commissioners about the Staff 27 Report, should we move to Public testimony? Presentation by the Applicant. I believe 15 28 minutes is appropriate. 29 30 Mr. John Miller: Thank you very much Commissioners. Thank you for hearing this tonight. 31 My client has worked very hard and has been very accommodating in listening and responding to 32 issues that had been brought up by the neighbors. I want to go through the process first. I also 33 want to thank Lee Caswell for his hours of effort that he’s put in working with us at the church 34 and school. 35 36 So how do I get rid of this? Ok so let me explain that before we put our application in last 37 November, we did some outreach. During the application time we also did some more outreach. 38 This is one of the cards that was sent out and as you can see there is three dates where there were 39 coffees. These coffees are held once a month by the school. This was not exclusively for just 40 talking about the project. It was the school is general so I think it might have been missed by 41 some of the neighbors. So at the second hearing when we became aware that there were issues 42 with other neighbors, we went through another round of outreach. We walked the site with the 43 neighbors, understood their issues. We communicated our needs in following through with the 44 mission of the school. 45 46 There were a number of things that were small items. The two big things is traffic and I call it 47 capacity, maximum enrollment. There are some things you’ve already taken care of. There is a 48 rodent issue. We got Vector Control to come out and review the site. We have changed out our 49 4 dumpsters to dumpsters with metal lids. They do exist. Green waste came out. They were great. 1 They are going to give the school training on recycling. They got these dumpsters with lids out 2 within a couple of days and we’re also going to have several more pickups. So the issue with 3 food or anything in the dumpsters, I think we’ve taken care of. The other thing is that there is 4 some trash around sometimes by the dumpsters. The multiple pickups will take care of that. 5 6 There were some things about light trespassing and we’ve committed to removing some of the 7 lights on existing buildings which are the interference now. The lights on the new building we 8 got a photometric and we have no direct lights spill over the property line. Another thing was 9 communications; we’ve identified two people, the business manager and the school principle 10 who can always be contacted if there is an issue. I believe in the past if the neighbors have had 11 an issue they’ve contacted the Business Manager, Chuck Tilley, and he’s responded. 12 13 So let me talk about traffic. The number of iterations, this is in your packet so this is the plan 14 that we developed and as you can see the right side where it says parking we call it the side 15 parking lot. You can see a series of arrows that go up, wind around parking and then come out 16 and they subsequently pass between the church which is the building at the bottom and school 17 which is a building at the top this way and then proceed out. Now what we are proposing and 18 what is already done is that in the morning the kids that can get dropped off are dropped off here. 19 I have pictures that show how smoothly that’s working. There are no kids on Channing Street. 20 It’s done very quickly. The kids before school stay in the gymnasium which is right here and 21 then when school starts they process to the school. 22 23 In the afternoon, because 80% of the kids stay in extended daycare, they’re picked up in a 24 staggered fashion throughout the day, throughout the afternoon. I have a chart here that shows 25 just that. We took 15 minute intervals and I brought extra copies and you can see where drop off 26 in the morning and pick up in the evening occur and then you can see to the right that there is 27 every 15 minutes there is about 1 car a minute that comes in and picks up their kids. The key 28 thing with extended daycare is that each child must be signed out. Their parent or guardian has 29 to come in. It’s not just jump in the car and go. That has become very important to us. It’s 30 essential. We can’t operate the other way. 31 32 The other thing is the kids in extended daycare, they will have a homework room and then they’ll 33 stay in their classrooms or play on the playground. That’s where they’ll stay. It’s at the back 34 half of the school and the playground which is at the top of the building. So with this 35 arrangement we’ve instituted, it’s working well. It’s written up in the school manual already and 36 it’s being communicated by the principal. We also have a monitor system out. There are 37 students, I have some pictures of that a ways down. They have really made this a tight, well-38 organized operation. 39 40 This summarizes in chart fashion not only the current car situation by 15 minute, half hour 41 intervals but also it projects out what parking would be at full capacity. For instance, between 7 42 and 7:30 a.m. it might go from 23 to 28. This is based on the fact that there are 2.6 children per 43 vehicle in the morning and 1.8 children per vehicle in the afternoon. For the morning you can 44 see there is already a lot of carpooling going on. The key thing is the side parking lot which is 45 this white side and if you notice that the 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. when school starts goes from 80 46 parking now, it will go down to about 35 or has gone down to 35 because of most of the kids 47 now going to the front drop off. 48 49 5 During the day, which is this band, there are very few cars, emergencies only. Then after school 1 which is 3:00 to 3:30, kids are again picked up, but in the side parking lot and we expect that in 2 that half hour to go from 55 cars to 65 cars and then from 3:30 to essentially 5:30, all kids are 3 gone at 5:30 except for the half hour it could stay open for emergencies, parents that are delayed 4 in traffic, stuff. We expect now we experience 104 cars, we expect at capacity to go up to 122 5 cars. That’s a delta of 18 cars over basically 2 hours. 6 7 The Principal will talk more about school capacity but in terms of school capacity, just some 8 history. The school was really built in 1950 and opened in 1951. Back in those days they 9 probably had 40 kids in 8 grades so there were probably 400 kids in the school. Some numbers 10 of 330 are floating around. So that there wouldn’t be any impact, additional impact we kept our 11 maximum at 315 and reduced the class size on the other classes so that the ten classes with Pre-K 12 would now be 31 and a half students per class. 13 14 In terms of other things, in terms of noise and ways that we can help be good neighbors, they’ve 15 agreed to remove ivy which is for rodent control and they’ve agreed to pay 50% of the fence and 16 put in landscaping per the City Arborists along the common property line. With those items I 17 think that we have really identified the issues and addressed them. I’d like to have the Principal 18 say a few words. 19 20 Ms. Evelyn Rosa: Good evening everyone. I just have a few comments I would like to make. 21 First I would also like to express my gratitude to Lee Caswell and John Miller for their joint 22 efforts to facilitate communication with the neighbors, the school and the city. We really have 23 listened to and noted other concerns and have worked to address all of the issues. 24 25 I have some concerns because it is my understanding that the enrollment of the school is in 26 question. The Catholic schools in both the Archdiocese of San Francisco and the Diocese of San 27 Jose regularly enroll about 35 students per class and in some cases more than that apart from 28 preschool. Our current enrollment is only 261 students. We are nowhere near 315, but we do 29 need to insure the financial viability of the school. Fortunately at this point we are sponsored by 30 the Daughters of Charity. Our tuition is only $3,300 a year and the cost per child is about 31 $10,000 because even the after school care is free to our school families. So an enrollment of 32 315 including preschool would translate as John said to 31.5 students per class and we do not 33 feel that this is excessive by any means. 34 35 I also have some concerns about the delays that we’ve experienced due to the length of this 36 process. Our donors and staunch supporters who are also Palo Alto residents are expressing their 37 concerns regarding the delays. They’ve invested $2 million for this project. This is not coming 38 out of school funds or parishioner funds even. This is coming directly from Palo Alto donors. 39 They’ve invested $2 million as well as their support for the mission of this school which is to 40 educate children of East Palo Alto and break the cycle of poverty. 41 42 We canceled summer school to allow for the beginning of the building project. Our new school 43 restrooms that were part of the project were not completed on time. The kindergarten portable 44 did not arrive on time. We were not able to get kindergarten started until late. It was our first 45 year having a full day kindergarten, the entire project was delayed. Understandably this caused 46 the teachers and the students’ great inconvenience and also the school incurred significant 47 expenses as a result of the delays so it’s important to note that. The project is currently way 48 6 behind schedule and we really need to get rolling if the building is to be ready in the fall. Thank 1 you for listening. 2 3 Acting Chair Michael: So are there any Planning Commission questions of the Applicant? So 4 hearing none, let’s move to Public Comment. We have about ten cards so we’ll observe the 5 limitation of 3 minutes per speaker. Mr. Tanaka. 6 7 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: So the first speaker is John Miller. 8 9 Acting Chair Michael: We’ve heard from him already. 10 11 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: The second speaker is Evelyn Rosa. The third speaker is Michael 12 Nash to be followed by Pauline Hayward. 13 14 Mr. Michael Nash: Thank you. So my name is Mike Nash. I live at 1102 Channing so directly 15 across from the church. I’ve been there for about 10 years. A couple of things, first of all I 16 wasn’t expecting to see data and I work at Data Analytics so it was good to see that but I wanted 17 to also put a dose of reality from my perspective. Again, I live directly across the street so I feel 18 the traffic that occurs every day. The traffic pattern that worked so well doesn’t always work so 19 well from my perspective. Students are dropped off on the street, so if there is a Business 20 Manager we can chat with about that it would probably be appropriate. 21 22 As the kids go on field trips which they deserve, the busses that park on Channing illegally at 23 7:30 in the morning to pick up the kids. That needs to be addressed. They can’t go into the 24 parking lot because there is no room. It’s the same thing with the weddings. So I just wanted to 25 share with you that from a resident that lives across the street and loves the church bells, we still 26 feel the pain. If you feel that traffic patterns and the parking is sufficient I disagree. 27 28 I realize this is taking longer than expected but I applaud the fact that we’re all sitting here being 29 civil and talking about it because it’s not a solved issue from my perspective. Thank you. 30 31 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Pauline Hayward followed by Irene Kane. 32 33 Ms. Pauline Hayward: Ms. Pauline Hayward, I live at 1040 Channing which is straight across 34 the street. I’ve lived there for 45 years. When I moved in the gentleman on one side of me who 35 lived there, I can’t even remember now, he used to look from his porch, through the cornfields to 36 University Avenue. The other gentleman on the other side made me aware of when the church 37 was built and that the time the church was built he was informed they would never park on the 38 street when they attended church. The parking area would be in the back of the church and when 39 we moved in 45 years ago I thought well so much for that commitment because in front of my 40 house on Saturday evening and on Sunday there are church cars that are there. 41 42 I am aware of when school begins because that is when litter starts coming onto my property. I 43 don’t know where it is blown from. Also where on the exit side there is a house that has oranges 44 on the trees and the children and their parents, who allow them to do this, are picking oranges off 45 of that property. I’m sure the people do not care but to me it’s not a very good example that’s 46 set. 47 48 7 I’m aware of the number of cars mainly because now I back into my driveway because I find it’s 1 far safer to come onto Channing because of the cars that are coming out of the exit which is 100 2 feet of where my driveway is. Not only do I have to look out for Channing traffic, I now have to 3 look out for those people coming out of the exit. 4 5 The driveway, the congestion, the noise… Now I can be in my backyard and I cannot tell you 6 how many feet I am away from the play yard and I can hear them so I can imagine those that live 7 in the court nearby or in the back of the field, I can’t imagine what kind of noise they’re hearing. 8 I’ve got one thought. I’ve dealt with the city because of a person who is building a home next to 9 my property and I’m well aware that if you’ve got influence in the City you can have so many 10 exemptions that are given to a homeowner that it just appalls me so when they say they’re not 11 going to do so and so I do not believe it because I think the City will bend to anyone who really 12 puts up a fight because I’ve seen it happen to the home that was next to me. I can’t tell you how 13 many times the neighbors and I came down to the City and said you can’t allow this exemption. 14 They said yes we can and they did. I just hope that at this point you’re aware of the influence 15 this has on the community. That is it. 16 17 Vice-Chair Tanaka: Rita Vrhel followed by Irene Kane. 18 19 Ms. Rita Vrhel: I was hoping I was going to have a little more than 3 minutes to counter what 20 Mr. Miller and the school Principal said. 21 22 Acting Chair Michael: We can give you 5 minutes. 23 24 Ms. Vrhel: Great thank you. Can we have the slide back up of the school? I am the neighbor 25 right next to the school. I am right here. So in 1987 a Use Permit was put specific to the 26 expansion of the kindergarten into the convent. It mandated that the traffic flowed from this 27 angle over to here. There were no exceptions. It also mandated a staggered pickup program. 28 29 Since 2007, when a Traffic Study was apparently done, all the traffic has been going back here. 30 Irene is a neighbor and she indicated to me how noisy my house is now. I have double pane 31 windows, I sleep with a fan on, I have put trees around my house and I have a fence. I don’t 32 know what else I can do except put earplugs in my ears. 33 34 When this was presented, it was for a building and an after daycare program, which I thought 35 went with the kindergarten. Ms. French described it that way just now. Actually I do not believe 36 there is an existing permit for any after daycare or extended school program. I’ve worked with 37 Ms. Shah and Ms. French this last week to try to find those permits. They cannot find those 38 permits. I believe that this application is trying to grandfather in an existing after school or 39 extended care program which is attended free by 200 children. The parents come exactly or 40 before 5:30 when the program then becomes expensive. 41 42 So I would ask that the permit be bifurcated and that the daycare portion of this permit 1) be 43 clarified to whether it is for Pre-K only which is 30 students, I don’t have a problem with that, or 44 if the school is actually trying to grandfather in an extended daycare or aftercare program that 45 has never actually been permitted. I think it is owed to me and to the public to see the permits 46 which actually exist on the extended daycare program. The permits before the 59, the 64 and the 47 87 are very clear that school activity on the site will not be expanded and that there will be no 48 increase in noise, traffic, fumes, whatever to the neighbors. With the traffic being rerouted from 49 8 here to back here and around, I think you can see that those conditions of the 1987 Use Permit 1 are not being met and are being flagrantly violated. 2 3 I have paid attention to everything that the school has tried to do because I am right here. I 4 moved in in 1984 when we still had nuns. I have attended meetings. I try to keep up current on 5 things and I did not get any notice on any changes to the existing Use Permit to allow for an after 6 daycare program or extended daycare program and I would again ask that that be investigated. I 7 personally don’t have a problem with the extended daycare program. What I have a problem 8 with is the parking being shuttled past here and pretending that this is not an issue for the 9 neighbors. All the traffic went this way. I believe that the traffic can be moved across here. 10 11 The other thing is that when the neighbors talk about parking, in my packet that I gave you, you 12 will see some pictures and the pictures show the entire back portion of the school being fenced 13 off, permanently fenced off with chain link fence. There is a play yard, there is a volleyball 14 thing, there’s also a sandbox. So those are the parking spaces that the neighbors are complaining 15 about not being available. In my list to you I note how many parking spaces are actually 16 available. I think it’s something like 70 parking spaces, 178 parking spaces are mandated so I’m 17 not sure where they went. 18 19 Mr. Caswell has been our point person and part of my speech today has not been cleared with the 20 group but because I am the most affected by this revised traffic flow pattern I felt I had to speak 21 out otherwise this is my last chance. Mr. Caswell who has worked really hard with the group 22 and I appreciate Ms. Shah and Ms. French for talking with me, will present our bottom line 23 issues. In my packet to you I’ve listed all the applicable Use Permits that go with each of the 24 items that we are requesting. Somehow if you’re going to extend the school day by 45% which 25 the extended daycare program has done and if you’re going to increase the students from the 26 1987 level of 267 which would be an 18% increase to 315 then I do think that you need to 27 provide more than 50% of the fencing. I also think the school needs to provide the mandated 28 1964 landscaping. Thank you. 29 30 Acting Chair Michael: One question before you sit down about the adequacy of the fence height. 31 What is your position on the fence height? 32 33 Ms. Vrhel: My quiet yard which I love has turned into a noisy thoroughfare with all these cars 34 going by me twice and then twice. Somehow this is a business and to pretend that it’s not a 35 business is ludicrous so I think an 8 foot fence is not an unnecessary request. I also think the 36 landscaping needs to be there and the parking needs to be set back 7 feet as it was mandated in 37 the 1959 and 1964 permits. Thank you. 38 39 Vice-Chair Tanaka: The next speaker is Irene Kane followed by Lee Caswell. 40 41 Ms. Irene Kane: Hi folks, neighbors. I’m Irene Kane. I live directly across the street on the 42 corner across from the school on Channing and Harriett. I moved in 11 years ago in 2001, so 11 43 years ago. I don’t like the after school program because of the traffic. At that time of day, it’s 44 just busy because that’s commute time. After work it’s already busy along Channing and having 45 people come pick up their kids at that same time just adds all that much more traffic. It’s hard 46 for me many times to get onto Channing from Harriett which my garage is on the Harriett side so 47 I’m trying to get onto Channing from Harriett. Cars are parked on both sides up to the corner so 48 9 it’s hard to see what’s coming up and down Channing so I have to be pretty much out onto the 1 street before I see the cars coming in either direction so that’s dangerous. 2 3 Also, I have sat for Rita. I’ve been doing that for a few years now. The first time I stayed at her 4 house I was like, early in the morning, 7:30, I’d hear car doors slamming, kids you know, that 5 happens Monday through Friday and then again on Sunday. So you only get one day off which 6 is Saturday morning and those cars come, there is nothing between the fence and the parking lot. 7 The fence is on the asphalt. The cars come right up, right next to the fence so it’s right there. 8 The car doors slamming, the kids, the parents… So it’s six days a week that’s happening in the 9 morning. There’s no sleeping through that so that’s my objections. Thank you. 10 11 Vice-Chair Tanaka: The final speaker is Lee Caswell. 12 13 Mr. Lee Caswell: Thank you very much. I’d like to start off by thanking certainly the Planning 14 Staff and Rita, particularly, for helping us work through and understand what the issues were. 15 Also Evelyn from the school was helpful to bring us all together and have some meetings I think 16 that was the purpose and then lastly to John Miller for listening and helping me to understand 17 some of the context here. I think we’ve done a good job, many of our concerns were addressed 18 and brought into the revised Conditional Use Permit and we think you for that. 19 20 I’m going to address my time on three remaining issues that based on new things that we’ve 21 learned about a requirement for drop off parking, I’m sorry pick up parking. So we learned that 22 because roughly 80% of those students go to after daycare program that’s free, that they have to 23 park and sign out their kids. That was new information. When we talk about a split pickup we 24 have to abandon that and we haven’t come up with a better idea so far, in order to have all of the 25 traffic go through the back on the pick-up, which was different than what we expected. 26 27 As a result when we started looking through other things on prior permits we found there was a 7 28 foot setback from the property line to the beginning of the parking lot and that’s very important 29 because the parking lot abuts against residential bedrooms with kids in particular for Rita you 30 can see here. This parking lot is mandated by the existing permit which is in violation. It should 31 be 7 feet but is currently at 5 and the new Use Permit specifies 5. We should be carrying over 32 the existing 7 foot setback so we have an additional 2 feet of boundary or barrier between the 33 parking area and then by regulation there is also a 2 feet setback from there for concrete setbacks 34 for the wheels. So we’d have an additional buffer across the parking across the back. So that’s 35 number 1. 36 37 Number 2, is that on the enrollment itself, there are 267 students currently, we endorse 261 and 38 we endorsed an additional 30, got us to 291, we said a cap of 300 sounds reasonable. There are 39 10 classrooms; 10 times 30 would be a slight addition to what we have today. We can’t find any 40 justification for a number of 315. Given the neighborhood concerns for traffic it seems 41 unreasonable to accept a 315 student cap without any justification. We’d like to see the cap 42 brought down from 315 to 300. 43 44 Lastly, on the fence issue, as we looked at the requirement to have many people going through, 45 virtually all the cars go through the parking lot in the afternoon, and given the amount of 46 construction that’s going to be coming up with some big heavy equipment, we’d like to see an 8 47 foot redwood fence at the church’s expense across the back perimeter of the lines that would 48 extend effectively from about here which is already in, well this would be new, it would be 49 10 basically up to about this part here and that would provide both a visual barrier which would be 1 partly helpful I think and then also could help with some sound and certainly would help given 2 the amount of traffic going through there. Those are the issues that I have. Thank you. 3 4 Commissioner Tuma: When you’re talking about the fence, show me where you start and where 5 you end. 6 7 Mr. Caswell: Yes. Currently there is about a 4 foot fence I think that comes and so a new fence 8 has been installed behind 1125 and we’re proposing that that fence be continued across 1131 and 9 1139 and then back to right here which is…sorry, go ahead. 10 11 Commissioner Tuma: So that’s where you’re proposing the new fence end? I was over at the 12 site today and curious about why it would end there. As I recall, sort of from there on it is chain 13 link and it is 6 feet tall and there are other homes behind there. Just speaking on the 8 foot solid 14 fence ending there and then it going to chain link. 15 16 Mr. Caswell: Actually it may be kind of a provincial view because I was working with 17 neighbors along this line and we haven’t had a chance to ask the other neighbors whether they 18 would actually prefer that as well. I hazard to guess that if we ask other neighbors around that 19 they would prefer it as well. 20 21 Commissioner Tuma: As you get further towards the end of that line as it goes back you have a 22 two story house there that no matter what you do you’re not going to put out that noise down. In 23 between there is a partially vacant lot. I’m sure it belongs to other people but it’s unconstructed 24 and it seemed like there was, along there… I was just trying to get an understanding about why 25 you were stopping there. 26 27 Mr. Caswell: Probably lack of time just in terms of being able to poll everyone. 28 29 Commissioner Tuma: One other question, do you have any idea or the applicant can also answer 30 this question, as to how many linear feet we’re talking about from what you’ve asked for to… 31 32 Mr. Caswell: Good question. I have a guess. There’s roughly 50 feet across the back of your 33 lot. We have two additional lots of an additional 50 feet. That would be 100 feet and now its 0 34 feet. I’m guessing this is about 70 feet to here so my guess is about 170 feet. I think the cost is 35 about $2,200. There’s a fence here as well. The proposal currently is at 50%. That is included 36 in the current write-up. Across this boundary I think the general consideration from the 37 neighborhood as we talked through the issues is was we’re allowing additional students, we 38 haven’t said we want to block the program, we’re anxious for them to get started too, is that 39 given the externalities that were imposed on the neighbors by the construction and issues that if 40 we covered this portion, but I haven’t told the other neighbors so I can’t speak to them. 41 42 Acting Chair Michael: Any other questions? So with no other questions, closing comments 43 from the Applicant? Three minutes. 44 45 Mr. Miller: Thank you. First off, I want to say that these are not big things and if the school 46 could enact them they would. The reason we have what we have is because we’ve come up 47 against a hard spot and let me recount those a little bit. Going to 7 feet landscape would reduce 48 11 the size of the parking lot just enough so that the garbage trucks requiring turning radius couldn’t 1 make it so we’d do 7 feet no problem but we don’t have it. 2 3 In terms of a lot of the traffic, I drive down Channing to get here and I believe Channing is a 4 very busy street and the amount of traffic that comes from the school is a small increment of that. 5 The other thing that you should understand is that at one time the church had a full schedule of 6 masses, daily mass, every day at 8 or 7:30, and a full schedule of masses on Sunday. So they’ve 7 reduced to 2 masses a week so this site is much less intensively used than it ever was. As I said 8 before, at one time there were probably 400 students there. 9 10 The other things that we’ve talked about, we’ve come up with, is to put staff parking along here 11 only so that there would be cars coming in and out. The other thing, I think we’re also going to 12 put up a noise courtesy sign and I’m sure the Principal will take care of those people who are 13 dropping off in front. She has monitors. We can definitely put a monitor out front so that would 14 be taken care of. 15 16 In terms of the 8 foot versus 7 foot, let me explain what an 8 foot fence permit is. An 8 foot 17 fence is an engineered fence which means that to my disgruntle on many projects, the structural 18 engineer ends up drilling a 5 or 6 foot deep 12 inch diameter pier and then on top of that then 19 you rise 8 feet so that would mean that all along here would be drilled piers in the ground and 20 then we would have to access that. 21 22 The other thing is that, I have some pictures. This is what the drive through looks like. You see 23 the guards, the cones. If it’s needed to be done, the school is going to do it. This is the front, this 24 is Ms. Vrhel’s property here. This is her fence. Obviously the church is interested in having a 25 good looking fence so that’s not an issue. But their policy always has been 50%. 26 27 This is the extent of the traffic, the heaviest time in the afternoon. There’s never a queue. 28 There’s never people waiting and if they could be more courteous I’m sure they would be. I’m 29 sure they’re being instructed to if there’s a problem. 30 31 You’re looking towards Channing. This is the Caswell’s, I forget their name and this is Rita’s 32 right? You can see that there is already a good amount of landscaping there. Two feet is not 33 going to make an effective difference. So those are some of my points. There are others I can 34 make. I want to reiterate, I think that they’ve tried to be good neighbors. They provide a very 35 good, very needed service for the community. There is strong community backing from the 36 donors and so I think that you could say this program really needs to go forward and finish with 37 what we have that we think we can agree on and we think it’s reasonable. Thanks. 38 39 Acting Chair Michael: So with that we’ll close the Public Hearing and will have discussions of 40 Motions, Recommendations by the Commission. First the Commissioners will have 3 minutes 41 for questions of the staff. Ok, Commissioner Tanaka. 42 43 Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: Can staff address some of the questions or the issues Rita brought up 44 about the setback? Is that really true? And the other points she said about parking on the site 45 being available and a few of the other points she brought up? I’d really like to know what is 46 staff’s point of view. 47 48 12 Ms. French: Some items were stated in comments. Of course I was distracted reading this at the 1 same time, and perhaps they coincide with the same information. The first bit is the 7 foot 2 setback. In the submittal that Ms. Vhrel gave to us tonight, it comments on the older Use 3 Permits which do have a condition saying a 7 foot planting strip is required. I can go and look 4 because I have the paperwork about that concrete wheel stop. Often we had a situation where a 5 wheel stop is placed and a car will hang over into the planting area. In this case I’m guessing 6 that we can go back and look at that 7 foot distance and a wheel stop is at that 7 foot so the car 7 hangs over. She also references Chapter 18.54 that specifies at least a 5 foot setback; it doesn’t 8 say at least a 7 feet setback in the code - planting strip, sorry - 5 foot planting strip is required by 9 code; we often see at the ARB the 5 feet planting strip, cars hanging into that so sometimes 10 wheels hang into that 5 foot landscaping. So, in this case, 1964 Use Permit, it talks about a 7 11 foot planting strip…instead of having 7 feet of landscaping you have 5 feet of landscaping and 2 12 feet of asphalt. 13 14 Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: Just to make sure I’m clear, so are you saying that yes, the way it is 15 currently configured today is following the correct code? Yes or better. That parking lot does 16 not need to be reconfigured to code. What we heard earlier from Rita was not correct with that. 17 18 Ms. French: Her statement about the prior Use Permits having a specific statement about a 7 19 foot planting strip is correct. What’s out there is not a 7 foot planting strip; it’s a 5 foot planting 20 strip with additional 2 feet of asphalt, not planted. The theory is to keep the cars back away from 21 the fence 7 feet, and hanging over into the landscaping. 22 23 Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: So the way the parking lot is currently configured, it’s meeting with 24 the Grant Deed and meeting with the code requires? It is meeting all the requirements and it 25 doesn’t need to be changed or does it need to be changed? Is it correct or not correct, that’s what 26 I’m looking for. 27 28 Ms. French: If one wanted to go back in time and say make sure you provide 2 feet more 29 planting ground cover within the 2 feet of asphalt, I suppose we can impose upon them to do 30 that. I don’t know that it solves the problem that is being voiced about keeping the cars parked 31 back from the fence. It simply is a car hanging over into planted matter. 32 33 Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: I was trying to understand whether the cars needed to be moved back 34 2 feet extra or not. 35 36 Ms. Silver: If I could just clarify as I understand it, the Municipal Code requires 5 feet of 37 landscape. The Conditional Use Permit provision though requires something more restrictive, 7 38 feet of landscape and currently the project complies with the code but does not appear to comply 39 with the Conditional Use Permit. 40 41 Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: So what Rita said is correct. 42 43 Ms. French: It is correct in part; but it is not correct in the statement, the written statement that 44 says what this code section says. The code section says at least 5 feet. It does not say 7 feet, 45 that’s the difference, if that’s helpful. The second part of the question is related to parking spots. 46 47 Acting Chair Michael: I’m going to give you an additional 2 minutes so you have a total of 5. 48 49 13 Ms. French: Let me answer the other part of the question for the next Commissioner, because he 1 did ask about the number of parking spaces. 2 3 Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: It’s supposed to be 178 and there are only 70 parking spots right 4 now. 5 6 Ms. French: I’m going to let Rina answer that. 7 Rina Shah: I can explain it to you on the map. 8 9 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Well, let me explain to you what I heard and then you can tell me if 10 it’s correct. I heard a claim that said there are only 70 parking spots right now and there are 11 supposed to be 178 parking spots, so there are 100 parking spots missing. That’s a pretty big 12 bold claim, is that correct? 13 14 Rina Shah: You look at it just for the school. You have to look at the breakdown, the church, 15 there’s a church; the users are different on the parcel. The parking is satisfying the school and the 16 morning church use and handicap and that total is 70 spaces. 17 18 Ms. French: If I might add to that we have some tallying from the 1999 Use Permit 19 documentation and it appears that it says 171 parking spaces. That’s based on a church seating 20 of 683 occupants divided by 4. There’s a seating capacity based on the occupancy of the church 21 and so that same 171 parking spaces is what was previously… 22 23 Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: So how much should the project really have? Should it be 171 or 24 should it be 70? 25 26 Rina Shah: I would think it’s satisfying the parking requirements of the school and the church 27 morning services. There are a few people who use, the pastor and also we have the study, we 28 have the information on the plans and there was a study which was done in 2007. 29 30 Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: So as a church then it’s supposed to be 171 and as a school it’s 70 31 and since it operates as a school and a church it only has to have 70? 32 33 Ms. French: There is a mix of uses here. The school is not operating at the same time as the 34 church, so the church parking suffices for the school when the church is not in session. It sounds 35 like they have two services not at the same time as the school. That’s what I heard them say. 36 37 Acting Chair Michael: Going to other members of the Commission, Commissioner Tuma? 38 39 Commissioner Tuma: What does the current Use Permit allow by way of after care? The 40 current Use Permit, not what they are applying for. 41 42 Ms. French: The last Use Permit, the effective Use Permit for this property is from 2008, and 43 not noted as a statement in the Use Permit Approval paperwork or conditions, it does not state 44 anything about after school care; however the traffic report prepared for that Use Permit talked 45 about the extended care program that existed and the applicant says it’s been existing since 1998. 46 It’s hard from the evidence, looking through all of our electronic data, it was hard to lay hands on 47 other than there was a hearing in 1999, its quite extensive but I’m not aware of anything further 48 other than there was a traffic study talking about the existence of extended care in 2007. 49 14 1 Commissioner Tuma: So is there anything in the existing Use Permit that defines the hours of 2 operation? 3 4 Ms. French: Yes. 5 6 Rina Shah: Yes, 7:00 – 8:00 in the morning, and 3:00 – 6:00 in the afternoon. 7 8 Commissioner Panelli: In the existing Use Permit. 9 10 Ms. French: The traffic report said it was… 11 12 Commissioner Tuma: But my question is very specific. The Use Permit, does it define the hours 13 of operation in the current existing Use Permit. 14 15 Ms. French: I believe it does. If you give me a moment I will go find that, unless Rina knows 16 more specifically. 17 18 Rina Shah: The current Use Permit dates back to the last Use Permit… 19 20 Commissioner Tuma: Not what’s being applied for but what is currently in effect. 21 22 Rina Shah: It’s 2007; it specified 7:00 to 8:00 in the morning and 3:00 to 6:00 after school. 23 24 Commissioner Tuma: For hours of operation of the school? 25 26 Rina Shah: The school is operating from 8:00 to 3:00. And the day care program is from 7:00 to 27 8:00 and 3:00 to 6:00. 28 29 Commissioner Tuma: So the current Use Permit says 7:00 to 8:00 and 3:00 to 6:00 for before 30 and after care. And does it limit in any way the number of kids that can be involved in either 31 pre- or after care, other than the overall limit of 315? 32 33 Rina Shah: No. 34 35 Commissioner Tuma: Question probably for Counsel. 8 foot fence would require a variance. Is 36 that right? It would require some other discretionary permit. 37 38 Ms. French: Because it is bundled with this Conditional Use Permit, typically variances are staff 39 level affair unless called out for hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission. 40 41 Commissioner Tuma: So my question would be, in our recommendation could we recommend 42 the requirement of an 8 foot fence because obviously there is no DEE or variance been noticed 43 for tonight but could we make that recommendation or does this require a different process? 44 45 Ms. French: To me it would seem you could recommend that staff work with the Applicant to 46 put that into the notice, and there is a 21 day comment period about that and then a decision 47 could be made at staff level and called out for a hearing in front of the Planning and 48 15 Transportation Commission. Depending on straw votes or whatever a determination… It would 1 go to Council eventually. 2 3 Commissioner Tuma: When is this supposed to go to Council? 4 5 Ms. French: November 5th. 6 7 Commissioner Tuma: So we do have 21 days. 8 9 Ms. French: Or it can be a follow up for recommendation that Council would put in what they 10 do for process after the fact. 11 12 Commissioner Tuma: In terms of construction of the 8 foot fence, if you have a six foot fence 13 with a two foot lattice does it require the type of engineering that the Applicant was saying? 14 15 Ms. French: A lattice is open construction; I guess it may not need as much as a wind load 16 calculation. 17 18 Mr. Aknin: It comes down to a wind load issue so it varies from building to building, here it 19 seems like the status is don’t go above 7 feet, it doesn’t require a building permit, so I think it 20 also depends on how open that lattice actually is on top. Some building departments do some 21 50%, if it’s open by 50% wind capacity... (INAUDIBLE 1:15) 22 23 Commissioner Tuma: And one last question should be for the Applicant. Have you received 24 any sort of price quote for this fencing? 25 26 Mr. Miller: Based on some calculations it is 230 feet would be about $13,000 or $14,000 27 dollars. If it was engineered fencing it would be much more than double that. 28 29 Commissioner Tuma: Thank you. 30 31 Acting Chair Michael: Commissioner Panelli. 32 33 Commissioner Panelli: I have one simple question. Is there something in the code that talks 34 about what is acceptable time of operation for a school is? If a school use is permitted, is that 35 defined as 8:00 to 3:00? Or is it… 36 37 Ms. French: Not in the code. Generally what we’ve seen going beyond what your question is 38 maybe, I think trying to get to practices, good practices, common practices I would say typically 39 we would prefer to have some staggered throughout drop-off and pickup behavior, so we don’t 40 have everybody converging within the same 15 minutes upon the school of drop off and pick up. 41 So the practice of having extended pickups is generally a favorable practice so it doesn’t back up 42 onto the street. We’ve seen that at other places like Keyes school and we’ve worked with them 43 to spread that out so as not to impact traffic in the neighborhood. 44 45 Commissioner Panelli: My question is more broad than that though. I’m trying to understand. If 46 this were not subject to a Conditional Use Permit, this were a site that wasn’t already zoned 47 properly for a school, is there something that says school operates between x and y hours or? 48 49 16 Ms. French: Not private schools. This is a Catholic school, it’s considered a private school and 1 they have certain curriculum standards I imagine, but there is nothing in the code. 2 3 Commissioner Panelli: So there’s nothing in the code that says a “school use means”? That’s 4 what I was asking. 5 6 Acting Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 7 8 Commissioner Alcheck: This is not just questions, comments as well? I think based on what’s 9 being presented here, I don’t think starting weekdays at 7:30 is unreasonable, I think if you live 10 next to a church I think you can expect a weekend day to start earlier than normal. I think there 11 is a requirement in the State of California about properties that are noncommercial, so R1 zoned 12 properties and their fences, I think are split 50/50 and Council can comment on this. I don’t 13 think that a good neighbor fence on the fence line, a fence is on the neighbor line, on the 14 property line, I don’t think you can force them to pay for it all, which I think is important, 15 because there’s, I have some personal experience in this actually, but when you’re dealing with 16 250 feet of fence, let’s take the neighbor that lives’ right on the corner there, she has a fence that 17 faces the front of the street that I noticed, a white fence. If the school puts up a redwood fence it 18 won’t match the fence she has facing the front. Every neighbor has different tastes and 19 aesthetics, you might have Mediterranean homes, modern homes, and fencing is particularly 20 personal so there’s a part of me that believes that this is absolutely something that the neighbors 21 and church can get together on, work together on and sometimes the best way for us to work 22 together on something is to share the expense and I also think there may be some requirement 23 they share the expense under California law. 24 25 Ms. Silver: I’m not sure I have heard reference of the Good Neighbor 50/50 Policy in residential 26 neighborhoods. I’m not sure that is actually the case and how it would apply to a Conditional 27 Use Permit. Anyway I don’t think it applies here because it’s not a purely residential 28 neighborhood. 29 30 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I will keep going, I think that this kind of clarifies what 31 Commissioner Tanaka was asking, I sort of acknowledge that maybe there should be 7 feet of 32 landscaping. Whether we should deal with that is a good question, it sounds to me though like 33 there’s 5 feet of landscaping and 2 feet of asphalt in which case the additional 2 feet of required 34 landscaping if we were to enforce that condition won’t necessarily accomplish a goal that would 35 increase the distance so really I don’t know if that’s any relevance issue. I think that requiring an 36 8 foot engineered fence, I think that would be probably a mistake because there is a lot more 37 involved in that and I think that but again I’m also encouraging putting that through, I am also 38 encouraging us not to force the church to not take that expense on their own. So if the neighbors 39 and the church would like to spend money on an engineered fence, I think they should do that. 40 I’m not suggesting it’s required I don’t know if an additional 2 feet would impact noise at all. 41 42 My last comment is about the 315 number and I think that’s a big jump, 20%. 18 percent 43 roughly that’s a big jump, and the count of the students per car (two-something in the morning 44 actually is impressive) and we have to consider that there was a comment by the Applicant about 45 economic feasibility and the reason why they increased the number to makes it more 46 economically feasible for them to run the program. So I’m not sure how I feel about this 315, 47 but I’m not opposed to it being based on noise and traffic. I sort of wish that the relationship 48 here was a little better. I think there are issues that are maybe unrelated to this that they need to 49 17 work out like trash and parking in the street, pickups, but I really don’t… way to address this 1 issue it’s going to be very costly and very difficult to appease everyone. 2 3 Acting Chair Michael: So I will add a few comments. Most of the issues that I had have already 4 been questioned or addressed earlier and I believe that the reason why this matter was continued 5 from a prior meeting of the Commission was our perception was there hadn’t been adequate 6 opportunity for the Applicant to work with the neighbors even though they had made some 7 efforts those efforts weren’t successful and we distinctly had the impression in June that that 8 communication had really not occurred in a satisfactory manner. 9 10 I think based on my legal training there are some narrow issues that we have before us this 11 evening that based on the Public Comment there were other issues that maybe predated this 12 particular complication and there will be more issues in the future separate and apart from the 13 issues on the table. 14 15 I believe that the whole issue of neighborhood outreach, communication, and working together 16 on those issues is probably important in the experience both parties will have. That’s really my 17 main point is that it’s pretty striking as a Commissioner the absence of that process working well 18 when we first reviewed this in June and I really applaud the efforts of both the neighbors, Mr. 19 Caswell, the representative of the neighbors, the Principal, the architect and others who have 20 redoubled their efforts to open up dialogue because it’s clear it would bode well in the future. 21 With that, let me invite the Commission to make a Motion. 22 23 MOTION 24 Acting Chair Michael: Commissioner Tuma. 25 Commissioner Tuma: I’m going to move to Staff Recommendation with the following changes: 26 1) The Applicant be required to construct an 8 foot fence along the approximately 200 odd linear 27 feet are described. That they would be required to do that and that’s actually the only 28 modification, I’ll address some issues in comments but Staff Recommendation with a 29 requirement that the Applicant be required to construct an 8 foot fence at the Applicant’s 30 expense. I’ll comment as to why if I get a Second on the Motion. 31 32 SECOND 33 Acting Chair Michael: There’s a second from Commissioner Tuma, Tanaka 34 35 Acting Vice-chair Tanaka: Second. 36 37 Acting Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 38 39 Commissioner Alcheck: We haven’t heard… The point person for the neighbors, I’ll say I 40 believe they’ve had ample time to communicate with the other neighbors. Its 250 feet. We don’t 41 know that the neighbors on the other side want that. 42 43 Commissioner Tuma: That’s not what I’m asking for. I’m asking for essentially when Mr. 44 Caswell was up there he pointed out a starting point and ending point and I’m suggesting to end 45 it where he had requested. I had asked the question about the balance of it but given the fact that 46 this has been noticed, the other neighbors aren’t here to say anything about it. My proposal is 47 that it end where Mr. Caswell had noted, about 230 feet. I looked at the plans. It’s a little bit 48 hard to say but it’s somewhere in that neighborhood. 49 18 1 Commissioner Alcheck: Just to be really clear here are you suggesting that it’s on the property 2 line or inside the property line? 3 4 Commissioner Tuma: I don’t know. There is some question as to where the property line is. 5 6 Commissioner Alcheck: I only mention that because I believe again that there is a legal 7 requirement that you can’t get around in the State of California that requires that a property 8 owner to build on the property line at his sole expense. 9 10 Commissioner Tuma: Well let me go ahead and make some comments. One thing is I think our 11 Council has said in the context of the CUP we can in fact require it so in the absence of that I’m 12 going to go with that. Here’s my thinking. There is a requirement in the current Use Permit that 13 requires a 7 foot setback if you will but there is also a practical issue here which is, from what 14 we’ve heard from the Applicant, that they can’t do that and have enough room to turn with the 15 larger trucks so the reason for that 7 foot setback is to give more of a barrier to the neighbors and 16 in between a Commercial and a Residential Use. I understand this is all residentially zoned but 17 the fact of the matter is we have effectively a Commercial Use that’s abutting a Residential Use. 18 So my feeling was, let’s do a compromise or a trade-off here. We’ll give instead of coming up 19 with a requirement that would make essentially as I understand it, the operation infeasible, in 20 other words going to the 7 foot setback let’s compensate that by having a higher fence. The idea 21 is more of a barrier because that’s what the setback is all about. That’s the reason to make that 22 trade. Not have them go to what’s in the current Conditional Use Permit by way of a setback but 23 rather provide more of a buffer through a higher fence. To me that seems, I’ve had occasion to 24 build quite a bit of fencing myself in various different contexts, not in Palo Alto, so I don’t know 25 but typically with a two foot lattice on top of a six foot redwood it is not required to be 26 engineered but I’m not professing to say that’s the case in Palo Alto, I don’ know what the 27 answer to that is. But whatever it is I think that may be the cost of doing business here from the 28 perspective of the Applicant if they want to add the extra capacity they’ve got to give back some 29 extra buffer so that’s my thinking. 30 31 Acting Chair Michael: Thank you. There’s been a Motion and a Second. Would you like to say 32 anything further on support of your Motion? Would you like to comment on your Second 33 Commissioner Tanaka? 34 35 Commissioner Tanaka: My language is actually the same as Commissioner Tuma. I was 36 thinking about the other thing which is the parking issue which I’m still not really clear on but 37 assuming that 171 is a fair compromise it doesn’t solve the parking problem but I support the 38 Motion on the same rational Commissioner Tuma spoke about. 39 40 Commissioner Alcheck: I want to suggest that I’m a little worried about the requirement 41 because if we do require an engineered fence and sometimes these wind requirements require 42 you to do two feet underneath or even before and sometimes concrete posts. If there are trees on 43 the neighbor’s side of the property that are lining their fences, whatever is built could destroy 44 their roots and I mention this because I was involved in a project where they had to put up a 45 fence and they eliminated 67 trees along 295 feet, 67 35 year old trees and as soon as that came 46 apparent nobody wanted it. I want to avoid that in two months coming back here once we realize 47 it. I’m just going to voice that concern. I don’t know how many mature trees are in the back of 48 their property along this fence but that could be affected by this. 49 19 1 Acting Chair Michael: So is there any further? Commissioner Tanaka 2 3 Commissioner Tanaka: How many mature trees are there along the fence line? 4 5 Mr. Aknin: One thing that we could do between now and the City Council meeting is work with 6 our Building division as well as with the City Arborist to see if there are any conflicts and make 7 that information available before the City Council. 8 9 Rina Shah: I want to add that there is a chain link fence along the property line so for this fence 10 you will have to give us direction as to where the new fence has to go because the chain link 11 fence will not be removed from my understanding… (INAUDIBLE 1:33) …It’s on the church 12 property. On the property line. 13 14 Ms. French: If we can clarify the Motion: is this a fence that would be along the property line 15 basically 100% church cost would it be church property? 16 17 Commissioner Tuma: Where was the fence that was proposed to be built? On what piece of 18 property was that? 19 20 Rina Shah: The church. The current buffer is a 5 feet buffer. 21 22 Commissioner Tuma: That would be yes. What’s the reason to leave the chain link fence there? 23 24 Rina Shah: Safety and security. It’s strong and has lasted for so many years. It’s not a visual 25 barrier to the church and the redwood fence would actually provide a visual barrier from the 26 church to the neighbors. 27 28 Commissioner Tuma: If I could, I’d like to hear from the Applicant on this topic. He seems to 29 have something to say. If you can come to the microphone so it can get recorded? Thank you. 30 31 Mr. Miller: As in any school environment, security is of the utmost importance. We see many 32 wooden fences that have boards that kind of slide to the side once in a while so we strongly 33 recommend keeping the chain link fence for security. We can’t guarantee that wood fences 34 would turn out 50/50 or part of neighbors would be maintained. 35 36 Commissioner Tuma: Okay. Let me ask you, if the requirement were for the redwood fence to 37 be constructed at the church’s cost, and maintained at the church’s cost would that solve the 38 issue or would you still want to keep the chain link fence up? 39 40 Mr. Miller: We’d probably want to keep the chain link fence up. The other thing I might say 41 about the fence is that a there are things that structures over our property line, if we are forced to 42 put up a chain link fence, then we will be putting it on the property line or close to the property 43 line… The other issue is that if you force us to come inside the property line we’re taking the 44 landscape strip which we are at the maximum now. If we have to put a wooden fence in front of 45 the chain link fence, then that’s eating into that 7, that 5 feet of landscaping. 46 47 Acting Chair Michael: So I’d like to offer a friendly amendment and that would be that the 8 48 foot fence would be constructed and maintained by the church. 49 20 1 Ms. French: I’m sorry I missed that. 2 3 Acting Chair Michael: The friendly amendment is that would be constructed and maintained at 4 the expense and responsibility of the applicant. 5 6 Commissioner Tuma: I’ll take that. 7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: Me too. 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: This fence is not on the property line, it’s on the interior, just inside of 11 it. 12 13 Acting Chair Michael: So, are there any other question or comments before we move on? 14 Commissioner Panelli? 15 16 Commissioner Panelli: It begs the question, if there is now a fence in the landscape strip, is it 17 okay to have a fence inside a five foot planter setback? If the answer is yes then I’d say let’s 18 progress to a vote. 19 20 Mr. Aknin: I would say yes because it’s serving the same purpose as the 5 foot landscape strip 21 that’s there to create a buffer, the fence is just there as more of a buffer. 22 23 Commissioner Panelli: It’s sort of implied but I wanted it explicit before I vote on it. 24 25 Ms. French: The code does say the landscape strip may be required to include a fence… 26 27 Commissioner Tuma: So, to the extent that it would otherwise be encroachment to that, it is 28 permitted. 29 30 Acting Chair Martinez: So having concluded our discussion let’s proceed to a vote. All in favor 31 of the Motion? Aye. Any opposed? One opposed. So the Motion passes with a 4 to 1 vote. 32 Commissioners Tuma, Michael, Tanaka and Panelli in favor and Commissioner Alcheck 33 opposed. 34 35 MOTION PASSED (4 – 1) 36 37 City of Palo Alto Page 1 PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Rina Shah, Project Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: June 13, 2012 SUBJECT: 1095 Channing Ave [11PLN-00437]: Request by John Miller, on behalf of Elizabeth Seton School and Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment allowing the operation of a new Pre- Kindergarten program within an expanded building, and an after school day care program, associated with an existing private school (K-8 program) at 1095 Channing Avenue. Zone: R-1. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per section 15301. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve Conditional Use Permit amendment 11PLN-00437 based upon the findings and conditions in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). BACKGROUND On April 25, 2012, the Director of Planning and Community Environment tentatively approved the requested Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow the operation of a new pre- Kindergarten program, an expanded Kindergarten program and an after school extended care in a new building adjacent to the existing K-8 program. Within the prescribed 14 calendar day timeframe, one request for a public hearing was received for the application. The written request is included as Attachment F to this staff report. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is located in a residential zone, primarily accessed from Channing Avenue and bordered by single-family homes on west, east and north sides (Attachment B). Use Permits for the existing private educational facility have been in place for decades. The use permit #87-UP- 40, granted on October 29, 1987, amended use permits 59-UP-26 and 64-UP-7 and allowed the location and operation of a church, rectory, convent and school and the use of a portion of the City of Palo Alto Page 2 first floor of the existing convent for a Kindergarten classroom. The 99-ARB-57 and 99-UP-6 approvals allowed for a modular Kindergarten classroom addition. Hours of operation of the existing school are from 7 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Friday. The peak hours of drop-off and pick-up of students for both the existing school program and the proposed amendment to the program are as described in the applicant’s project letter dated received November 29, 2011 (Attachment E). There is a one-way entry from the easternmost driveway on Channing Avenue, and one-way exit from the westernmost driveway along Channing Avenue (see site layout sheet A1.1). There is an existing side parking area that serves as the main student access to the school with 40 parking spaces. PROJECT DESCRITION The St Elizabeth Seton Elementary School proposes to remove the existing modular Kindergarten structure and replace it with a new 3,383 square feet building, adjacent and attached to the existing K-8 school building. An amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit is required for the operation of a new Pre-Kindergarten program and after school daycare. The number of students, including preschool, would not exceed 315 and 44 parking spaces would be provided by restriping of the existing parking area. The existing patterns of drop-offs before school would be unchanged. Because of the new after school program, the pick-up times would extend later in the day (until 6 pm). As described in the approval letter, dated April 25, 2012 (Attachment D), the proposal consists of the following components: (1) A new Pre-K program (2) An expansion of existing Kindergarten program (3) After school day care program (4) Hours of operation from 7 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday. The project’s landscape plans show removal and replacement of four trees on site. These have been reviewed and approved by the City arborist. Additionally, five feet of landscape buffer and screening are proposed to be maintained; new evergreen hedges and shrubs would be planted to provide visual screening along the fences abutting adjacent residential property lines (Site Plan, Attachment C). DISCUSSION Hearing Request On April 30, a request for hearing by Planning and Transportation Commission was received. The hearing requester, a residential neighbor, cited the following: 1. She noted that the convent building is not correctly labeled on plans; 2. Regarding the rules of church parking, she asked if the yellow stripes remarking each parking space will start 5 feet from the fence/property line; 3. She questioned the accuracy of the applicant’s statement, “no loss of parking spaces,” due to new construction. 4. She stated that the five foot setback rules are not being followed and asked staff to ascertain the accuracy of school’s proposed plans with required 5 feet parking setbacks. City of Palo Alto Page 3 5. She noted that cars parked up to the fence with only a thin amount of shrubbery and a chain link fence between property lines. 6. She asked if the traffic circulation will occur as it was before the amendment. Response On May 1, the applicant, John Miller Architects, addressed this neighbor’s issues regarding parking and restriping of parking lot with a revised site plan (Attachment C). The applicant confirmed her desire to continue with the hearing process. Her concerns are addressed below: 1. The plans have been revised to show the convent building as residence. 2. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.54.040 (a), minimum standard for perimeter landscaping is five feet wide landscape strip. The project plans show five wide feet landscape strip between the exterior boundary of the parking area and the nearest adjacent property/fence line. 3. The project plans show 44 parking spaces, which is more than the existing 40 spaces and therefore there is “no loss of parking spaces” due to restriping. 4. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.54.040 (h), wheel stops shall be installed to protect the required landscape areas and stop the wheel no closer than 5 feet from perimeter fencing. The project plans shall be revised to show wheel stops. 5. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.54.040 (f)(1), a landscape screen or buffer consisting of a combination of trees and shrubs shall be used to create a dense visual buffer. The site plan sheet A1.1 (Attachment C) shows new trees and shrubs to be planted along the perimeter abutting residential property lines. 6. There is no change in drop-off and pick-up entry and exit areas. As per project plans dated March 08, 2012, there is a one-way entry from the easternmost driveway and one- way exit from the westernmost driveway along Channing Avenue. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The Conditional Use Permit approval is based upon the findings indicated under Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.010(c), subject to Conditions of Approval, listed below: (1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, as conditioned, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed building is located on the eastern corner behind the existing church and convent, aligned with the main internal circulation, and will replace an existing undersized Kindergarten structure with newer and larger facility providing both Kindergarten and Pre-Kindergarten classrooms with extended daycare and shall be within the allowable square footage for the site. Additionally, the new structure will provide a prominent entrance at the existing parent drop off and parking area. The new classroom expansion proposes to meet the maximum student enrollment of 315 students allowed for the use and there shall be adequate parking spaces to accommodate this conditional use. The traffic pattern and vehicular circulation shall be conducted in an orderly way and shall not generate excessive trip demand. New trees and landscaping is proposed in the 5-foot setback between the building and adjacent residential property line to provide additional buffering and replace the trees that are proposed to be removed within the new City of Palo Alto Page 4 building footprint. Conditions of approval have been imposed to ensure the project conforms to the submitted plans. (2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the zoning Ordinance. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project is replacing an existing 1999 Kindergarten/restroom addition with a larger Kindergarten/restroom and Pre Kindergarten/restroom addition with after school daycare program that would be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The total proposed 3,383 square feet addition will include exterior changes and addition that will provide high quality design and site planning and shall be compatible to the existing structure in design and materials. The school shall be conducted in a manner that will support and promote the provision of comprehensive school and childcare services by public and private providers as a conditional use in R-1 zoning district and maintain Palo Alto’s varied neighborhoods while sustaining vitality of its public facilities. This finding can be made in the affirmative. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. TIMELINE This project is tentatively scheduled for Council Consent Calendar on July 23, 2012. A minimum of three votes is required for Council to remove the project from the consent calendar. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. ATTACHMENTS A. Record of Land Use Action B. Location Map C. Site Plan* D. Tentative Approval Letter, April 25, 2012 E. Applicant Submittal* F. Request for Public Hearing G. Plans (Commission only)* * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff City of Palo Alto Page 5 COURTESY COPIES: John Miller Rita Vrhel PREPARED BY: Rina Shah, Project Planner REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Acting Assistant Director of Current Planning DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams, Director _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 1 of 20 PLANNING& TRANSPORTATION 1 COMMISSION 2 MINUTES 3 4 ==================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26====================== Wednesday, June 13, 2012 Meeting 5 6:00 PM, Council Conference Room 6 1st Floor, Civic Center 7 250 Hamilton Avenue 8 Palo Alto, California 94301 9 10 ROLL CALL: 6:06 PM 11 12 Commissioners: Staff: 13 Eduardo Martinez – Chair (absent) Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager 14 Susan Fineberg – V. Chair (absent) Donald Larkin, Sr. Assistant City Attorney 15 Samir Tuma Rina Shah, Planning Tech 16 Arthur Keller – Acting Chair Chitra Moitra, Planner 17 Greg Tanaka – Acting V. Chair Robin Ellner, Administrative Assoc. III 18 Mark Michael 19 20 21 22 Acting Chair Keller: Let me call the meeting to order of the Planning and Transportation 23 Commission for June 13, 2012. 24 25 Robin Ellner, Administrative Assoc. III: Vice Chair Fineberg, Acting Chair Keller, Chair 26 Martinez, Commissioner Michael, Commissioner or Acting, I’m sorry, Vice Chair Tanaka, 27 Commissioner Tuma. Four present. And before we start, the meeting of June 27th, thank you, 28 has been canceled so the next meeting will be July 11th. And that is it on the updates for tonight. 29 30 Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Acting Chair Keller, I’d like to have our City 31 Attorney make a special statement due to our minimum member of Commissioners present 32 representing a quorum, but just a special statement from the City Attorney’s office. 33 34 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you, please do. 35 36 Donald Larkin, Sr. Assistant City Attorney: I was gonna point out that four is the, is a quorum, 37 but it’s barely a quorum. So if anybody does need to leave the dais for any reason this would be 38 the time to use that rarely used request for personal privilege to ask for a short recess if any of 39 the Commissioners need to leave the dais because all four Commissioners should remain at the 40 dais throughout the meeting. 41 42 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So, the first thing we have, the first thing we have is public 43 comment. So, I don’t have any cards from anybody who wishes to speak to Oral 44 Communications. Are there any cards? Ok. With that I will open Oral Communications and 45 close Oral Communications. The first item on our Agenda is 1095 Channing Avenue and a 46 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 2 of 20 request for a conditional use permit. And this is an Appeal of the request for the conditional use 1 permit, and I believe first we’ll have a Staff presentation. 2 3 NEW BUSINESS. 4 Public Hearing: 5 6 1. 1095 Channing Avenue: Request by John Miller, on behalf of Elizabeth Seton School and 7 Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment allowing the 8 operation of a new Pre-Kindergarten program within an expanded building, and an after 9 school day care program, associated with an existing private school (K-8 program) at 1095 10 Channing Avenue. Zone: R-1. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per section 11 15301. 12 13 Mr. Turner: Yes, thank you Acting Chair Keller, Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager 14 from the Planning Department. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Transportation 15 Commission recommend that the City Council uphold the Planning and Community 16 Environments Director’s decision to approve the conditional use permit based upon the findings 17 and conditions contained within the draft record of land use action. 18 Commissioners, just a little bit of background before we get to an overview of the project by the 19 project Applicant and words from the Appellant. On April 25th the Director of Planning and 20 Community Environment tentatively approved the conditional use permit for an expansion of a 21 school function at an existing Church at 1095 Channing Avenue. This is a use permit that was 22 meant to take the place of previous use permits that have been granted on the site over the years. 23 A number of use permits have been granted. We have currently at least four use permits for the 24 site to allow the Church, the rectory, a residence, and other Church related uses. In 1987 there 25 was a use permit that tried to combine all of those use permits into one specific document and the 26 current request is for a further expansion of school uses upon the project site. And right now 27 those, the school programs represent a pre-kindergarten and a kindergarten program that are 28 currently taking place in modular buildings. The Church would like to construct permanent 29 facilities for the pre-kindergarten/kindergarten classes and that is essentially the request that is 30 before you today. 31 32 The existing use permit on the site does not cap the maximum number of students that could be 33 present on the facilities at any one time. That was a deficiency that Staff noted as we reviewed 34 this permit and therefore the proposed use permit has a cap of 315 students at any one time being 35 on the project site. The use permit also describes additional activities related to an afterschool 36 daycare program and combined with the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs would have 37 hours of operations from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 38 39 The project’s landscape plans show removal and replacement of trees on the site. Those have 40 been reviewed by the City Arborist and an additional landscape buffer has been indicated on the 41 plans to maintain a five foot minimum buffer between the Church and residential uses. Based 42 upon the materials contained within the project application, the review by City Staff, the Director 43 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 3 of 20 found that the proposed project would meet the findings for a conditional use permit. Those 1 findings are contained within your Staff Report and based upon that the Director made that 2 decision. 3 4 However, an interested member of the community requested a Public Hearing based upon that 5 decision and the process that we’re going through now for conditional use permits is that the use 6 permit is reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission. You’re to review that and 7 send your recommendation up to the City Council who will make a final decision. The person 8 requesting the hearing had a number of issues that are described within your Staff Report 9 including some mislabeling of specific uses on the plans, the requirement for a five foot 10 landscaped strip around the parking lot areas adjacent to residential uses, there was a question 11 about the number and amount of parking spaces on the existing site as compared to what was 12 proposed. So the person wanted to have some clarification about that, she also noted that the 13 plans did not contain information that would describe the level of landscaped screening between 14 the Church areas and the residential areas. And the final issue was with result, was with regards 15 to the automobile circulation plan for pick up and drop off of students on the site. And so in 16 response to those specific concerns the Project Architect addressed those and the response is also 17 contained in detail in your Staff Report to provide the landscape buffer, to describe the 18 screening, to describe the pedestrian drop off and circulation along the site as well as other 19 details that the Applicant can go into. 20 21 Based upon those responses from the Applicant, again the Staff reviewed the information and 22 found that we could still make the required findings for the conditional use permit and therefore 23 we are requesting that the Planning and Transportation Commission concur with that 24 recommendation and forward a recommendation to approval to the City Council. With me 25 tonight is Rina Shah from the Planning Division who is the Project Planner on the site. Also, 26 from the Applicant’s side we have John Miller, who is the Project Architect, and the Principal of 27 the school, Evelyn Rosa. And they will be making a presentation as well. That concludes the 28 Staff Report. Thank you. 29 30 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you Advance Planning Manager Turner. So I am going to open the 31 Public Hearing, we have the Staff recommendation and we actually opened the hearing and I 32 have the cards for the speakers? Do we have a speaker card for the Appellant? And if you wish 33 to speak and have not already submitted a speaker card, please do so. Do I have a card for the 34 Appellant? The Appellant. Excuse me. 35 36 Rina Shah, Planning Tech: Yeah, she’s here. Rita Vrhel. 37 38 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, great, thank you. Thank you. I wasn’t sure which one. Ok so this is 39 the Appellant. So, first by the Appellant a presentation by Rita Vrhel. I’m sorry if I’m 40 pronouncing your name incorrectly. And you will have up to 15 minutes. 41 42 Rita Vrhel, Appellant: I have some pictures for everybody. I have seven, I guess that will be 43 enough. Do you…do you want some? Ok, first of all I would like to start off by saying that I 44 live right next to the Church and to the school site. I would also like to say that I have no 45 objections to the school itself. The plans are fine, the drainage is fine, everything is fine. What I 46 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 4 of 20 have been objecting to and what I requested additional information on, and I was not provided 1 landscaping information, etcetera. I was provided the drawing which shows the traffic pattern 2 after I made my Appeal. 3 4 I just wanted to review a little bit about the school. My house was built in 1946; the school was 5 built in 1951. At some point, probably 15 years ago or so the local school population started to 6 decline and Elizabeth Seton was consolidated with Our Lady of the Rosary School, which was 7 over on Cowper Avenue. All the students were moved to Channing Avenue. It went from a K to 8 6 to a K to 8th grade. This is off the Elizabeth Seton School website. There were 251 students in 9 2002-2003, there were 248 students 2008-2009, there were 270 without preschool, currently. 10 There’s 300 with preschool, and the maximum number of students which is now being requested 11 is 315. The schools when they were consolidated, the Church had a mandate to serve 12 underprivileged children, minority students, Catholic students, and students that for the most part 13 do not live in the neighborhood. I only bring this up because it changes the tone of the school in 14 that most of these children, if not all, are driven to school. I have not seen any carpools; I have 15 seen very few children walking to school. I do see some children walking home from school, but 16 this is less than in the past. 17 18 I was involved in objecting to the cell tower that was proposed at the same property site. And so 19 one morning starting at 7:00 I was out handing out brochures in Spanish and English 20 encouraging the parents to become involved in the cell tower discussion. The traffic is quite 21 bunched up. If you look at the pictures I have provided to you, if we go to picture #2, this 22 shows, I’m sorry, if we go to picture #9. #9 and #10 show the school, the Church and the school, 23 and what happens is the traffic comes in, makes a right hand turn into the school property from 24 Channing and is directed in front of the what used to be the convent which is now called the 25 residence hall, over to the school which is this shown in #10, this 14 foot wide opening. This is 26 one way traffic. It’s also shown in photograph #11 and #12. And then the children are dropped 27 off in photograph #11 approximately where the cross is. And then the, the traffic continues 28 around the back side of the Church, over to the rectory, makes a left hand turn and goes out on 29 Channing. This is the way it has been done, I believe, for at least 10 years. This seems to have 30 solved the problem of getting the children into the school in an efficient fashion, minimizing 31 impact on the neighbors, minimizing two way traffic and the possibility of an accident, and, as 32 far as I know, there have not been any complaints about this pattern. I certainly have not 33 complained it at all. 34 35 With the stroke of a pen, the architect has now rerouted all the traffic for the entire 315 students, 36 which if we take 3 students a car, which I think is actually generous, there will be now 105 cars 37 going in this narrow space shown in photograph #1. I’m particularly concerned about this 38 because this is right next to my bedroom window. While I do have double paned windows and I 39 have put up a fence, and I have put up shrubbery, this space is 20 feet wide. Picture #2 shows 40 part of the property where the new school will be built. Picture #4 shows my car and the 41 neighbors, and another neighbor’s, kind of simulating going in and out in this very small space. 42 Many of the cars that I have observed going into the school are large SUV’s. Denali’s, 43 Suburban’s, Tacoma’s. They are not sedans. And you can see that there’s actually very little 44 space here. If you look at photograph #5, #6, #7, and #8, I’m showing you how much space 45 there actually is here. We’re talking about two to three feet on each side. I personally do not 46 feel that this is a very safe way to, with a stroke of a pen, reroute all the children coming into the 47 school. 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 5 of 20 Also, if you look at the map showing the property, I don’t know if you can put that one back up 1 there? You had it in beginning. There’s very few houses that are actually impacted by this. 2 There’s my house, there’s Doug and Claudia Beg, who have a three and a half year old and a one 3 year old. There’s the Caswell’s who are here tonight. There’s Trudy and her husband, I don’t 4 remember your name, I’m sorry. They’re here tonight. The large pie shaped house at 80 Kent, 5 they’re new owners, their last name is Bing. They are in China for a month and a friend of theirs 6 contacted me and they would be concerned about this. The people at 60 Kent are going to a 7 graduation. So you basically have at least 50% of the people impacted by this traffic change 8 here. 9 10 Additionally, if we look at, so what is happening is, so there will be at least 105 cars, more or 11 less, going by my bedroom window at 7:00 in the morning. They will circle around and, and 12 drop off and then they will come back down. Again, I think this is much too small of a space. 13 The other thing is that if you were to take a look at the site, and you can see that a little bit in the 14 photograph #3, this is the ivy that separates me from the Church. There is ivy, there is a chain 15 link fence, I have put up a bamboo fence, and there are some trees. It appears that the striping is 16 right up to the ivy. This is really not an effective noise barrier. It’s more actually of a nuisance 17 because for the last, I’ve been there since 1986, I have been trimming ivy on a regular basis. 18 19 If you look at picture #13, you will see two of the trash cans which are picked up at 6:15 in the 20 morning twice a week. The trashcans are rarely covered. We have an incredible rat population, 21 we also have a squirrel population, and all I’m asking is that when the when the Church, when 22 the school is approved, and I have no doubt that it be approved, that there be a provision so that 23 these garbage cans and recycle cans or whatever they are called have a lock on them so that we 24 don’t continue to have a rat problem, particularly given the amount of ivy. 25 26 Now, if you look at some of the plans, this plan, you can see, this is basically a chain link fence. 27 This is a chain link fence. This is a chain link fence. There used to be vegetation over here, but 28 a chain link fence really is not an adequate barrier from a school, a parking lot, and a Church. 29 We also have Church twice on Sunday and once on Saturday. So that basically means that with 30 this simple change of drop off plans the people involved will actually not be able to sleep in past 31 probably 7:00 six days a week. So all I’m asking is that the previous well-constructed, well 32 working, traffic flow pattern be reestablished and that the current suggested drop off pattern not 33 be adopted. I do not, again object to the school, I don’t object to the construction, I don’t object 34 to anything other than this change in the traffic flow pattern, which definitely will increase noise, 35 pollution, idling, irritation, and possibly decrease our property values. Thank you very much. 36 37 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. We now have the Applicants for 15 minutes. And who is 38 speaking first? 39 40 Father Matthew Stanley, Pastor of St. Thomas Aquinas Parish: Yes, my name is Father Matthew 41 Stanley; I’m the Pastor of St. Thomas Aquinas Parish, which includes the three campuses, St. 42 Albert the Great, Our Lady of the Rosary, and St. Thomas Aquinas. So I am the one responsible 43 for the facilities, the grounds, and all of the buildings on our three campuses. The school has 44 been mentioned has been around for a long time, has received tremendous amount of support 45 from not only the parish community of St. Thomas Aquinas but the community of Palo Alto for 46 many, many years. The most important thing that we look at, you know, each and every day is 47 being good neighbors. That’s really at the very top of our list. We want to be good neighbors 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 6 of 20 and we work extremely diligently to be good neighbors. So I would like to introduce the 1 Principal of St. Elizabeth Seton School. She can go into more details. Her name is Evelyn Rosa. 2 3 Evelyn Rosa, Principal of St. Elizabeth Seton School: Good evening. I inherited this project just 4 a year ago when I was hired to be the Principal of St. Elizabeth Seton and I just want to say just a 5 few things. First of all the project has been completely funded by donors and everyone is very 6 enthusiastic about this particular project. I work for the Daughters of Charity who really want 7 preschool programs for their schools as well as a full day kindergarten program. Our school is 8 one of only two schools in the Dioceses of San Jose that does not have a full day kindergarten 9 and I’m actually implementing the full day program this coming year. We’re not waiting for the 10 building to be built in order to do that. 11 12 Our desire for a preschool and a full day kindergarten will directly impact learning at Seton, 13 which most members of the community are very concerned about. Our children are bilingual. 14 Some of them come into the school with limited English proficiency and by having a preschool 15 program and a full day kindergarten it will significantly impact, you know, their ability to learn 16 to read at an earlier age. We want to be good neighbors and I haven’t received any complaints 17 this year from any individual regarding traffic. And that’s basically all that I can say at this 18 point. 19 20 John Miller, Project Architect: Good evening. I’m John Miller, I’m the Project Architect. First I 21 wanted to say it’s been a pleasure working with the Staff. I’ve spent many telephone 22 conversations with Rina and we’ve been, worked very closely and I think it’s been a good 23 relationship and helpful for us, the Applicant. I also want to say that I’ve been working on this 24 project since ’09. We looked at many different options to put these two classrooms on the site 25 and I will in a second explain how it functions. I also want to say that we have over the past 26 three years worked with not only the Planning Department. The Building Department has 27 reviewed it, the Fire Department has reviewed it, Public Works has reviewed it, Traffic has 28 reviewed it, and the Arborist has reviewed it. So, it’s been a process where we have taken each 29 issue that come up and work with it. We see this as an opportunity to take care of this issue. The 30 plans have been in since December, so we’re anxious to get this resolved and move on and build 31 our building. 32 33 I’d like to explain a little bit about the site. The Google map is up and I’ve got a little, not very 34 strong, but you could see the playground at the top of the picture and back. The white area is the 35 school. The area on the right with the red brick is the religious residence. It’s where the nuns 36 used to be. The red brick roof in the middle, down by the street on the lower part of the picture 37 is the Church and the red roof building on the far left is the rectory. Could we move this up a 38 little bit so that we could get the street in? There we go. Perfect. So, the new building will be 39 built if you look at the white roof, the far end there’s a small rectangle that’s smaller than the rest 40 of the building. That is a modular kindergarten that will be, that’s the half size right there, and it 41 will be demoed and it its place will be the new pre-kindergarten and the kindergarten. The 42 reason that this was important, this placement, is that from right to left along the length of the 43 school is the main corridor with classrooms on the right and the left. So this is the only 44 circulation spine really within the school and the kindergarten and the pre-kindergarten to be 45 integrated with the school needed to be along that circulation spine. 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 7 of 20 In terms of, so that is why the building is there. We looked at many options. We looked at using 1 the religious residence; we looked at remodeling the religious residence. We looked at replacing 2 the religious residence, and about eight other different options. And so when we came to this 3 one we thought we had a really good solution that seemed to integrate well with the school. 4 5 In terms of traffic flow which is what we’re talking about tonight the, it’s a one way traffic flow 6 through the site and it enters, can you point where the entry is? Right there, the cars proceed 7 straight back and you can see that there’s a parking lot on the far right side. That will have 8 increased 4 spaces to 44 spaces. Currently that’s where the drop off is in the morning. We 9 understand that at one time it wasn’t there, it was more in front of the school, but that side 10 parking lot is always where the pickup has been. In terms of the way the children come and go, 11 there are some children that come before school starting at 7:00 a.m. There are, and then in the 12 afternoon, after school at 3:00 p.m. 80% of the kids stay on site for extended daycare. And 13 they’re picked up approximately one a minute. 14 15 I have a graph on my PowerPoint if we can get to that. It shows what we did in January is we 16 took a count; you need to go down about 4-5. Ok. That graph right there. A traffic survey was 17 taken for four days in January. Each bar represents a 15 minute increment, and the times that we 18 looked at it is a.m. peak and p.m. peak. So those, the small numbers at the bottom represent 15 19 minute intervals. As you can see, that between 7:00 and 7:15 a.m. if you look at the far left, 20 there’s approximately, was that nine cars? From 7:15 to 7:30, 15 cars arrive. 7:30 to 7:44, 25 21 cars. And then school’s starting at or about 8:00, 55 cars. And then of course there are 4 cars 22 afterward, the kids that are tardy. I shouldn’t have said that, but at any rate, so that’s the profile 23 of cars coming in the morning. 24 25 In the afternoon, as I said after school, which is roughly ends about 3:00, there’s 39 cars on 26 average come to pick up the kids at the end of school. Then throughout the afternoon in 15 27 minute increments, each bar you can see that it ranges anywhere from 17 to 8 cars in a 15 minute 28 increment. And then by 5:30 virtually everybody is gone, even though the extended daycare 29 stays open until 6:00, once in a while there’s an emergency, but for all practical purposes 30 everybody’s gone at 5:15. 31 32 So I’ve talked about traffic flow. Do you wanna… I’d like to briefly show you a closer view of 33 the floor plan which is this, right here. It’s oriented so that the Google picture had the school 34 right and left, the corridor. This has the picture oriented where the circulation path is up and 35 down with the parking lot to the left. As you can see this is a very important entry to the school. 36 It is an entry that is where they can control the flow of students in and out, and especially in the 37 afternoon it, the parking lot is where parents stop and they have to sign out their children. And 38 then that’s why over, it’s one a minute or so, there’s no big rush in the afternoon. 39 40 Could we go to the site plan? The other important thing is that the new buildings are in purple at 41 the top of the image. The school is primarily to the left of the purple area and the parking lot is 42 to the right of the purple area. I might add that the driveway is, meets regulations for fire safety. 43 The Fire Department felt that it was wide enough for their emergency use, but the critical point I 44 want to get to is that for pre-k kids they often have to be escorted in to the classroom by their 45 parents. And so, with the pre-k being the upper purple square in this drawing, you can see that 46 that side parking lot is really the only place that’s convenient for multiple parents to be able to 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 8 of 20 stop, take their children out and introduce them to the classroom. That is one of the strong 1 reasons why in some way or form that drop off and pickup needs to be maintained. 2 3 I’m not sure how much more time I have, I’ve covered most of the salient points. 4 5 Acting Chair Keller: You have about three minutes. 6 7 Mr. Miller: Ok. I don’t have much more to say except that we worked very hard with everybody 8 involved. We look forward to resolving any outstanding issues and the drawings are out to bid 9 right now for construction. So, we are, you know, ready to go and anxious and would like to 10 have this stop or interruption end so we can proceed with our project. That’s it. 11 12 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. We’ll now have members of the public who wish to speak. 13 The first speaker is Trudy Eichstadt and will have three minutes. We have four speakers. 14 15 Ms. Trudy Eichstadt: Good evening, I’m Trudy Eichstadt and I live at 41 Kent. And we have 16 been living there since 1968, and I have been watching first the children would play right next to 17 our bedroom and on the car, on the parking lot, so we would hear children’s noise and that would 18 wake us sometimes. And we got very used to that and was fun, but time passed and we noticed 19 now more children, and more, and cars would come in and park, and that gradually has been 20 increasing. And we have now noticed, we have now our children living with us because they are 21 remodeling their house so they have been complaining to us two things, the increase of traffic 22 when the children are being dropped off and collected, and also the garbage collection trucks 23 because the garbage bins are right at our fence on the one side. 24 25 And so, my concern is that with the increase of numbers of children, there also will be more 26 traffic, and so if it’s possible to have maybe an abatement of the noise, a wall erected or more 27 landscaping because all the trees that were right at our fence have been removed. So we only are 28 separated by an ivy and chain link fence and from our side, the fence that we erected. So, so this 29 is the one issue that concerns me. 30 31 And also the second issue that is very annoying is the garbage bins that are left uncovered and 32 we have eight oak trees right on our property on the school property and our side, and we have so 33 many squirrels now and rats that it’s just a nonsense. I have to cover every plant in the garden if 34 I want to harvest the fruit or I want to harvest some vegetables, it’s just incredible. So if it is a 35 possibility to close those garbage bins or, you know, do something about that. And also we clean 36 the two lots; adjacent two lots are part of the parking area. And I clean, we clean our cul-de-sac, 37 the two lots, we remove candy wrappers constantly, things that the rats or the squirrels bring out 38 of the garbage bins they deposit on our lot or on the… And so, we have been doing that for 39 years and so I hope that the school will also be a little more aware of the amount of garbage that 40 is being left on the grounds and being taken by (interrupted—the buzzer went off). Thank you 41 very much. 42 43 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Our next speaker is, our next speaker is Lee Caswell and 44 following that is Klaus Eichstadt. 45 46 Mr. Lee Caswell: Ok, thank you. My name is Lee Caswell and I live at 1139 Channing Avenue. 47 And so it is a pleasure to meet the people from the Church. I don’t have any issue with the 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 9 of 20 Church, but as good neighbors I do have to say that that hasn’t been our experience and the fact 1 that I’m meeting them for the first time tonight with such a major project is indicative of that. I 2 do know the Facilities Manager at the Church, Chuck, on a first name basis because of a 3 repeating, repetitive set of issues where the Church made changes without thinking about 4 neighbor impact. So, I’ll put the AT&T tower first off, but second we’ve had a consistent issue 5 with putting very large luminescent lights that point into our house. And the Church has been 6 responsive and I do appreciate that, of changing and making changes to the lights, but I think 7 consistently making those changes without thinking about the impact. 8 9 This is a major impact. The number of cars coming into the street, right? I mean we’ve, we 10 have known about the Church and don’t have any issues and are actually pleased to see the 11 impact that the Church has on this level of the students, but the promise of having hundreds of 12 cars go right by our property line on a consistent basis I have no confidence that that’s gonna be 13 one minute drop off and pick up time. I don’t believe it. When you look at the tight 14 configuration of having cars come in and go out and seeing both the size of the cars and the fact 15 that there are a lot of kids involved. I believe that this is actually a more complicated pattern that 16 we haven’t looked at any of the implications on the street itself or on the ability for people to 17 navigate that a, that piece. And so I think we’re gonna have actually a large, a lot of cars 18 actually bunched up instead. 19 20 My requests are actually pretty simple. I think in any event the barriers between the Church and 21 our property line and Rita’s property line and the other neighbors here; we should take a really 22 hard look at noise abatement, making sure that that happens regardless of the traffic, the traffic 23 pattern. I also believe this traffic pattern, and I’m requesting specifically, that this be relooked at 24 and removed. Thanks. 25 26 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. The next speaker is Klaus Eichstadt followed by Melissa Baten 27 Caswell. 28 29 Klaus Eichstadt: I make it very short because my wife already talked about most of the subjects I 30 would have talked, but one thing I’m an engineer and I wish every one of the cars was an electric 31 car obviously. [That what] a solution, but let’s face it, I mean this is a unique situation with this 32 school because most of the children are not from the, off the streets in the vicinity. They come 33 all from most, they cannot walk. And that I think is the biggest problem. 34 35 I don’t understand why not more is being done studying the way to have at least a very organized 36 carpool working, and even better if they couldn’t, couldn’t afford to have a bus coming from an 37 area where most kids come, could come. It would be cheaper for the parents, they don’t have to 38 drive so long distances to let the kids off, and I think the expenses for a smaller bus would be 39 well, well played, well done for the whole community. I mean I can’t understand. We have 40 sometimes bus running here in the City there are only two, three people on it. They are gas 41 powered and they are not being used well. Why not having a smaller bus, which has gas power 42 and could drop off probably more than 50% of the children, I’d bet could be dropped off on 43 Channing. I don’t understand why this is not in the future. 44 45 We are now trying to bring down traffic, trying to bring down consumption of gasoline, taking 46 advantage of the new technologies like electricity and gas, why is this not being attacked in a 47 more aggressive way? From the City itself? The City’s strong enough, and it’s a rich city. 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 10 of 20 There are a lot of engineers and people who can come up with plans which I think would work 1 and would bring down the traffic and the pollution and would make all the children happier. So 2 thank you. 3 4 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you and our final speaker is Melissa Baten Caswell. 5 6 Melissa Baten Caswell: Hi, I’m Melissa Baten Caswell, 1139 Channing Avenue. Thank you 7 Commissioners for allowing us to speak about this issue. My husband and I moved into the 8 house, the third house from the Church that directly boarders the parking lot 21 years ago. When 9 we moved into that house there were trees behind our house that were on the Church property 10 bordering the parking lot and our home. So there was a barrier at that time. Since that time, 11 there was also some more shrubbery than there is now. When I say shrubbery I don’t mean ivy. 12 The shrubbery today is mostly ivy, but there were actually shrubs there. Over time those trees 13 have been taken out for various reasons, but nothing’s been replaced. 14 15 The number of students of the school has increased, which we don’t mind. I grew up next to, 16 living next to a Church, and there’s something very lovely about hearing kids in the morning. 17 I’m on the School Board in Palo Alto as you know, and we serve over 12,000 students, over 600 18 of which come from East Palo Alto to our District, so I’m definitely a proponent of making sure 19 that we have good educational opportunities for as many students as possible. 20 21 But I am concerned about this traffic pattern. I’m concerned that there are cars idling in a circle 22 in a very tight space there. I’m concerned that there are going to be younger kids walking 23 around. Yes, parents hopefully will be walking kids in if it’s dangerous, but think about what 24 that looks like right now. You’re gonna have a parking area where people will come in and park. 25 You also, at the exact same time have cars, most of which are big cars for whatever reason, 26 coming and circling around the parking area as people are walking in with their children. 27 There’ll be cars idling. I mean this just doesn’t sound like a very safe situation for the kids. Plus 28 the idling cars put off quite a bit of pollution that’s going right into our backyards now because 29 there is no barrier except for this chain link fence. 30 31 So, I urge the Commissioners to push back on this traffic pattern. I think we need something 32 that’s more safe, and more neighbor friendly. And we definitely need either new shrubbery put 33 in place and new trees so there is a real barrier there, or some sort of sound wall. I just don’t 34 think we can be good neighbors the way it is right now. 35 36 I also want to say that 21 years ago when we moved in, we did meet the pastor of the Church and 37 he was very, he was a good neighbor, he did talk to us. But this is the first time my husband and 38 I have seen the Pastor, the Principal of the school. So, I’m just, I’d like to have a better 39 relationship. 40 41 Acting Chair Keller: May I ask you a question? Yes, thank you. I haven’t heard from any of the 42 neighbors or from the Appellant how the traffic was different before in terms of what differences 43 between how the current traffic is versus the proposed traffic pattern. 44 45 Melissa Baten Caswell: So I have not gone and studied the traffic, but I have seen this plan and 46 I’m concerned that this is a dangerous way to set it up. The traffic going down Channing at, 47 between 7:30 and 8:00 has become a backup every morning. It’s very hard for us to get out of 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 11 of 20 our driveways. I’m willing to put up with that cause that doesn’t seem unsafe, that seems like a 1 pain but not unsafe. This seems unsafe to me and I encourage the Commissioners to come over 2 and walk that parking lot, because I think you get a different sense in it than you do from the 3 pictures. 4 5 Acting Chair Keller: We have a three minute wrap up from the Applicant. 6 7 Mr. Miller: Thank you for your time tonight, thank you for your comments, I’ve written them 8 down. We look forward to working with these people and discussing their issues. I could give 9 you a half an hour on sound walls, but I think that’s maybe another time. But I did want to say is 10 that a couple things that I’ve heard now; I’d give you some background. The chain link fence, 11 it’s a commercial grade chain link fence. If we could go to my pictures, two down, and go two 12 more. You can see the post in the end. Go back one. This is the, basically the driveway on the 13 right and that fence of the neighbors on the left, as you can see it’s very dense. We looked at 14 replanting it, but taking plants out would make it less dense than what it is now. The chain link 15 fence is very important for children’s safety. As you can see on the right there’s a fence like that 16 around, a wood fence around the school a child could slip out very easily. The chain link fence 17 is very important for security. 18 19 And traffic patterns, as I said earlier the afternoon traffic patterns have always been the same. 20 That at one time, for many years, there was a drop off in front of the school. There are some 21 good parts about that. There are some minuses about that in particular parking, if you have to 22 take your child in. 23 24 The garbage, this is, they’re willing to work with that. I listened to the Principal, they’re 25 interested in making sure that it’s, it’s up to a standard. And if it takes more pickups or more 26 containers, that’s fine. And I think, I think that’s it. I don’t want to talk too much more, I’m 27 looking through my notes here. That’s all I have to say at this time. Any questions? 28 29 Acting Chair Keller: Questions? Commissioner Tuma. 30 31 Commissioner Tuma: Yes. I actually would like to know the answer to the question that was 32 asked before, which is what is the current traffic circulation pattern within the facility? 33 34 Mr. Miller: The current traffic circulation pattern is the pattern that I, I presented earlier. They 35 come in the parking, the street curb cut at the far, the bottom right. They go straight back and 36 then they circulate around, clockwise, counter clockwise to the drop off, as you can see where 37 the arrow is, and then the kids are, there’s an attendant out there who makes sure that things go 38 smoothly. And then the cars go back down the driveway, make a hard right and then go along 39 the front of the school, between the school and the Church, around the rectory and out. It’s been 40 reviewed by the traffic engineer and I think one of the virtues of this is that it has a long queue 41 available to it, the long (interrupted) 42 43 Commissioner Tuma: So is that the pattern that’s in practice today? 44 45 Mr. Miller: That has been in practice for the last couple years. Morning and afternoon. 46 47 Commissioner Tuma: And what, and how is what you’re proposing different? 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 12 of 20 Mr. Miller: It’s not. I think what may be, for many years the drop off was in the front of the 1 Church, or front of the school where the pointer is right now. And we’re willing to, you know, 2 to talk about that, but we also have to realize or everybody has to realize that getting those the 3 pre-k kids from the parking where the cars are directly to the pre-k is important. 4 5 Commissioner Tuma: Would it be feasible to have a split drop off location? 6 7 Mr. Miller: Yes. 8 9 Commissioner Tuma: Where you possibly could have the pre-k dropped off, because I 10 understand the proximity, especially with the little ones, but if you could somehow have, and you 11 know I’m not a traffic engineer, but would it possible to have two different locations, two 12 different patterns and not having them conflicting? 13 14 Mr. Miller: I’ve talked to the Principal as she said, she’s been here one year so she has instituted 15 a few things, more things are being instituted next year in terms of traffic control. And we would 16 like to sit down and discuss those, that concept. 17 18 Commissioner Tuma: Ok. And one other question I think it was mentioned earlier but I didn’t 19 quite, what is, by adding this facility, how many additional students are we talking about? 20 21 Mr. Miller: We are, as the conditions say, we are not increasing the maximum number because 22 the maximum number by the Catholic Church has always been considered 315. So, we would be 23 reducing students in the other classes to make sure that we would never go over 315. 24 25 Commissioner Tuma: Ok, so if I understand it you’re not proposing an increase in the number of 26 students that are permitted under the permit, and you’re not proposing a change to the current 27 traffic pattern. Is that right? 28 29 Mr. Miller: I think, I think as Staff said there, it wasn’t really spelled out in the previous 30 conditions of approval, the number of students, so this is the time to quantify that and in terms of 31 traffic patterns, no. I mean, these kids come many times; their parents are coming from work or 32 going to work in the morning. And so, you know, they have restricted flexibility in terms of how 33 they can get their kids to and from school. I think we’ve all had, you know, have had kids have 34 realized that it becomes very hectic. 35 36 Mr. Turner: Acting Chair Keller? 37 38 Acting Chair Keller: May I, Mr. Miller, one moment. I believe that Mr. Turner wishes to talk. 39 40 Mr. Turner: Yes Acting Chair Keller, it might be helpful for Mr. Miller to describe perhaps the 41 current approximate number of students that are served by the school as compared to the 42 proposed number of students that would result with this project. We understand I think the 43 maximum number of students would not exceed 315 students, but if you could just describe the 44 actual counts before and after. 45 46 Mr. Miller: The, the actual count now for K through 8th grade is 270. 265, on a good day. 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 13 of 20 Mr. Turner: And the proposed number of students as a result of this project? 1 2 Mr. Miller: We wouldn’t, as I said we wouldn’t increase it. There is room in the building and the 3 room that we’ve designed for 30. So they would expect to have, you know, fill that to capacity, 4 that 30. And so there may be an increase because of that, but as I said, no more than 315. 5 6 Commissioner Tuma: Ok, and then one last question for you which is in terms of the location 7 where the trash bin is currently, is there, is there a different location on the property that could 8 have, and I don’t want to move it all the way over to the other side because then you got 9 neighbors on the other side. But is there another location somewhere that could, could be used in 10 order to minimize the impact on the neighborhood on either side? 11 12 Mr. Miller: We were requested to build a roofed trash area. Right now it’s more of what we 13 could say is a casual area of where the cans are. I’ve talked to the Principal. They’re willing to 14 have more pickups. If we could schedule the pickups at certain times, if the, if the refuge 15 company can do that we would certainly entertain that. But in terms of finding another place, 16 this is a very tight site and we have studied the turning radiuses of the garbage trucks and they 17 are accommodated in that side parking lot. If they go towards, through the, between the Church 18 and the religious residence there, that gets down to I think it’s about 14 feet. So it gets very 19 narrow where those two buildings are. And as you can see, there’s not much maneuvering space 20 on the left side. So, the bottom line is, is that this, while it’s close to some neighbors, it’s not 21 directly behind the neighbors and between the trash enclosure there’s the 30 feet of landscaping 22 to the cul-de-sac behind. So their property goes all the way to the cul-de-sac behind. 23 24 Commissioner Tuma: Thank you. 25 26 Acting Chair Keller: Acting Vice Chair Tanaka. 27 28 Acting Vice Chair Tanaka: Actually my question was the same that Commissioner Tuma asked, 29 so thank you. 30 31 Mr. Miller: Ok. 32 33 Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner Michael. 34 35 Commissioner Michael: So I’d like to thank everybody both on behalf of the Applicant and the 36 neighbors who came in this evening to, to raise issues and give us information. I had to check 37 with the, with the Office of the Planning Commission to see if I had a conflict of (interrupted) 38 39 Acting Chair Keller: Just indicating that we’re talking about, these are questions for the, for the 40 architect, we’re not doing general comments. 41 42 Commissioner Michael: Ok, so questions for the architect have largely been asked by others. 43 Maybe you could address the sound wall issue, which I think you alluded you had some 44 information. The chain link fence with ivy seems to me to be a good solution for keeping kids 45 enclosed but a bad solution for noise. 46 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 14 of 20 Mr. Miller: Right. Well, landscaping is not a good acoustic barrier. An acoustician would say 1 the more weight the better. So you could go up to a more substantial wood wall with sound 2 deadening inside of it and then from there you go to, you know, big concrete barriers. 3 4 Commissioner Michael: What I didn’t get was whether there were any actual discussions with 5 the neighbors about alternatives to mitigate their concerns. 6 7 Mr. Miller: We didn’t hear any of these comments until the appeal period. 8 9 Commissioner Michael: But there was no outreach to the neighbors to seek out their comments? 10 11 Mr. Miller: We, the sign was out there. We, did we do any? I think, well the sign was out there. 12 Did we send out any fliers or not? We’ve had some coffees monthly. Maybe the outreach could 13 have been, could have been better, but, you know, the sign was out there starting in the first week 14 in December saying that, you know, we had plans and that we were considering a building 15 project. I’m talking about the white sign that you put out in front with the notice, public notice 16 on it. 17 18 Commissioner Michael: But there was no human contact? So the split drop off option, I guess 19 has been raised. What would be the, the traffic impact if you allowed the people who had the 20 pre-kindergarten drop off to go back but people dropping off older students to go in the current, 21 go left rather than back? 22 23 Mr. Miller: I think that’s a possibility. I’ve talked to the Principal and while we don’t know all 24 the logistics of it, you understand that kids come to school 180 times a year so that people get 25 into a pattern. And there will be a teacher out there, and student aides to help with the traffic 26 next year, which doesn’t happen now. So we could work with the parents on training them to go 27 to certain different, you know, to two different places depending upon the age of their child. 28 29 Commissioner Michael: If there were a split drop off, what’s the approximate head count that 30 would go back versus dropped off in the front? 31 32 Mr. Miller: Well, that’s, that takes some thought because the pre-k kids, they’re expecting half of 33 them to be siblings of children that are already in school. So, and I think we’d have to do some 34 analysis, but we would need at least capacity for 30 kids to go to the back. What that represents 35 in cars I’m not sure, and then the rest would have to go to the front. And we’d have to study, 36 because now we’ve got two drop off areas and only one exit. So after you drop off you’d have to 37 go through the second drop off area in front. For instance if you came with your pre-k child, 38 took them to their room and use the side parking lot, then you come out towards the front and go 39 past the front of the school which is where the second drop off we’re talking about. And so you 40 have a pinch point there. We don’t have really good chance to get two lanes of cars very well 41 one past the other. I’m willing to look at it. 42 43 Commissioner Michael: Although with the pinch point it seems you also would reduce the total 44 distance traveled by vehicles on the site by having them divert instead of going back. 45 46 Mr. Miller: That’s, yeah that’s true. 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 15 of 20 Commissioner Michael: So less pollution, less noise. 1 2 Mr. Miller: That’s true. That’s true. The other thing we’d have to do is that the parking spaces 3 now to the left of the entrance of the school, it’s represented where there’s a line of trees, so 4 they’re green circles. Right now those are striped for handicapped parking for the Church. So, 5 any piece of real estate here is used for multiple different functions depending upon the day. So 6 on Sunday’s that’s all handicapped parking so we would have to do some signage or somehow 7 work with the traffic engineer to have, we’d have to have at least some parking spaces in front of 8 the school, in front of the school. But, yeah, I think it could be worked out. 9 10 Commissioner Michael: Ok, thank you. 11 12 Acting Chair Keller: So, a couple of comments weren’t, a couple of questions weren’t, weren’t 13 addressed in terms of the split drop off, obviously anybody who wants to park could go to the 14 right along with the kindergarten and pre-k students, and anybody who wished not to park could 15 go to the left. So, you wouldn’t have to have additional parking spaces for the school in front of 16 the Church if you did it that way. 17 18 Mr. Miller: That’s a very good point. 19 20 Acting Chair Keller: The second thing is that I would suspect that older students would exit from 21 their cars more quickly than younger students would. And therefore the traffic for dropping off 22 older students would flow faster than the pinch point of people going around and dropping off in 23 the rear. 24 25 Mr. Miller: All I can say, all I can say is that to that point, it was in the front and it’s been moved 26 to the side and in terms of logistics for the school it’s worked very well because you have one 27 point of entry. You know, one important thing about schools is creating a secure perimeter and 28 the more points you have coming in and out the more chance you have of people you don’t 29 know. So, when you have two points of entry we have to have twice the staff, and be, you know, 30 vigilant for that. Right now the point that I haven’t said is that right now the front doors are 31 locked pretty much all the time. So everybody comes to the side. 32 33 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, thank you and two other quick comment questions. One is about the 34 trash enclosure. So you said that right now there’s a requirement that it be covered. Is, is that it 35 be in an enclosure as opposed to open? I assume that that’s the, is that correct? 36 37 Mr. Miller: We have a roof. That’s, and a new concrete pad. 38 39 Acting Chair Keller: Great, and is there enough trash capacity, and based on the trash pickups so 40 that all the trash can be placed inside the containers so that the containers can remain closed and 41 that there’s no overflow or trash on the, elsewhere? 42 43 Mr. Miller: I, when that came up I talked to the Principal and she assured me that some 44 accommodations can be made whether it’s more trash bins or more pickups. In fact last week 45 she had, at the end of school, an additional refuse pick up just because at the end of school you 46 have a greater amount. So, she’s, there’s a couple tools that we can use to work on that. 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 16 of 20 Acting Chair Keller: And I assume that we’re talking about the City bins that have a pretty hard, 1 pretty heavy cover so if they, we make sure that they stay, that they’re closed and when other 2 than when something is being placed in them that, that should work. 3 4 Mr. Miller: Yes. 5 6 Acting Chair Keller: Ok and the other issue that was brought up was about carpooling. Are, is 7 there a potential for carpooling? That is greater than what is achieved now? Is there a 8 carpooling program of any sort? 9 10 Mr. Miller: They can certainly ask about it but, as I mentioned earlier, most of the parents are 11 working parents. And in the morning they are either on their way to work, or in the afternoon 12 they are coming home from work. So it’s really, it’s not like the old days, you know, with the 13 yellow school bus, which I grew up with. It’s, parents are going in many different directions. So 14 carpooling would be a difficult task at this, because of that. 15 16 Acting Chair Keller: Alright, thank you. We now have three minutes from the Appellant, and 17 that again is Rita Vrhel, and you can respond to any of the comments that you’ve heard in your 18 three minutes. And there may be questions afterward. 19 20 Ms. Vrhel: Thank you, I was raising my hand. I didn’t realize the process. Ok, so you asked a 21 question about increasing students. If you’re going from 315 to 265 students, which is the 22 current level of students, you are increasing by 50 students. And I think probably given enough 23 time I could do the math, but that is an increase. So you’re increasing noise, you’re increasing 24 cars, you’re increasing everything. So, yes, the number of students will go from 315 from the 25 current 265. 26 27 The other thing is, you know, I’ve lived in my house since 1986 and the Principal is new, the old 28 one got kicked out after the cell tower fiasco. The Pastor and I have worked together. I don’t 29 know where this traffic pattern is coming up because there’s two things going on. One, the 30 traffic pattern previously was coming in right hand turn on Channing, going between the, yeah, 31 ok, so make a, yeah, however, yeah, that’s it. You go that way, make a left hand turn, yes, you 32 go past there you drop off the kids where the cross is, you go through the 14 foot wide thing, you 33 go around, make a, make a right hand turn, right hand turn, I’m sorry, left hand turn. Left hand 34 turn, you come down to Channing, you’re done. Ok. If you, you know, again I really urge you 35 to come over and actually look at this property because the chain link fence and the ivy is like 36 this. I can see my, my fence. The dried up ivy gets, gets caught up and there’s rats in there and 37 it’s really terrible so… they, that traffic pattern works for Sunday, it works for Saturday Church, 38 it has worked up until this last year. 39 40 Now maybe in the last year there have been changes made to the traffic pattern and that’s what 41 the other neighbors are complaining about, but, you know, would you want to live there if you 42 had 276 cars coming behind your house five days a week in the morning and the evening? Is this 43 what a residential property is about? I don’t think you’d want it for your kids. I don’t think 44 you’d want it for yourself. So let’s work together and solve this problem in an intelligent fashion 45 rather than saying that this is the way it is and we’re gonna have monitors out there, and this is 46 the only way it can be. You can unlock that door, you can have the kids come in here. If they’re 47 gonna have older siblings with the younger kids, the younger kids can take them in. You know, 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 17 of 20 younger kids only have to be taken into school the first week and then they see their, their friends 1 and they’re happy to go into. I don’t think we should redo the entire traffic pattern for three, for 2 thirty children. I mean this is just totally upsetting. Thank you very much. 3 4 Acting Chair Keller: I think there’re questions for you. Acting Vice Chair Tanaka. 5 6 Ms. Vrhel: Yes. 7 8 Acting Vice Chair Tanaka: So, can you tell me in your opinion when did the traffic change from 9 going the way you described it to the traffic pattern that’s described in our plans today? 10 11 Ms. Vrhel: You know, I don’t really know because, like I said I’ve been there since 1986 and the 12 traffic pattern has always been to go through the, the middle of the Church and minimize the 13 traffic on the neighbors. Again we have a new Principal who I have not met. So I, I’m not really 14 sure. I mean when I was talking to my neighbors today they were saying in the past year that 15 they have noticed an increase in idling, noise, traffic in the back. So maybe there was a change 16 at some point which I did not notice. Again, I do have double pane windows, but I do know that 17 after school and on Saturday and Sunday there is considerable noise as people, you know, have 18 conversations and I don’t have anything against that, I just realize that if we don’t protest at this 19 point this will become the way it will be for the rest of the time that we live there. 20 21 I would also like to point out that the, the architect said that they had looked at taking the 22 kindergarten, I mean the convent. The convent is a convent. When they kicked the nuns out 23 they tried to put a kindergarten in there and it’s against the zoning law. So to look at that again, 24 it’s against the zoning law. I mean, that’s absolutely false. And I don’t really know who’s living 25 there now. I don’t think its ministers and religious people, but I’ve never made a point of it 26 because there’s no noise. I’m only making a point now because I feel like this is very valid. 27 28 Acting Vice Chair Tanaka: Ok, so just to make sure I understood this, so, it very well, very well 29 may be that the traffic pattern is as drawn in the plans today, it’s just you weren’t aware until you 30 saw the plans. 31 32 Ms. Vrhel: You know, I do not, yes, you’re right. I do not, I went down and got the plans in 33 November. The, the change in traffic pattern was mentioned in the verbiage, but I did not see 34 this attached to the plans that, that I have here that I printed off. And I filed, I filed an Appeal in 35 April because I was told that there was a convention, a conditional Appeal. And I’m not sure 36 what happened between November and April, so I would’ve appealed this earlier if I had known 37 that there was a conditional granting of the approval. 38 39 Acting Vice Chair Tanaka: Ok, and the other question is in terms of the outreach. I think the 40 school said they did some coffee, monthly coffees? 41 42 Ms. Vrhel: Nothing. Nothing. I live right next to the Church. There has been no outreach, there 43 has been no coffee, there has been no flyers, there has been nothing. 44 45 Acting Vice Chair Tanaka: Ok, thank you. 46 47 Ms. Vrhel: Ok. 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 18 of 20 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, at this point we will close the Public Hearing and then we’ll have a 1 discussion, motions, and recommendations. Commissioner Tuma. 2 3 MOTION 4 5 Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, I’d like to make a Motion that we, Planning and Transportation 6 Commission, continue this matter to a date uncertain, during which we would allow adequate 7 time for the Applicant to work with the neighborhood to have discussions regarding the proposed 8 traffic pattern, the situation with the garbage, and the situation with noise. 9 10 SECOND 11 12 Acting Chair Keller: Motion by Commissioner Tuma, seconded by Commissioner Michael. Do 13 you wish to speak to your Motion? 14 15 Commissioner Tuma: I do. So what I’m hearing tonight is actually not a huge amount of 16 disagreement. I think that the, there hasn’t been an adequate, in my observation, an adequate 17 opportunity for the neighbors to sit down with staff from the Church and have an open 18 discussion. What I’ve heard tonight is some issues raised by the neighborhood, most of which it 19 sounds to me as if the Church is amenable to. And so, the difficult issues here around traffic 20 patterns, garbage, and noise are all things that I think with an adequate opportunity for folks to 21 sit down and talk about it could result in, in a good result. Probably a better result than we could 22 sort of dictate from up here. You all have to live with it. You all have to, you understand the 23 situation better. We could come up with all sorts of ideas, but that’s really not gonna be the best 24 result. The best result is for you all to sit down and chat about it. 25 26 It would, some words of caution from my perspective on both sides about those discussions. 27 One is that from the perspective of the Church, putting out a sign and saying anyone can come 28 by and talk about things is not the same as going door to door, reaching out to people, holding, 29 making sure that people come. And so, I don’t know what efforts were undertaken or weren’t 30 undertaken, but you certainly have the attention of the neighborhood now. I’m sure that if you 31 all could exchange phone numbers or what have you, you would come up with a way to get 32 together. 33 34 From the perspective of the neighborhood, this group is permitted up to 315 students now. They 35 are permitted to have the traffic pattern that they are requesting and so I would just say let’s try 36 to work something out that’s mutually agreeable and not try to take an opportunity to change 37 things around entirely. They do have certain vested rights, and the changes that they are asking 38 for here don’t dramatically impact those vested rights. So the, my word of, of caution in the 39 negotiations would be sort of to talk about how we can address the core issues here, let’s don’t 40 get into redesigning their whole site, having them do things that are difficult. 41 42 So, it doesn’t sound to me that you guys are that far apart, I think if you all work together and 43 have some discussions and Staff could or could not be involved in those depending on where 44 Staff wants to go with that, I wouldn’t make that a part of the Motion, but I suspect that in 45 relatively short order you will come back together and certainly if not resolved all the issues, 46 have them narrowed down to the point where we could, taking into account policy, could come 47 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 19 of 20 up with a way to resolve what’s ever left. But it sounds to me as if a lot of these things can be 1 resolved by simply taking time and I’d rather that you all came up with the solution then us. 2 3 Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner Michael. 4 5 Commissioner Michael: So I’d be hard pressed to improve upon Commissioner Tuma’s 6 comments, which I entirely second and support. I was gonna say earlier that I was very close to 7 being affected by conflict of interest on this matter because my house on Parkinson is very close 8 to the 500 foot radius that would exclude me and I grew up in a house that would be within a 500 9 foot radius on Kirby Place. And from my childhood I’m very familiar with the property and it’s 10 sort of interesting to have it come back tonight with this issue. 11 12 But I would say that as a Planning Commissioner one of the things that has been brought to my 13 attention that there are a lot of concerns about whether or not the Palo Alto process works. And I 14 don’t think this is really a question of the Palo Alto process. I think this really is a question of, 15 of actual, practical, direct communication between people whose interests are affected who 16 appear to be perfectly intelligent and willing to cooperate and come about with something that 17 would be entirely within whatever is permitted by the land use and zoning requirements. There 18 seems to be support for the school, seems to be support for the architectural work, but it’s sort of 19 appalling that the issues that we heard tonight weren’t, that actually had to come before us this 20 evening. And I would really exert anybody who’s in a position of leadership to do a better job of 21 leading and you have the full attention of the neighborhood and I’m close to being one of your 22 neighbors and I encourage you to, to work it out and I think you’ll arrive at the best solution. 23 24 Acting Chair Keller: Acting Vice Chair Tanaka, do you want to say anything? 25 26 Acting Vice Chair Tanaka: No, I think the comments made kind of reflect my opinion as well. I 27 think this is probably best, the majority of it try to solve I think in formal meetings, maybe or the 28 monthly coffees and, and may not even need to come back to us after those meetings. So thank 29 you. 30 31 VOTE 32 33 Acting Chair Keller: I have only one thing to add and that is it might be helpful for Staff to 34 understand in the noticing that we give about a project to the extent that we invite the members 35 of the public to talk to Staff about any concerns they have before it gets the stage that there’s an 36 issuance of a, of a conditional use permit and appeal. And in particular they only had the 37 opportunity to appeal because there was an issuance of a continuous, of a conditional use permit. 38 But on the other hand, for any other application are there opportunities when people find out 39 about application to weigh in and make their comments and have them considered by Staff. So 40 some understanding of the mechanism by which members of the public can talk to Staff during 41 the consideration of an application would be helpful so that we could resolve this in a, in general 42 in a process that works for everybody. Thank you. 43 44 Seeing no further lights, call for the vote. All in favor, say aye. (ayes) All opposed? So the 45 Motion carries unanimously with Commissioner Tuma, Acting Vice Chair Tanaka, Acting Chair 46 Keller, and Commissioner Michael all voting in the affirmative. 47 48 _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto June 13, 2012 Page 20 of 20 1 MOTION PASSED (4-0-0, Chair Martinez and Vice Chair Fineberg absent) 2 FERRARI:128401.1 1 PERSONAL LICENSE AGREEMENT This Personal License Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of December ___, 2012, which is the date that this Agreement has been fully executed by all of those persons required to sign it (the “Effective Date”),by and between The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, a California corporation sole (“Licensor”), and Rita C. Vrhel (“Licensee”). Licensor and Licensee are collectively referred to herein as the “parties,” and each of them is individually referred to herein as a “party.” RECITALS: A.Licensor is the owner of that certain real property located in Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California, commonly known as 1093-1095 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 (“Licensor’s Property”). B.Licensee owns and resides at that certain real property located in Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California, commonly known as 1125 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 (“Licensee’s Property”). C.Licensee’s Property shares a boundary with Licensor’s Property that is approximately one hundred five feet (105’) long, running on a straight line perpendicular to Channing Avenue, as established by several parcel maps and surveys (the “Shared Boundary”). D.The parties acknowledge and agree that, at some time in the past, a fence was placed alongside the entire length of the boundary between Licensee’s Property and Licensor’s Property (the “Fence”); the parties further acknowledge and agree that, along with the Fence, two large trees that have been planted next to the Fence and some incidental landscaping that has been placed near the Fence (collectively, the “Existing Improvements”) encroach onto Licensor’s Property by approximately two feet (2’) (the “Fenced Area”). E.Licensor and Licensee now desire to resolve any disputes between themselves and their successors and assigns with regard to the Fence, the Existing Improvements and the Fenced Area by memorializing the terms on which Licensor shall allow Licensee personally to keep and maintain the Existing Improvements on the Fenced Area and on which the Fence will be kept, maintained, repaired, improved and removed. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT: 1.License. 1.1 During the Term (defined in Section 2 below), Licensor hereby expressly grants to Licensee a personal license (the “License”) to keep and maintain the Existing Improvements on the Fenced Area, and for no other purpose (the “Permitted FERRARI:128401.1 2 Use”). Licensee expressly may not place any other improvements within the Fenced Area; without limiting the foregoing restriction, Licensee expressly may not plant any large trees within the Fenced Area that would hinder or interfere with the removal of the Fence as provided in this Agreement. 1.2 The parties hereby expressly agree that the rights granted to Licensee under this Agreement are personal to Licensee, are not appurtenant to the Licensor’s Property, may not be assigned or alienated, do not constitute exclusive possession against the rest of the world, and do not constitute a tenancy or any other interest in real property under California law or for any other purpose. The parties further agree that neither party is an agent for or joint venturer with the other party. 1.3 Licensee shall carry out the Permitted Use on the Fenced Area at Licensee’s sole risk, cost and expense, including all insurance and utilities charges relating to the Fenced Area, and Licensee shall be solely responsible for the upkeep, maintenance and repair and/or replacement of the Existing Improvements and the Fenced Area. Licensee shall not make any modifications to the Existing Improvements or the Fenced Area without first obtaining Licensor’s prior written consent, which may be withheld in Licensor’s sole and absolute discretion. Licensee shall keep the Fence, the Existing Improvements, the Fenced Area and Licensor’s Property free of mechanics liens and claims resulting from the Permitted Use or any other activities with regard to the Existing Improvements or the Fenced Area. All activity by Licensee and Licensee’s invitees and contractors with regard to the Existing Improvements or the Fenced Area shall be in compliance with all applicable laws, including all laws pertaining to the handling and/or disposal of hazardous materials. Licensee agrees that the Permitted Use that Licensee conducts with regard to the Existing Improvements and the Fenced Area pursuant to the License shall be subject to such reasonable limits that Licensor may impose from time to time during the Term. The parties further agree that Licensor shall be responsible for all costs associated with the Fence, including any and all costs of insurance, maintenance, repair, improvement, or removal. 2.Term, Termination Date and Removal. The term of this Agreement (the “Term”) shall commence upon the Effective Date and end at such time that Licensee no longer either (a) resides at the Licensee’s Property or (b) holds title to the Licensee’s Property, unless sooner terminated as provided in this Agreement or by the subsequent agreement of the parties (the “Termination Date”). Within ninety (90) days after the Termination Date, Licensee or her successors and assigns shall cause the removal of some or all of the Existing Improvements as determined by Licensor in Licensor’s sole and absolute discretion, and Licensor shall then have the sole and exclusive use of the Fenced Area together with the remainder of the Licensor’s Property. The decision to remove the Fence after the Termination Date, and the timing of such removal, shall be made in Licensor’s sole and absolute discretion, subject to any governmental approvals that may be required, and the removal of the Fence shall to be performed at Licensor’s sole cost and expense. 3.Restoration. In the event that any damage is caused to the Existing Improvements or the Fenced Area during the Term, Licensee shall promptly restore the FERRARI:128401.1 3 Existing Improvements and the Fenced Area to the same condition as existed before such damage, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense. In the event that the Existing Improvements or the Fenced Area is damaged to the extent that Licensee does not wish to perform such restoration, regardless of whether such damage is covered by insurance, Licensee shall have the option to elect not to perform such restoration, provided, however, that Licensee or her successors and assigns shall cause the removal of some or all of the Existing Improvements as determined by Licensor in Licensor’s sole and absolute discretion, and that such election shall terminate the License. In the event that any damage is caused to the Fence during the Term, Licensor shall be responsible for the restoration of the Fence at its sole cost and expense. 4.Indemnity. Licensee agrees to indemnify, defend with counsel of Licensor’s choice, and hold Licensor and Licensor’s shareholders, officers, directors, agents, contractors and employees, and the Existing Improvements, the Fenced Area, and the Licensor’s Property, harmless against, and in respect of, any and all claims, demands, losses, costs, expenses, obligations, liabilities, damages, recoveries, and deficiencies, including without limitation mechanic’s and materialmen’s liens, interest, penalties, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, that Licensor may incur or suffer, that arise, result from, or relate to (a) any breach of, or failure by Licensee to perform, any of Licensee’s representations, warranties, covenants, or agreements under this Agreement, or (b) the Permitted Activities, operations, activities or other conduct of Licensee or Licensee’s invitees or contractors with regard to the Existing Improvements and/or the Fenced Area. To the extent that such claims or damages relate to property damage, this indemnity shall be limited to those perils covered by insurance, to the extent that such insurance proceeds are available. The provisions of this indemnity shall survive the end of the Term with respect to any claims or liability occurring prior to such expiration or sooner termination. 5.Miscellaneous. 5.1 Should any of the provisions of this Agreement be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, in conflict with any applicable law, or otherwise unenforceable for any reason, in whole or in part, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions of the Agreement and of the entire Agreement shall not be affected thereby, but shall be severable and shall remain in force and effect. 5.2 No waiver or breach of any covenant or provision shall be deemed a waiver of any other covenant or provision, and no waiver shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving party. 5.3 All notices, requests, demands, and other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given on the date of service if served personally on the party to whom notice is to be given, or on the third day after mailing if mailed to the party to whom notice is to be given, by first class mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, and properly addressed as follows: FERRARI:128401.1 4 Licensor: The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose 1150 N First St., Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95112 Attn: Facilities Manager Telephone: (408) 983-0168 Facsimile: (408) 983-0296 With a copy to:Daniel S. Gonzales, Esq. Ferrari Ottoboni Caputo & Wunderling LLP 333 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 700 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 280-0535 Facsimile: (408) 280-0151 Licensee: Rita C. Vrhel 1125 Channing Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Any party may change its address for purposes of this Agreement by giving the other parties written notice of the new address in the manner set forth above. 5.4 Headings are solely for the parties’ convenience, are not a part of this Agreement, and shall not be used to interpret this Agreement. The singular form shall include the plural and vice versa. This Agreement shall not be construed as if it had been prepared by one of the parties, but rather as if both parties have prepared it. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Sections are to this Agreement. 5.5 This Agreement may not be amended or altered except by a written instrument executed by the parties. 5.6 Whenever requested to do so by the other party, each party shall do any other acts and execute, acknowledge, and deliver any requested documents in order to carry out the intent and purpose of this Agreement. 5.7 Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer upon any person, other than the parties, any rights or remedies. 5.8 If any lawsuit is filed which relates to or arises out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such attorneys’ fees as the court may award, in addition to such other costs and expenses of suit as may be allowed by law. FERRARI:128401.1 5 5.9 This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, and any question arising under this Agreement shall be construed or determined according to such law. Any action, arbitration, or other proceeding relating to this Agreement shall be instituted and maintained in any court or other forum having jurisdiction over such action, arbitration, or other proceeding in Santa Clara County, California. 5.10 This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement will be considered executed by a party when a copy of the signature of such party is delivered by electronic or facsimile transmission and such copies shall be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose, a California corporation sole By Rev. Msgr. Francis V. Cilia, Attorney in fact Date Rita C. Vrhel Date St. Thomas Aquinas Parish Pastoral Center By____________________________ Rev. Mathew D. Stanley, Pastor Date___________________________ City of Palo Alto (ID # 3399) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2012 Year in Review Title: 2012 Year in Review From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Discussion Each year in December the City Manager provides a “Year in Review” presentation to the City Council and the community. The year end wrap-up provides an opportunity to report on the accomplishments of the past year on our service to the community, and on Council priorities and other major initiatives. It is also a time to look at what is ahead in the coming year. In 2012 the City had five Council priorities:  City Finances  Land Use & Transportation Planning  Environmental Sustainability  Emergency Preparedness  Community Collaboration for Youth Well Being Council should be proud of the progress made this year. Staff is looking forward to making the (powerpoint) presentation to Council and the community on Monday, December 17, 2012. City of Palo Alto (ID # 3384) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/17/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Yangpu District Partnership Title: Presentation and Update on Council and Staff Visit to Yangpu District, China and Request for Direction on Next Steps of Partnership Between the City of Palo Alto and the Yangpu District of China From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council accept the report of activities of the recent Bay Area Council delegation to China and direct staff to continue pursuing a formal “Smart Cities” partnership with the Yangpu District of Shanghai (Yangpu) by 1) Exploring the Palo Alto Unified School District’s interest in creating a student exchange program, 2) Engaging with Bay Area Council and Yangpu Officials to explore City participation in a “Smart Cities” Conference in Summer 2013, and 3) Engaging the Stanford Research Park management and employers to identify areas of mutual interest and potential collaboration with the Bay Area- Yangpu Digitization Park management and employers. Background In September, the Council approved the signing of an “Intention Agreement” between Palo Alto and Yangpu, and directed staff to explore options for structuring a formal relationship (Attachment 1). The agreement was subsequently signed at a formal ceremony in Palo Alto on September 27th, 2012. In late November, Mayor Yeh, Councilmember Shepherd, Councilmember-Elect Berman, the City Manager, and the Economic Development Manager joined a delegation to China organized by the Bay Area Council. The purpose of the trip was to use the Bay Area Council’s existing relationships in China, specifically with the Yangpu, to strengthen connections and provide context for a potential partnership between Palo Alto and Yangpu. Yangpu is a district within Shanghai, with a population of one million that is City of Palo Alto Page 2 home to several universities and is rapidly transition to a technology and innovation based center. The Bay Area Council prepared a very robust schedule of visits with government officials, educational institutions, and business leaders in and around Yangpu. At the request of the Palo Alto representatives, the Bay Area Council added a day to the beginning of the schedule (prior to the full delegation arriving) for meetings focused on Palo Alto/Yangpu collaboration. On November 29th, 2012, Palo Alto and Yangpu once again held a signing ceremony for the “Intention Agreement “in Yangpu District, Shanghai. Staff has prepared an oral/visual presentation to give to the Council and Community at the December 17th meeting. Discussion Thanks to the efforts of the Bay Area Council’s existing relationships, staff work, and planning acumen, the recent trip by Palo Alto representatives to Shanghai, China was fruitful. Our expected outcomes were met or exceeded. These included: building relationships with potential partners, gaining an understanding of the Yangpu innovation economy, and exploring the context for which a strategic “Smart Cities” partnership could be mutually beneficial. Many meetings were held with leaders from government, industry, and educational institutions. From the Palo Alto perspective, these meetings were largely focused on relationship building and learning, but some opportunities have already emerged for potential collaboration. Staff is seeking Council direction to engage the Palo Alto Unified School District to evaluate options for a potential student exchange program between Palo Alto and Yangpu. Beyond the educational aspects, such a program could include an internship component with companies located in our respective regions. Such a program could potentially be very valuable to students and help to build a long-term connection between Yangpu and Palo Alto. Further, staff is seeking Council direction to engage with the Bay Area Council and Yangpu Officials to determine what role Palo Alto could take in a “Smart Cities” conference, which would most likely focus on areas of strategic partnership in innovation-driven economic development, green initiatives, and community City of Palo Alto Page 3 engagement. The conference will most likely happen in Yangpu in the summer of 2013 with a potential 2014 conference in Palo Alto. Lastly, staff seeks Council direction to approach management and companies in the Stanford Research Park to explore options for potential collaborative efforts with the Bay Area-Yangpu Digitization Park. Timeline Most of the exploratory work will take place in the first quarter of 2013, at which point staff will return to Council with any recommendations/ further analysis. Resource Impact Some routine staff time will be absorbed, but staff will rely on partners such as Bay Area Council and the Palo Alto Unified School District to help advance any of these partnership opportunties. Attachments:  Attachment 1. Staff Report 9-24-12 (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3165) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/24/2012 Summary Title: Exploration of Formal Relationship with Yangpu Title: Authorization to Explore Formal "Partnership Cities" Relationship with the Yangpu District of China From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the attached “Intention Agreement” and direct staff to explore options for structuring a formal relationship with the Yangpu District of Shanghai, China. Background Palo Alto has long been known as a center of innovation-driven business and culture, and has attracted visitors from many other cities and regions internationally. Over the last several decades, working with Neighbors Abroad, the City has established many formal “Sister Cities” relationships. Primarily, these relationships have focused on cultural and educational exchanges. Recently, we have begun building on the foundation of our cultural and educational ties with some of our Sister Cities to explore strategic relationships in the areas of sustainability and economic development as well. Beyond our Sister Cities, the City regularly hosts visiting delegations from many cities and regions from around the world, largely on an ad hoc basis. The City is routinely asked to explore possibilities for additional formal relationships, especially in terms of connections to Palo Alto companies, talent, and best practices. In assessing how Palo Alto’s should consider these offers to ensure mutual benefit to any such relationship and the establishment of the suitable policy framework for deciding to enter into a partnership, staff and various Council Members have engaged in dialogues with several key regions and cities. While we have had a series of very fruitful meetings with Heidelberg, Germany (we expect to be back to Council in the fall about Heidelberg), it seems clear that forming a relationship with a city in China at this time has the potential for mutual benefit for Palo Alto. Over the past several years, the Bay Area Council, a business-backed public policy advocacy organization of which Palo Alto is an affiliate, has been engaged in creating a formal region-to-region partnership with the Yangpu District of Shanghai, China. As such, they have a working knowledge of the region, especially as it relates to creating value for the San Francisco Bay Area’s cities and region. They also have staff based in the Bay Area and in Shanghai dedicated to promoting relationships of mutual interest. The Bay Area Council staff approached Palo Alto earlier this year to propose a partnership between Palo Alto and Yangpu. Staff is interested in connecting with the resources and expertise of the Bay Area Council to help ease our entry into this area. Discussion Staff recommends engaging with Yangpu District, through our existing mutual ties to the Bay Area Council, in a non-binding collaboration to learn about the Yangpu region and China more generally and to explore potential opportunities of mutual benefit. Earlier this year in July, representatives from the Bay Area Council and the California State Economic Development Commissioner introduced Yangpu District to the Palo Alto City Council. This presentation highlighted Yangpu District as a region with similarities to and potential benefits for Palo Alto, especially in terms of local higher education and business resources. Fudan University is one of the oldest universities in China and notable for its life sciences, natural sciences, engineering and technology, and arts and humanities. Additionally, VMWare, a major employer in Palo Alto is also a business leader in Yangpu. By partnering in our process with the Bay Area Council, staff intends to leverage their knowledge and resources, to establish a baseline of cross-cultural understanding, and explore a strategic partnership structure over for a period of no more than three years. During this time, the City staff will not explore formal relationships with other Chinese regions or cities. The product of our exploration is intended to provide the framework for identifying specific opportunities or initiatives to collaborate on that would then be brought back to Council for consideration and approval. By executing the attached “Intention Agreement” at a special event hosted by the Bay Area Council, the City will express its openness to cultural exchange, learning, and exploration of partnership opportunities between our respective entities. However, the City will not be bound by any contract or held to any specific outcomes. Timeline A signing ceremony for the attached “Intention Agreement” is scheduled with the City, Bay Area Council and Officials from the Yangpu District for Thursday, September 27th. Staff will work together with the Bay Area Council, and representatives of Yangpu to complete the exploration and make any recommended Council action within a period of no more than 3 years. Resource Impact Some routine staff time will be absorbed, but staff will rely largely on the efforts of the Bay Area Council, which is a key factor in making this reommendation. Attachments:  Attachment A: Yangpu Intention Agreement (DOC) Prepared By: Thomas Fehrenbach, Econ Dev Mgr Department Head: James Keene, City Manager City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager INTENTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA, USA AND YANGPU DISTRICT, SHANGHAI, CHINA In the spirit of friendship and the principle of equality and mutual benefit, through friendly negotiation, City of Palo Alto, CA, USA and Yangpu District, Shanghai, China, agree to execute this Intention Agreement to support the following principles and actions: 1. The Parties agree to explore mutual economic interactions to enhance the economic health and betterment of their respective communities and enterprises. 2. The Parties facilitate technological, scientific, environmental sustainability, educational and cultural exchanges between their communities. 3. The Parties strive to keep each other informed on important economic and civic issues. 4. The Parties will seek opportunities to promote public awareness of the agreement. 5. No Party has the power of authority to legally bind any other Party and nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing any Party to act as an agent or representative of any other Party. Nothing in this Intention Agreement shall be construed to create or constitute a legally binding obligation of the Parties. 6. The agreement shall have a term of three years through September 30, 2015 with an option for the Parties to consider renewal of the agreement at the end of the term. In Witness, Whereof, the Parties have duly executed this Intention Agreement on this 27th day of September, 2012. CITY OF PALO ALTO YANGPU DISTRICT City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO December 17, 2012 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 3388) DATE: December 17, 2012 TO: City Council Members FROM: Council Member Price, Council Member Shepherd, Mayor Yeh SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM MAYOR YEH AND COUNCIL MEMBERS PRICE AND SHEPHERD REGARDING YOUTH COUNCIL LIAISON Recommendation That the Council Project Safety Net (PSN) Liaison role be renamed “Youth Liaison” and expanded to include serving as liaison to the City’s Youth Council. Background In 2010, the Mayor expanded liaison appointments to include a Council Liaison to PSN. This memo recommends that the PSN liaison position to renamed to Youth Liaison, and expand the role to also include serving as liaison to the City’s Youth Council. This expansion of the council appointment is an effort to solidify and sustain efforts to support the City’s priority of Collaboration for Youth Health and Well-Being. The position is intended to ensure a Councilmember is designated as a formal link to enhance the communication between the youth and the City Council and generate improved communication and understanding of youth issues. The liaison would become the go-between to contact Youth Council when issues about youth are before the City Council and encourage them to make comments about agendized and non- agendized youth-related issues, activities, concerns and events. The goal is to expand on Council relationships with the youth of our community. In order to reduce the duplication of efforts and interests, the Youth Liaison would also serve as the liaison to Project Safety Net. This would further enhance and promote communication of important and timely information to the City Council, Youth Council and the community. The City Council would continue to have a study session for the Youth Council, which provides an opportunity for the Palo Alto Youth Council and Teen Advisory Council to highlight their accomplishments and further inform the Council of youth-related issues and concerns. Conclusion The City Council continues to take important steps to support and empower youth in Palo Alto. As the Community Collaborative for Youth Health and Well-Being completes its third year as a December 17, 2012 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 3388) City Council priority, the creation of a Youth Liaison by expanding the PSN Liaison role would formalize and further strengthen the City Council's and the City’s commitment to youth.