HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-09 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting
Council Chambers
September 9, 2013
5:30 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 September 9, 2013
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to
be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that
is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the
entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the
item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the
Council, but it is very helpful.
TIME ESTIMATES
Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council
meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including
while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on
any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting.
Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may
occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the
public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of
the meeting and remaining until the item is called.
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW
Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public
discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after
other members of the public have spoken.
Call to Order
Closed Session 5:30-6:00 PM
1. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY/LEGAL COUNSEL
Potential Litigation – One Matter
Subject: Construction of the Mitchell Park Library and Community
Center
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9
6:00-6:45 PM
2. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-Potential Litigation (1 Case)
Relating to State Water Project Property Tax Levy
Govt Code Section Section 54956.9(d)(4)
2 September 9, 2013
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Special Orders of the Day 6:45-7:00 PM
3. Proclamation Expressing Appreciation for the Volunteer Efforts of
Manao and Peter Keegan in Establishing a Student Exchange To
Yangpu District, Shanghai, China
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 7:00-7:10 PM
Oral Communications 7:10-7:25 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of
Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Minutes Approval 7:25-7:30 PM
August 5, 2013
August 8, 2013
Consent Calendar 7:30-7:45 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
4. Approval of Three Contracts with: 1) Navigant Consulting Inc. for
Electric Regulatory and Technical Consulting Services for a Total
Amount Not to Exceed $117,500 Over Three Years; 2) Flynn Resources
Consulting Inc. for Electric Regulatory and Technical Consulting
Services for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $225,000 Over Three
Years; and 3) Navigant Consulting Inc. for Gas Regulatory and
Technical Consulting Services for a Total Amount Not to Exceed
$225,000 Over Three Years
5. Approval to Increase the Existing Sole Source Purchase Authority with
National Meter and Automation, Inc. in the Amount of $150,000 a Year
for Two Years for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $900,000 to
Purchase Additional Meters for the Large Water Meter
Replacement/Repair Project
6. Approval to Utilize the Renewal of The Western State Contracting
Alliance (WSCA) Contract for Wireless and Cellular Services with
Verizon Wireless
7. Council Review of an Appeal of the Director's Architectural Review
Approval of a 15,000 square foot, Four-story, 50 foot, Mixed Use
3 September 9, 2013
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Building in the CD-C-GF-P Zone District located at 240 Hamilton
Avenue and a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
8. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking And Tobacco
Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish New Smoking
Restrictions for All Parks; Increase No-Smoking Buffer Zones from 20
to 25 feet for Consistency with LEED Standards; and Make Findings
Regarding the Purpose of No-Smoking Regulations (1st Reading
August 12, 2013 PASSED: 8-1 Burt no)
9. SECOND READING: Adoption of Ordinance Revising the Municipal Code
Pertaining to Boards and Commissions Recruitment Process (1st
Reading August 12, 2013 PASSED: 9-0)
10. SECOND READING: Adoption of Ordinance amending the PAMC to add
section 9.61.020 to establish Community Facilities Hours, including
Cubberley, Stern and Mitchell Community Centers (1st Reading August
19, 2013 PASSED: 7-1 Berman absent, Holman no)
11. Vote to Endorse the Slate of Candidates for the Division’s Executive
Committee for 2013-14 and Direct the City Clerk to Forward to Jessica
Stanfill Mullin, the Regional Public Affairs Manager for the Peninsula
Division, League of California Cities the Completed Ballot for the City
of Palo Alto
12. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of
$585,000 to Fund the November 2013 Election Costs for Measure D
13. Approval of Walk and Roll to School Maps for the Safe Routes to
School Program for Public Schools
14. Approval of Utilities Enterprise Fund Construction Contract No.
C14141174 with DN Tanks, Inc. In a Not to Exceed Amount of
$340,000 for Repairs at Mayfield Reservoir
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:45-8:30 PM
15. Policy and Services Committee Recommends Approval of the Allocation
of the Stanford University Medical Center Funds
4 September 9, 2013
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
8:30-9:15 PM
16. Adoption of a Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Renaming the Main Library as the Rinconada Library
9:15-10:00 PM
17. Finance Committee Recommendation that the City Council Adopt a
Resolution Suspending PaloAltoGreen's Full Needs Program for All
Electric Customers and Reducing PaloAltoGreen's Commercial Electric
Block Rate by Repealing Rate Schedule E-1-G and Amending Rate
Schedules E-2-G, E-4-G, E-7-G and E-18-G, and Directing Staff to
Develop a PaloAltoGreen Gas Program and a Plan for Accumulated
PaloAltoGreen Revenues
10:00-10:30 PM
18. Approval of City Positions for the 2013 League of California Cities
Resolutions
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 10:30-10:45 PM
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
5 September 9, 2013
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Policy and Services Committee Meeting September 10, 2013
Regional Housing Mandate Committee Meeting September 12, 2013
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Public Letters to Council Set One
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
Expressing Appreciation for the Volunteer Efforts of
Manao and Peter Keegan in Establishing a Student Exchange
To Yangpu District, Shanghai, China
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto recently signed a Smart City Partnership Agreement with the District
of Yangpu, Shanghai, China; and
WHEREAS, as part of this agreement, the City is interested in creating an exchange program for high
school Students which highlighted intercultural understanding and experiential learning; and
WHEREAS, in a very short amount of time, Manao and Peter Keegan managed to put together a very
meaningful trip for 6 students to Shanghai, China; and
WHEREAS, Manao and Peter Keegan’s leadership, can-do spirit, and associates were engaged to create
a 3-week program that provided tremendous opportunities for students to emerge in language, cultural, and
business in Yangpu; and
WHEREAS, during the trip, Peter Keegan kept an email diary of the students daily activities, which was
well-received by parents and city officials; and
WHEREAS, the students all reported an extremely positive experience that was illuminating,
educational, and life-changing; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto thanks all of the people and organizations that the Keegan’s
collaborated with to produce an amazing experience, including Dr. Ken Fong, who provided a generous
donation to underwrite a major portion of the program, the Yangpu District Government, Longfeifei, Fudan
University, VMWare/EMC, General Motors, Wells Fargo, the American Chamber of Commerce, and so
many others.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, H. Gregory Scharff, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City
Council extend our deepest thanks to Manao and Peter Keegan for their generous donation of time, talent,
and treasure to produce such a meaningful program for the youth of Palo Alto.
Presented September 9, 2013
__________________________
H. Gregory Scharff
Mayor
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4044)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/9/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Gas and Electric Regulatory and Legislative Professional
Services Contracts
Title: Approval of Three Contracts with: 1) Navigant Consulting Inc. for
Electric Regulatory and Technical Consulting Services for a Total Amount Not
to Exceed $117,500 Over Three Years; 2) Flynn Resources Consulting Inc. for
Electric Regulatory and Technical Consulting Services for a Total Amount Not
to Exceed $225,000 Over Three Years; and 3) Navigant Consulting Inc. for Gas
Regulatory and Technical Consulting Services for a Total Amount Not to
Exceed $225,000 Over Three Years
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council:
1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached three
contracts with (1) Navigant Consulting Inc. (Navigant) for Electric Technical and Regulatory
Consulting Services, (2) Flynn Resource Consulting Inc. (Flynn RCI) for Electric Technical and
Regulatory Consulting Services, and (3) Navigant Consulting Inc. (Navigant) for Gas Technical
and Regulatory Consulting Services; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to extend the contracts annually for up to two
additional years, subject to Council approval of sufficient funds.
The annual contract amounts by contract year and by fund for the consulting services are as
follows:
Consultant/Fund Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
a) Navigant Consulting/Electric $ 37,500 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $117,500
b) Flynn RCI/Electric $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $225,000
c) Navigant Consulting/Gas $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $225,000
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Executive Summary
The three proposed contracts will provide the City with the assistance needed to help to
protect Palo Alto’s local control as a publicly-owned utility, to improve electric transmission
reliability through increased options for cost-effective transmission services and solutions, to
respond to cap-and-trade regulations for both the gas and electric utilities, and to prevent
unjustified cost shifting to the City. Services will include technical analysis and intervention in
state and federal regulatory proceedings and legislative matters. Any interventions will be
consistent with City-adopted guidelines for state and federal legislative efforts.
Background
For more than two decades, the City of Palo Alto has retained consultants to assist staff with
electric and natural gas federal and state regulatory proceedings and with technical projects.
The City’s current electric regulatory consultants provide technical assistance and intervention
in the area of regulatory and Bay Area transmission planning proceedings at the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the
California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The City’s gas consultant provides assistance in
regulatory proceedings at the CPUC and with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) settlement
processes and negotiations.
The consultants review pending and approved filings and analyze potential cost and/or control
impacts to the City. Often the consultants assist staff by recommending positions and by
crafting language to support those positions in informal communications and formal filings.
Discussion
Electric Consulting Services
In order to maintain local control and guard against potential unjustified cost shifts to publicly-
owned utilities, it is of vital importance that the City protects its interests. During the next
three years, electric regulatory proceedings that will affect the City and its customers will
continue in several major areas at both the state and federal levels. Issues include the ongoing
updates and changes to the California transmission and capacity markets, long-term
transmission grid planning and investment, legislation and regulation to protect against market
manipulation, transmission access charge settlement and implementation, transmission grid
reliability standards with increasing regulatory filing requirements for the City as a distribution
service provider, and increasing legislative and regulatory compliance and reporting
requirements related to energy efficiency, demand reduction, renewable energy supply, and
environmental initiatives such as greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The City advocates for long-term solutions to improve reliability of electricity supply in the Bay
Area at the state and federal levels. The City also works closely with other municipal utilities
and electric consumer groups in the Bay Area on planning and advocating for additional new
transmission and generation projects.
Consultant assistance is needed to supplement staff resources in conducting technical and
economic studies and to provide technical support for legal and regulatory interventions.
Anticipated projects over the next three years include evaluation of cost-effective demand
reduction, local distributed cogeneration and renewable energy programs, greenhouse gas
emissions reduction and reporting, analyzing and responding to new transmission market
proposals, and evaluation of transmission and distribution infrastructure alternatives that
would improve reliability.
Gas Consulting Services
Several CPUC proceedings will impact Palo Alto over the next three years. In the wake of the
San Bruno pipeline explosion, proceedings are underway to address pipeline safety issues.
Since safety projects generally require large capital investments, unwarranted cost shifting to
Palo Alto is of major concern. In FY 2014, PG&E’s Biennial Cost Allocation Proceeding will be
also of interest to the City. In addition, the current settlement known as the Gas Accord will
expire at the end of 2014. Access to pipeline capacity as well as rates for backbone
transmission are at stake in this settlement process. The City’s interventions in these matters
have resulted in benefits to gas customers, including retention of low-cost gas transmission
path rights.
Consultant assistance may also be needed to supplement staff resources in developing
programs and projects related to cap-and-trade and internal green initiatives regarding the gas
utility.
Selection Process
In June 2013 a Request for Proposals (RFP) was sent to 13 consulting firms known to offer
relevant services. The RFP allowed consultants to respond to one or both of the major sections
of the scope of work: Electric Technical Consulting, Legislative and Regulatory Services and Gas
Technical Consulting, and Legislative and Regulatory Services. The RFP also stated that more
than one consulting firm may be retained to perform the tasks outlined in the scope of work.
Three firms submitted proposals responding to all or parts of the scope of work. Staff reviewed
each firm's qualifications and submittal in response to the RFP relative to the criteria outlined in
the RFP. Major evaluation criteria included experience of the firm and the individuals proposed
to perform the tasks, quality of services to be provided, cost, recent dealing with relevant
agencies, and the quality and completeness of the proposal.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Navigant was the sole proposer for gas regulatory services and, because Navigant was deemed
to be responsive and qualified, was selected as the winning (and only) proposer. Navigant and
Flynn RCI were both selected to provide electric regulatory and technical consulting. KEMA Inc.
was the only other firm with a proposal to perform electric regulatory services, but the cost of
those services was not competitive, and the proposal was incomplete. Work under all three
contracts will be performed and paid for on an as-needed basis. There is no minimum payment
required, nor any annual fee to maintain the consultant on a retainer.
Both electric-related service agreements have the same scope of work to provide flexibility in
responding to City’s needs over the next three years. However, Flynn RCI’s work will often
leverage similar work performed by the consultant for the Bay Area Municipal Transmission
group, of which City is a member.
The technical services and intervention in federal and state proceedings provided under these
three contracts are different from those provided by the City’s contract lobbyist, Van Scoyoc
Associates Inc. In addition, although the City is a dues-paying member of several associations,
the services provided by Navigant and Flynn RCI will be customized to Palo Alto’s needs and are
necessary to protect the City’s unique interests.
Resource Impact
The total cost for electric and gas consulting services by contract year is show below:
Consultant/Fund Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
Navigant Consulting/Electric $ 37,500 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $117,500
Flynn RCI/Electric $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $225,000
Navigant Consulting/Gas $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $225,000
Funds for through June 2014 are included in the FY 2014 Electric and Gas Fund budgets. Funds
for subsequent months and years will be subject to appropriation of funds in subsequent
budgets.
Policy Implications
This recommendation sets no new Council policy and is consistent with the Council-approved
Utilities Strategic Plan.
Environmental Review
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Council’s approval of these consulting contracts does not require California Environmental
Quality Act review, as this action does not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21065.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Navigant Consulting Inc for Professional Services (Electric) (PDF)
Attachment B - Flynn Resource Consultants Inc for Professional Services (Electric) (PDF)
Attachment C - Navigant Consulting Inc for Professional Services (Gas) (PDF)
C ITY OF PALO ALTO COi'o'TRACf NO. C141502378
AGREEMEi'oT BETWEEN THE C ITY OF PALO ALTO A, .... D
NAVIGA/H CONSULTING, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (ELECfRI C)
ThisAgrcernent is entered inloon this 9th dayofScptembcr, 2013,{~Agrcernent") by
tilld bety,'een the CITY O F PALO ALTO, a California ehanered nlunicipal corporation ("'CITV-),
and NA VIGANT CONSUL TlNG.iNC .. a Delaware corporation, located &t3100 Zmfandel Drive,
Sulle 600, Rancho Cordova.. CA 95670 (-CONSULT Arfr).
lu:cn'ALS
The follOWing recitals are a substantive portiOfl of this AgreefI\Cf1t.
A, CITY intends to panieipate in energy (gas & electric) tcchnical, regulatory, and legisl~tivc
processes ("Projccl") and desires to engage a consultant to assist CIIY slaff In In cnergy (gas &
electric) lechnical. regulatory. and legislativc processes in COMl!I;lion with the Project ("Services"),
B, CONSULTANT has represented that il has the neeessary professional ex.pertise,
qualifications, and capability. and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services,
C , C ITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the
Sc-rvicc:s as more fully described 111 Ex.hiblt "A", aHached to and made a part of this Agreement.
NOW, T HEREFORE, in consideratIOn orthe redtals, covenanlS, terms. and conditions, In
this Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES, CONSULTANT shall perfonn the Scfvices described In
Exhibil ~A~ in accordance with the temu and conditions contained in thiS Agreement. The
perfonnancc orall Services shall be to the reawnable satisfaclion of CITY,
SECTION 2. TERM.
The It'Ill1 of this Agrttmc::nt shall bl' from the date orits full execution through ScptembeT 8. 2016
lIDless terminated earlier pursuant to SectiOfl 19 of this Agreement.
TIme IS oftlte eMeUCC in the perfonnanec or
t I the term of this
Agreement and In acOOf'tlano:e with the schedule set .. made. pan
of this AgreemCI'l\. Any Semccs for which times for performance are not speclfied 10 thiS
Agreement sha.ll be c:omrnenced and completed by CONSULTANT 10 • reusonably promp! and
, f 1-'--0 __ I.!OII
timcly malUler based upon the cirx;umsumees lind direction communicated to the CONSULTANT.
CITY' ~ agreement to extend the tenn or !he schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of
damage~ for delay if the extension is required due to the faull of CONSUL T ANT.
S ECTION 4, NOT TO EXC1:ED COMV.:NSA TlON. The compellSatiOl1 to be paid to
CONSULTANT for perfonnancc of the SelViccs described in Exhibit"A ", incl uding both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Orn: Hundred Sevemcet1
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars (SI17,500.00). The applicabkrnlcs and scbeduleofpaymentan: set
out in Exhibit ~C-I ". enlitled "HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE:' which is attaclled toand madea part
of this Agr~'emcnl.
Additional SclVices, ifany, shaH be authorized in accordance with and subject 10 the provisioru; of
Exhibit ··C'. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Servicespcrforrned
withoutthc prior wrincD authorizatioo orCIn'. Additional SelVices sball mean any work that is
determined by CITY 10 be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope of SelVices described in Exhibit "A".
SECTION S. INVOICt:S.1n order to request paymcot. CONSULTANT shall submit moothly
invoices to the CITY describing the services perfomled and the applicable charges (including an
idcntification of personnel who perfonned the selVices, hours worked, hourly mtes, and
reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (sct forth in Exhibit "C-I~).
If applicablc. the lIIvoice shall also describe the pen;entage of completion of eacll IIIsk. The
information in CQNSULTANT's paymem requests shall be subject to verification b)' CITY.
CONSULT ANT shall send aU invoices to tile City's project ma.nager at the address specified in
Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay mvoice:s wilhin tllirty (30) days of
receipt.
SECTION 6. Q UA LIFICATIONS/STANDARIl OF CAR E. All of the SelVkes sllall be
performed by CONSULTANT or undcT CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULT ANT represents
tllat it possesses the professional and technical personnel neccsSllI)' to perfonn the SelVices required
by thisAgrecmcot and that the personnel have sufficiem suI! and experience to perform tlte Serv1ces
a.ssigned to them. CONSULTANT represenlS that it, itscmployccswldsubconsultants. ifpennitted,
have and shall maimaiD dunng the term of tllis Agreement 011 licenses, permits, qualifiCiltioDS,
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that arc lcgally required to perfonn the SelVices.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agn:emenl sllall meet the
professional slIIndard and qUlllity tllPt prevail among professionals in the same discipl ine and of
similar knowledge aoo su !J engaged in re lated work throughout California under !he .>arne or simi lar
circumstances.
SECT ION 7. COl\tPLlANC ': WIT H LAWS. CONSULTANT shall k~p itselfinfonned orand
in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, n:gulatioDS. and order.; that may
affect in any manner the Project or tile perfonnance of the Services or those engaged 10 perfonn
SelVices undet" this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procun: all permits and licenses. pay all
cllarges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the perfonnance of the SclViccs.
SECTION 8. ERRO RS/QMISSIONS. CONSUL TANTsha!l COrrecl, &tll0C05tl0 CITY. any and 1'1"0 ___
Ilov "'"' 1.1011
all erron, omiS~iI()tlS, or ambiguities In lhe work product submmed to CITY, proVided C ITY givcs
notiee to CONSULTANT. If CONSUL T ANT h:w plqlared plans and spa;ilicatioos or other design
documents 10 construclthe 1'mJ<'CI, CONSULTANT shall be obligated toc=t any and alil:'llOfS.
omissions or ambiguities dISCOver«! prior to and dunng the course of construction of the ProJa:L
Thb obligation shall $Ul"<lve IcnnilUluOIl of the Agreement.
St:cnON 9. COST t:STIMAn:S.lfthI5 A~ent pertains to the design ora public works
proja:l. CONSULT ANT shall submit estimlUes of probable constructioo costs at cacb phase of
desilln submlltal. I ftlM: total esllmated constructIOn cost at any submittal cxcet'ds ten percent (' 0%)
of the CITY's stated construction budget. CONSULTANT shall make rc:commendations to the
CITY for ahgnlng the I'ROJECf design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved
recommendatioru. and rc:visc the design to mcc:t the ProJa:t budget. at no additiolUll C05\ to CITY.
SECTION Ill. INOEPENDt:NTCONTRACIQR. It is understood and agrc:cd that in perfonning
the ServiCes under th;~ Agreement CONSULT ANT, and any penon employed by or contracted with
CONSUL TAlI.'T to furnish labor and/or matcrials under this Agm:mcnl. shall act lIS and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee ofthc CITY.
The partlCS agree tMt the e~perti se and experience of
;;;;;;;;i,;G;;;iij"",,,j,~ for this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall not assign or
tfllnsfer any interest in till' Agrecmmt nor the perfOnn3nceofanyofCONSUL TANT's obligations
hereunder without the prior wrilten COlIscnt of the city nJallager. Consel1l to OIlC assignmcm willoot
be deemed 10 be consent tOMy subsC(jucntllSSignmcnL Ally assignmcotmade without the approval
of the city manaJ!er will be void.
St:cnON 12 . SU8CO~TRACTI NG.
CONSULTANT shall !lOt subcontract allY portion of the work 10 be perfomlCd under this Agreement
without the pnor wnltell authorization of the cHy malll1ger or designee.
CONSULTANT shall be respclI1siblc for directillg the work of allY subconsultants and for allY
compensation due to subcoosultaolS. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensatIOn. CONSULTANT shall be fully resp()I1sible 10 CITY for all acts and omissiolls of a
subcoruiullllnt. CONSULT Am shall change or add subcoruiuitants only With the prior approval of
the city rnal1llger or his designee.
SEO'ION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULT ANT will assign Gordon Picl.:erinJ!
lIS the I'mjecl Supervisor to have supervisory responsibiliTY for the perfonnance, progress. and
execution of tIM: Services to IqlresmtCONSUL TAl\'T duriTlg theday-to-day won: on the Projc:ct.lf
circumstances cause the substitutioo of the project din'Ctor, project coordinator, or llITy other key
pelSO!1llel fur allY reason. the appomtmcnt ofa substmue project dllttlOr i1l1d the assignmelli of any
key new or rrpllltetnCllt personnel will be subject to the prior wrillen approval of the C'TY's project
managei'. CONSULTANT. al CITY's requcst, shall promptly remove perso!Jl\Cl who CITY findsdo
001: perfonn the Sen-ices in an acceptab'e nl3llDtr, are ul1CO()po!rative, or present I threat to the
adequate or timely completion of the ProjC:C1 or. threat to the safety of penoru or property.
The City's projc:ct manager is Karla Dailey, Utilities lkpartmellt, Resource Mal18.gernent Divls1OJl .
• ,10 1_
~ """ !.lOll
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Aho, CA 94303, Telephone (650)329-2523, The project manager will
be CONSUL TANT"s point of COf1taCI with I\"spect to performance. progress and execution of the
Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from lime to lime.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Consultant will retain sole and exclusive
ownership of all right, tide and interest in its work papers, proprietary infonnation. processes.
methodologies, know-how and software and any patent. oopyright, imdemarlr::, trade secre! and other
intellectual property rights which exist<!1i prior 10 the delivc:r}' of Consultant . s services ("Consultant
Property'l. To the extent that any won: product delivered to the City eontainsCOlISultallt Property,
Consultant grantS the City a nOli-exclusive. non-assignable. royalty-free license to use it solely in
oonnecuon with the subject of the engagement. This Section 14 mall survive temlination of the
Agreement.
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 th is Agreement. CONSULT ANT further agrees 10 maintain and
retain such records for al least three: (3) years after the expinnioll or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
SECriON 16. INnEMNITV.
16.1. To the fullest extent permill<!1i by law, CONSULTA!>.'T shall protect.
indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY. i1:5 Council members, officers, cmployees and ageots
(each an "lndemnilicd Party") from and againSI any and all third party demands, claims, or liability
of any nature, including death or injury 10 any persall, property damage or anYOllH:r loss, includlllg
all COSI!l and expenses of whate\'er nature including attorneys fees. e)(pelU fees, court CO!lts and
disbursemen1:5 ("Claims") resulting from. arising out of or in any manner related to perfotmance or
nonperfonnance by CONSULT ANT, its officers, employees. agents or eonlnlctors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indcmnifi~"<I Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to
require CONSULTANT 10 indemnify an Indemnified Pany from Claims arising from the aCl1ve
negligence • .sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSUL T ANT's services and duties by C ITV shall not
openlte as a waiver ofthe right of indemnifi~ation. Thc provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expiration or early tennination of this Agreement.
16.4 Notwithstanding Sections 16.1 through 16.3, CONSULT Al\'T shall not be
required to indemnify CITV for any liability. loss or damage in excess of the amount of
insurance coverage in the professionalliabi!ily requirements set fOM in Section 18 and EJdtibit
S[CTION 17. W AIV[RS. Thewaiver bycitherp.1rtyofllIlY breach or violation ofWlycovenant.
term, condition or provision ofmis Agreement. or of me provisiol1!l of any ordinance or law, will not
be deemed to be a wai""r of any other teno, covenant. condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of
lilly sub5cql>C1lt breacb or ~iolatioo of the same or of any other term. covenant. condJtlOf\, proV1:S1OIl.
ordllloal1CC 01' law.
St:cnON 18. INSURANCE,
18.1. CONSULT AI'll". at ito; sole: COIiI and expense. shall obmin and mainllllfl, In full
force and effect dunng the k:mJ of thIS Agreement.. the insurance co"ernge described In EAhibn -0 ".
CONSULTANT and ilS conlraCtors, Ifan)" shall obtain. policy mdorsanmtnamlDg CITY as an
addllionall~ under any gencraillabihly or automobile policy or pollCl~.
18.2, AU InSUI'1lJlCIe coverage: reqUIred nerelUldl:r shall be pro\'ided through cam~
WIth AM Iks's Kcy Banng Guide .. tmgs of A-:VU or higher wruch arc: licensed or authorized to
transact 1I1SUrance bustness in the Slnll: of Cal Ifomi a. AIly and all contractors of CONSUL T ANT
retained to perform Sav1CCS undcrthl5 AgrrcmcDt ~'ilI obtain mil maintain, In full force and effeel
dunng the ~nn of this AgIl!etnl.'llt. idcnllC3l insurance CO\'erage, naming CITY as an addil10nal
insured under such poIiclcs as required abo,e.
18.3. Cenlfieate:S evidenci ng such tnsurance shall be filed WIth Cll~ concum:ntly
Wtth !he eJ(ecuuon oftlus A~mml TIte certificates .... '111 be subject to the approvaJ orCITY's Risk
MllnIIger and will contain an cndorsmv:nt staring thaI the insurance is primary coverage and ~in DOl
be canceled, or lIlIlIenally reduced In coverage or hmlt.'l, by the msUJ"CI" eJ(cC'plaftcr filing WLth tbe
l'un::h&sing Manager thirty (30) days' pnor wnltro OOIice nr the canccllation or modification. J ({he
insurer cancels or modifies the iru;untnCe and provides less thm thirty (30) days' norice l()
CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall use best drom 10 mdeayor to provide the Pun:hasing
MlUlfIgcr ..... riuen OOlICC of the eancellallOO ormodificatlOD. CONSULTANT shall berespoosible: for
enstmng that current certI fICates evldencmg the insuntLoce are provided to CITY's Pu~basmg
M!tIlagcr during thc entire lenn ofmis A~nt.
I SA . 1M procuring of such reqULn.'d polLey or policies of insUJ'.mce willllOl be
ooll.'llTUcd 10 hmLl CONSUl. T ANT. habLhty he~ndernorto fulfilltht indemnification provisions
Oflhls Agreement. NOlwLlhsWldmg the polLey or policics of insurance. CONSULTANT will be
obhgatcd for the full and tOlaI amount ofanydamagc, injury, orlos.s caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Servu:es perfonncd under thlli Agrttmcnt. including such damage. IDjury. or loss
ansing afler the Agreement is tenniroated or the leoo hll.'l expimi.
SECTION 19. n :KMINATION OR SUS I'.:N510N O~' AGREEMENT OR SERVICt:s.
J9.1. Tltteity Manager may suspend the perfonnancc of the Services. in whole or
III PlIrt, or lerrmnatc thIS A~emcL1l, wLth or without c.usc, by gtvmg tcn (10) days prior written
notlCC thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt ofsuch notice. CONSULTANT will immediatcly
dlsconlmuc Lts performance of the Servten.
19.2. CONSULTAN T may tmllituUe !hill Agreement or suspend ilS perforrnanCi'of
lhe Services by gIVing thirty (30) days pnor wnncn norice therrofto CITY. but only in the event of
a substantial failure of pcrfonnancc by CITY.
--_ Now L,XltL
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, skelches, drawings, computations, and
<Kher data, whelher or n01 completed, prepared by CONSULT ANT or its COOtrnclOrs, if any, or given
to CONSULTANT CJI" itsconll1lClors. ifany. in connection with thisAgreemenl. Such materials will
bl:(;onlC the property of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSUL TANTwilt be paid
for thc Services rendered or materials de livered 10 CITY in accordance with thc scope of services on
or before the effec tive date (i .e .. 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided.
howevCT, if this Agreement is suspended orterrninated on account ofa default by CONSULTANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSUL T ANT's
services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reason')b le el<ercisc ofhis!her discretion. The following Scctloru; will
survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement 14. IS, 16. 19.4. 20, and 25.
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement.
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given 11\ writing and mailed, postage prepaid. by
certified mail, addressed ilS fo1!ows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Ilox 10250
Palo Alto. CA 94303
With a copy to tilt:: Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Anention ofthc project dIrector
at the address of CONSUL TANT recited above
SECTIO N 21 . CONFl.ICTOF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement. CONSULT ANT covenants that it pn..'Setttly has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest. direct Of ind irect, financial or otherwise, whil:h would
conllict in any manner or degree with the performance ofthc Serviccs.
21.2. CONSULT ANT further CO'lCIlllllts that. in the performance of this Agreement.
it wilinot employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT
cenifies that no pen;oo who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer
oremp!oyeeofCITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordancc with the applicable provisions
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of Cal ifomi a.
21 .3. If the Project Managerdeterm;nes that CONSULTANT is a "Consultant"" as
Pn>f_1 s.rno..
R ..... Nu,.t.:'011
thai term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Polilical Practices Commission. CONSULTANT
shall be required and agrees to file Ihe appropnate financial disclosure documents required by the
Palo Aho Municipal COOl' and the Political Reform Act.
,', As sct forth in l'alo Alto Municipal COOl.' section
::--:;::;-,-the performance of Ihis Agreement. it shaH not
discriminate in the employment of any person beeause of the race, skio color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation. housing status, marital status, familial status,
weight or height of such pcr5On. CONSULTANT acknowledges mal il has read and understands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the ralo Alto Municipal COOt relating 10 Nondiscrimination
Requiremenls and the penalties for violation Ihereof. and agrees 10 meel aH requirements ofSei:tion
2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
~"ii" which are available at the Purchasing Department. incorpornted by
refcrence and may be amended from time 10 limc. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of Ihe CIty's Zero Waste Program. Zero
Waste besl praclices ioclude first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third.
rccycling or cornposting waste. In particubr. Consultant shall oomply with the following zero waste
requirement;;:
• All printed ITUIterials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal
computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes. invoices,
reports, and public educaliOll materials, shall he douhle-sided and primed on a
minimum of 30"/. or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved
by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted malerials printed by a professional
printing company simI! be a minimum of3O"IO orgreatCfptllll-consumer IImterial and
printed with vegetable based inks.
• Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall he purchased in
IICcordaoce with the City'S EnvirOllmental Purchasing Policy including but not
limiled to Exteodcd Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this policy is on tile at the Purchasing Office.
• Reusable/returnable pallets shalJ be taken back by the Consultant. al no additional
cost to the City. for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall providcdocumcntation from
Ihe facility accepting the pallels 10 verifY thai pallets are not heing disposed.
SECTION 24. NON-APP!WPRIA TION
24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Chanerofthe City of
Palo Altoand the Palo Alto Municipal COOl.'. ThisAgreemcnt will terminate lI'ithout any penalty(a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event thai funds are 001 appropriated for the following fiscal year.
or (b) al Dny time within a fiscal yl"M in the even! thaI funds arc only appropriated fo r a portion of
Ihe fiscal year and funds fOl' this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take
precedeoce in the event ofa connict wllh any other covcnant. tenn, condition, or provision of this
A grec lllen t.
SECTION 25. MiSCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS,
__ S<mca
............ 1.201 1
25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the law, of the Slate of California.
25.2_ In the evenlthat an actiOll is brought, the parties agree that trial of such Delion
will be vested exclusively in the st3le couns of California in tlte County of Santa Clara. Slate of
California..
25.3. The prevailing pany in any action broughl!o enforce thl" provisions nfthis
Agreement may recover ils reasonable costs and allorncys' fees l"xpended in COI1neclion with that
action. llIe prevailing pany shall be entitied 10 recover an amount equal 10 Ihe fair market value of
legal services provided by anomeys employed by it as well as any allorneys' fees paid to Ihird
panics.
25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agn:cment bcw'ccn the
panies and supersedes all prior negotialions. representalions, and contracts. either wrincn or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is sIgned by the parties.
25.5. The covenants, tenns, coooilions and provisions of this Agreement will apply
10, and will bind, the heirs. successors, executors. administrators, assignees. and consultants of the
panics.
25 .6. If a coun of competent jurisdiction finds or rules thaI any provision oflhis
Agreement or any amendment therelo is void or unenfnJ"C<able, Ihe unalTected provisions of Ibis
Agreement and llIIy amendments thereto will remain in fulJ force and effect.
25.7. All exhibits refem:d to in thi s Agreement and any addenda. appendiCes.
attacbments, and schedules 10 Ihis Agreement which, from !UTII!': 10 time. may be referred 10 in any
duly cxecuted amendment hereto are by sucb reference incorponlled in th1S Agrecment and will be
deemed 10 be a pan oflhis Agreement
25.8 If. pursual1l 10 this concract with CONSULTANT, City shares with
CONS ULTANT peBOnal information as defined in California Civi! Code sectiOll 1798.81.5(d)
about a Cahfornia resident (··PcBOrulllnfonnatiOll"). CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and
appropriate security procedures to protecl thaI Personal Information. and shall inform City
immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in thc
security of the Personal [nfoonation. CONSULTANT sball not use PeBOna! Informalion fordireci
markcting purposes without City's e)lpress wrillen consent
25.9 All unchccked boxes do nOI apply 10 this agreement.
1/
1/
1/
/I
1/
/I
/I
25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and W31T8nt thai they
have the legal capacity ami authority to do so on behalfoftheir rcspechVt legal entities.
25 .11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall. wben
executed by allthc parties, constitute a single binding agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the panics bcn:lo ha\'c by thcir duly authorized
representatives executed this Agreement on the dale first above written.
C ITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager BY:--1-1-1-
Tille: /) I r ~Cfo,
APP ROVED AS TO FORM: ff'ju>T 2-j 2b/J.
Senior AsSL City Anomey
Anachmellls:
EXHIBIT "A":
EX HIB IT "B":
EX W BlT"C":
EXHIBIT "C-]":
EX HIBIT "D":
SCOPE OF WORK
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
COMPENSA liON
SCHEDULE OF RATES
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
""" "_, s.rn..:. 1Ia. _. 1.20 11
£X Ill 8IT~A "
SCOPE Qt'SERVICES
The consultant may be asked to perfonn servlCd in the rollowlng arca5;
A. MonuorandanalyzeCAISO, CPUC. efC. FERC. PG&E (Grid Plannmg}, ~ilonallnlnsmlSSlon
plannmg group:!i. and other related agencies' activit ies. and. 00scd on dISCUSSIOIlS w ith Staff.
n.."f)re5ellt the C ity', interest>; in proceedmgs.
COIISullUnl ,.iII monilor. UI/(JI);:4I unci. rrpN'Senllne Cil)':r Inlereslln I~ (lCllYilin of
lhe CAISO, CPUC, C~c. FERC, PG<f.£ (GriJ PllHIning) and olher ugencie:r ar rrlaled 10 CAlSO
lariff tonefUlmmls. grid nUlnugemenl charge:. rongeslifHI cJwrge3. trommWIOIIlICCeIS chmge:,
neutr(J/ity und Olhtrcloorgu and proIecllhe City's inlensu. CQflSUllanl ,.,11 recommend rqu/atory
slrul{'"gies for lhe City and positions in proceedings before lhe ,.'ERC, CEe. CPUC. CAlSO and
ConslJhanJ "'ill monilQr lhe In-ele>ping California electricit)' muriet de:rign and
.. ne'1O' m"'*"lS. and Sll1le IJIId Federal invol''I!menl in the electricity industry as IMy relUle 10
serving electric load '" the Son Froncuco Grealer 8a,. Area (Buy Area). ConslJltant will iJemify lhe
&I)' An-a specifIC risb for the CllyJrom (ocutiona/ marginal prICing. lacaJ CapacIty reqlJiremt'nlS,
tronsmlSsion CO#IStrainis. and Slole imposed meQSllres for deliverobilit)'. oUIage crxJrdinallon.
maintenance standards and the use of muni-o .. med lronsmwionlines and local generalion.
O. Maintain an ongoing presence at the CAJSO to rqm:sen1 the City's in1erests effectively.
ConJlJltant sholl nwintain roumte and nifficient access to 1ey po/icymaten and miff
al lhe CA1S0 to foci/ilatt', "fXH/ City authorization. effective and effICient "'presentation of the
City:r .. ievopoints and concerns an 8a)' Area fruMmWlan and .J):Jre", openmon wues.
c. Work wuh the City to establ ish regulatory and legislahve obje<:hves. goals and priori1ies.
Consllitant "'ill comrmmicafe 0/1 a regular lxuis ... ith the Ciry stuff and develop
ngll/mory ami /egIJ/ulil'f obj~ti\'a and strmegie.s for the City.
D, AssISt City \I'LIb analysis, Improvemenl and expansion of transmission, gent'f'alion, and reliability
issues for the City and in the Bay Area.
ConsullanlM·m U$$irt 1M Cil)' in identifying. de..-eloping and pro1ooli'Lg CtlSt-e.ffi'cti>-e
and long-ferm sol"tions /01' reliability and eC'tmomic lransmlssion needs, transmi.ssion/OI'rencM'Uble
reSClm:u, IQCol generalion. and non_M'ires sulutiQIIS, COIuullOlJt may assirt /n efforts IQ upgrade
City's tTllIISmiuiQlI int<'rCt)nneclion 10 the grid. Consultam may also recommetuJ ecollQmic
transmission upunsion or OIheraltematiw!s/or the Bay Are/l.
OJns"f,anl will perform power flow, short tireull and /ewllblllfJ' JWdies for efectl'ic
tronsmission, substation and g",neratian cvnceptuuf plm'-' iU directed by CII)'slajJ. COIUllflum ... 1/I
prvl'ide technical support 10 Ihe Cil)' in coordinalion .... ilh PG&E. CAfSO, Ihe Western Arell Power
Administralion. or ulher agencies /.1$ required concerllillg Ihese plaM.
E. Assist City with isslics rdated In pllblic power and mllniclpal utilities.
Consultalll will a:I.ri.<lthe Cit)' ... ilh munleipul ulilil)' if sues il/e/ui/ing bill .wllimited
/0 Jurisdiclion, uu-exempl bonds, access 10 lo .... -cost /etkraf power, rene-.o'able energ)', en('rg)'
efficiency/demand response, gTeel/har'se gas regulations including cap alld trude, Olhel'
em'ir'Qnmenllll iniliolives, independenct ill SClling ""tes, loc/II generallon 1'1'01,,011011 and
implemenlation, CFTC /llu! Dodd-Fronk Ael implicUfil>llS and im oo/l'I!mf!7l1 /11 Joinl PU'M,"I.'n All/hum)'
jm-il1l"eSlmeni in gel/erotion alld transmlsslun 0/ el«:lrldty and delll'el')' seM'lct'!,
F. A:;.s;sl City With LSSUes rellued to gnd rehabLlily standards,
Conslillani .... /If IUSisl tire Cily .... ith ~lIire.menlJ/()#" l'I~gisll'atiQn and romp/iuna
Mith N£RC mW H't;CC grid re/labihty SI/l"oords,
G. Provide City with other electricity-related 5('fV1Ce$ as needed.
The ropidly ~fopilfg declrlc/lf iItdusll')' Ifflt(1riO In C/l//fomia ... '111 ~ulrtl o/itt!r
H_ .... SSLSI Clly m coordmaled eiTons wllh Olher munictpailluillies_
Crmsuftanl "'if{ assist lhe City in coordinuling I!fforu "'flh Olm:, mllnlclpUf utUU;l'.$.
inc/lldmg Ihe Btl)' Area Municipal TraflSmiUion Group (BAltl¥). on mues sud at IkscrilHd In II
Ihrough G abo .....
DcLiVERABLES
11K: dell~embles will be detmninedoo a task -by 'Iask basi~, Dl:lIvembl~ mc111dc(lI1c-limt written
reports. pcnodic ,",'rinen reports and updares. 01111 prescnlLuions, recommcndmions and analysis. All
reports and wriuen malerial mUSI be provided In and QPproved by Resource Management Divi&ion
(RM) siaffpnor to delivery to outside agencies.
~ ~ 's...-
..... _ '.l!t1L
EXJIISIT MS"
SCIlf.DUU.:OF Pf.R"·O RMANCf.
CONSULTAA'T wI] pm-onn the Services so as to complete each mIlestone .. ·ithin the number of
daysfweeks specified below. The time 10 complete each rnl~tooe may be IncJNS«i Of ~ased by
murual .. nttm a~cmc:nl oflhc project managcn forCONSUL T A.'IT and CITY SO Ions as a11 .. ·oR
iscornpleted within the lermofthe AgrecmrnL CONSULTANT shall p!U\'ideadeulled schedule of
work conslslenl with the !iChcdulc below wlthm 2 .. '«6 or rccc:ipl orllle OOIicc 10 proceed.
Mllcslooe5
I. Consulting Servien
Compklion
No. of OaysIWcro
From NTP
On call
-'-11<0 __ I,lGU
EXI1I81T ~C-
COMPEl\SATION
The CITY agnes to «Jinpc:asatc: Ihc CONSULT "''IT for profcssional5CI'VlCcs pc:rfonno:d tn
aooonJaocc: ""lib the: tenn5 and condil)(lll5 of this AlP ccnll!nl based on Ihc: bourIy nllc schedule
allaCbcd as Exhibit C-I_
The comperwttlon to be pa.KI to CONSULT ANT under thIS A~I for all SC!n'JCn
dc5aibcd tn Exhibit -A -(~tccs'1 and reimbun;ablc cxpc:nsc:s shall 001 acc:ed 5 117.,SOO .
CONSULTANT agrees 10 ~omplc:u: an Sc:rvtcc:s. Incloomg reImbursable CJtpenses, .... ·,th,n Ihll
amount. Any ..... oR: pcrfonno:d or cxpcnse5 il1lCWT'ed for ... hicb payment would ~h In a IOtaI
cxccc:di.ng Ihc maJllfOOm unounl of""lipCl~lI00 set forth hCR'tn shall be .. no ~ost 10 the:
CITY.
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSE..';
The administnllh·c. overbcad. sccmanal lime or !iCCfl:lanal ovcrume. word processing.
pholOCOPYlng, in-house printmg, insutarICC IUld other onhnary business upcnsc:s are IllCluded
withm the scope of payment for 5Cl'V1CC5 and are J1O{ R'imbuBllblc cxpenscs CITY §hall
reimburse CONSULTANT for the followmg R'imbursable: cxproxs al COSI. 1iJIp:nscs for
which CONSULT Al'-'T shall be reimbursed arc:
A. Tmvcl outside the: San Fmnclsco BIIY area. Inctudmj lransportahon and 111('1115, .... -111 be
i"ClmbUf'SCd al acUlaI COSI $.IIbjcct to Ihc eil)' of Palo Alto's poIie)' for relmbunmJClI1 of unci
and meal cxpenses for Cil)' of Palo Allo cmployees.
B. Long distance Iclephone !iCtV1ce charges, cellular phonc service: e:harges. r.cslnllic
tnlllSmiSSlO1I and postagc charges lire R'imbursablc al acUlaI cos!.
All requests for paymenl of c;o;penses shall bc accompamed by MpPfopnnlC: backup
mronnation. Any expense anucljIlIted 10 be: more than 5100 shall be appro~ed In advance: by
thc C ITY's project mIlIliIgtl',
ADOITIOSAL SERVlc.:s
The: CONSULTANT shall provide addilional scrvicl$ only by ad\'ancoo, wnllen
authorization from the: CITY. The CONSULTANT, IU the CITY's proJecI manager'~ rc:quw.
shall submll a detailed ..... nllen proposal includmg I dCSl:ription of the scope of ~t\·ices.
schedule, 1""1,'1 of effon. and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation. including
rc:tmbursable txpenses. ror such services based on the: ratCJl set forth ID Exhib It C_I . llIC'
additional 5CfViees iCOpC, schedule: IIId muimum CQOlpettSalion shall be nC!gotlated and
agrw:l 10 In ..... rillnB. by the CITY's ProJe<:1 Manager and CONSULTANT prior 10
commencemenloflhese' .... tce$. Paymenl foraddlhonaJ IICTVlttS IS subJe<:1 10 all lUIuircmcnlS
and restriCliOll5 in Ihl$ Agrccmcnt.
I'i ' 1_
--1.l1li1 1
EXHJ 81T "'C-I-
II OURLY RAn: SCII ED ULE
Navlgant hourly rates for professionalSCTVICts an: lISted below:
Managmg Di~tor
Director
Associate Direclor
Managing Consultant
Senior Consultant
Consultant
Admin Suppon
$397 peT houf
S354 per hour
S309 per 00ur
S255 per hour
$222 per hour
S t 69 per hour
S 136 per hour
The above rates shall be adjusted each year. eommcncingJlUluary 1,2014,10
refltc1 the change In rates estabhshed by Navig.IlI.
Electric regulatory services provided under Ihi s comract, including
reimbursable expenses. shalloot exceed $37,500.00 in the first COIllmct year. Should tile contract be
extended, services, including reimbursable expenses, shall nOl exceed $40,000.00 in the second year
and $40.000.00 in the third year.
Testimony shall be bllh:d at IIOt less than eight (8) hours per day.
Reproduction. prioting. oonununications. computer serviCes, and other miscdlaneous support $hall
be billed at rates for such services as determined from tinle to hOle and officially estabhshed by
Na,·tgam.
" t ..... _ __ I.:NIH
n.
EX HIBIT MO"
INSURANC E REQUIREM£N'I'S
COI<TIVICTORS TO -rneCITY OF MI.O II~TO~CITY). liT TIIHR SOLI'-EXPE:NSE. SlIAll. HlR nm ITKM UFTlIH CONTItIlCT
08T Mli A.'';O '-M!NT M" [sSUMNCf. I" TII~ AMOUNTS HlR TIlE OOVf.MI:l6 SPIOClf IIlD IIf.I.OW, ArfORI}(O IV CO~1 Mi'l r.s
wlTn A \I Brsr!i MY ItIITL"G OF .. ·,\'n. 011 JllGlIt:JI. uO:. ..... W OR .. lrm ORLl£O TO TIlA.~SAcr L"ISU1tA. 'ICI: Bt'Sl.~ESIlIN
TU[ ST .. n: or CALJmR.~IA
rUE CP COVIIIUo(].
.. lJTOMOOllE lIAB1UTT.INClUOINO
oUL O'lr"NED. HIRED. NON-OWNI'.V
. ,
PROPERTY DAMllGI'.
IJOOII.V INJURY II;';" PIIoPEUV
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
TlU: en,' 0 " MLO .... 1'0 lS 'ro BE "",\1[0 AS AN .. OOJTIO""l.IliSCItED. C'ONTVoCTOR. liT ITS 'lOU'. CO:ST ..... "Il fIXl'f;NSf.
SHALl. OUT"IN ... lill r.t"'I><T"'i~. IN '"Utl fOl!.Cij ... NIl U'FOCT TUROUGHOUT TliH EIo'TIkf, TOt'" Of ... NY I !;SUlTIIl<T
IIOREEM h r.;T. TII"-I NSiJ R"'SC~ COV~.MO( Hf""FJl" OIOSCIU~F.u I NS1.I~INO NOT (l!>;L V CONTRACTOR liN" ITS SUIlCOSSUI. T A~
If ""Y, IIUT ALSO, wrrn TIle UCJ:I'llO" OF "OII.><£RS· ~f'I'J'"SATlON, (.\l9t(>Vf.R'S LI"'PlllTY AND PROfESllIDNAL
1~'1iURANCK. NA 'II.~G AS ADllInO.~AL I.~SIlRt:OS CI'IY. ITS COUNCIL .'1 t:.\l8 [Its. OfllC[JtS. "Gt:.'qS. ... ~O t:.'lrLOHI!.5.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INC1.UDE;
A A PROVISION fOR A WRIITEN n liRTY (l0) Oi\Y i\OVANCll NOTICF TO CITY OF CIlANOF IN
COYEilAOE OR OF COVEilAOE CIINCELLAnON; A:-'D
8. .. COrnlV.cn.iAL LI"8ILIli' ENOORSEM8<o'T PROVIOING INSURANCE CO\'ERAGE fOR
CONTRACTOR'S i\OREEMIlNT TO fl','DEMSIFY CITY
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOlim"S IN EXCESS OF Sl.ooo RI:QUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROV i\L-
II, OOSTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTlflCATES(S)OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III ENDORSEME"'T W DVISIOSS. WillI Ilr,SI'I:CT TO THE ISSURANCE IIFfOROW TO "AODITION"L
INSUREOS"
A. PRIMlI8Y COVERAGE
WfIlI RESPECT TO CLl.IMS ARISING OUT Of 11IE Of'ERATIONS OF mE NAM[O INSURED, INSURANCE AS
M fOlloeo BY THIS POLICY IS PRIM/\RY "NO IS NOT AoomON"L TO DIt cwtltlllUTINO wml ANY OTlIU
INSURANCE C"RlUED BY OR fOlt TIlE BENEFIT OF THE ADOmON"L INSUREDS.
B, CROSS LIABILITY
TI If' NA~!rNO Of MOIUl m"'N OSE I'£UON. fiRM, 0It COIlI'OMTM)N AS ISSIJREDS INOER me POLICY SHAll.
'iOT. fOIl. TII"'T RL\SO" "'LOI'iE. £XnN(lUISII A.'-Y RIGHTS Of THE ISSUKED "'GAlSST ANOllIEIl. OUT TIllS
ENOOIlSE.\f£.'lr. "'NO mE NAMI'G Of MUL TIPU INSUREDS. SII"'LL MIT U.CRI'.AS~ m E TOTAL UABlLm' OF
n lE CO~\J'A.'O' ll1l1O(1\ nns 1'OI.1CV
NODC!! or CAbcr! I AIION
IV mE f'Ol.lCY IS CANCELED BEFORE rn EXl"!RATM)N DATE fOR "'l'o-Y REASON ornER
n",s mE bQS·PA YMEI"" Of ~R£MIUM, mE ISSUING COMPM/y SIL\U USE rrs BEST
[FFOITS ro E.)I:OEA.VOIt 10 ~RO\1OE ClrY "'T LUST A rnlRTY {3O) DAY WIlITTEN
scm<."E BEfORE m E EFfEITIVI! 0'" TE OF CA.'iCELl.!. TlOS.
1. IF n lE !'OLleY ISCA."CELED BEFORE rrs EXNIlA TION DATE fOR TIlE NOI'I-l'A YMESl"
Of f'REMIUl>I. nl~ ISSU1,..a COMP"SY SIIALL I'1tOvtl>ECITY ATLr:AST '" TES (10) 0 ... Y
WIlIITl!N NOTICE BEFORE THE EfFECTIVE DATf;OF CANCELL\T1QN
PURCItASING ....... 0 COI..-rItACf AD.\lISISTltAnOS
c ln' OF '.0.,.0 AI.. TO
P.O. 80S 10!50
'ALOAl.'I·O,CA f.OeJ
,. 's..-
a..N.o 1.%tU
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C14150237C
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ClTY OF PALO ALTO AND
FLYNN RESOURCE CONSULTANTS INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (ELECTRIC)
This Agreement is entered into on Ulis 9th day of September, 2013, ("Agreement") by
and betw~en the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California charter~d municipal corporation (""CITY"),
and FLYNN RESOURCE CONSULTANTS [Nc., a California corporation, located at 5440
Edgeview Drive, Discovery Bay, CA 94505 ("CONSUL TANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to participate in energy (gas & electric) technical. regulatory, and legislative
processes ("Project") and desires to engage a consultant to assist city staff in in energy (gas &
electric) technical, regulatory, and kgislative processes i.n connection with the Pro,icct ("Services").
B. CONSULT ANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise,
qual ifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the
Services as more fully described in Exhibit "A", attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the recitals. covenants, terms and conditions, in
this Agreement, the parties agree:
AGREEMENT
SECTION t. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in
Exhibit "X' in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The
performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satislactioo of CITY.
SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its fttll execution through September 8, 2016
unless tcnninated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term oftb.is
Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B", attached to and made a part
of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this
Agreement shall be commenced and completed by 'ONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and
Profcssl(llInl Scrvicc~
Rc\', Nf.lV. 1.2011
timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the ONS LTANT.
lTV" s agreement to extend the term or the chedule for pert'onnance shall not preclude recovery of
damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fa ult of CONS L T ANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to
CONSULTANT for periormance of the Services described in Exhi bit "A". including both payment
for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Twenty Five
Thousand Dollars ($225,000). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Ex hibit
"C-I". entitled "HOURL Y RATE SCHEDULE," which is attached to and made a part or this
Agreement.
Additional Services. ifany. shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of
Exhibit" ". CONSULTAN'f shall not recei ve any compensation far Additional Services performed
without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Servicc~ s hall mean any work that is
d etermined by CITY tu bc necessary ['or the proper completion of the Project, but which is not
included within the Scope o[Serviccs described in Exhibit "'A '".
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment. CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the se rv ices performed and the applicable charges (including :1n
id.;ntification of personnel who perJ'ornlcd the services. hours worked, hourly rates, and
reimbmsable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's bi lling rates (set forth in Exhibit '·C·l ").
If applicable. the invoice shall al su describe the percentage o f completion of each task. The
inl'onnation in ONSLJ LTANJ"s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY.
CONSULTANT shall send all invoic.;s to the;; itl'" projcct manager at the address specified in
Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within tllirty (30) d c,ys of
receipt.
SECTION 6. OUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONSUL TANTor lmder CONSULTANT's supervision. CONS LTANT represents
that it possesses the professional and technical personnel neeess31Y to perform the ervices required
by this Agreement and that the pe;;rsonnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services
assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, ifpemlitted,
huve and shall maintain during the term of ttti. Agreement all licenses. permits, qualifications,
insurance and approvals of whatever nature that arc legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONS 'LTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional stundard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout Cali fo rnia under the same or similar
circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itselfinfonned urand
in compliance with all federal, state and localla,,·'s. ordinances, regulations. and orders that may
affect in any manner the Proj ect or the perlonnance of the Services or those engaged to perfurnl
Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all nulie<." r<;q uired by la in the perfurmance of the Services.
SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSU LT ANT sha ll correct. at no cost to CITY. any and
ProJes.sion'll Scn'K'CS
RCY.NIH,].:!!)l l
all errors, omissions. or ambi guities in the work product suhmined to CITY, provided CITY gives
notice to C'ONSllLTANT. (fCONSUL TA T has prepared plans and specitictltions or other design
documents to construct the Project, CONSU L T ANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors,
omissions or Hlllbiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project.
This obligation shall survive termination of the Agn!cment.
SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works
project, CONSliLTANT 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 (1 0%)
of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSILTANT shall make recommendations to the
CITY [or aligning the PROJHT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved
recommendations. and revise the design to meet the Project budgct, at no additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is understood and agreed that in pertorrning
the Services under this Agreement CONSI fL TANT, and any person employed by or contracted with
ONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shaH act as and be an
independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY.
SECTION 1 L ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of
CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or
transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any o[CONSULTANTs 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. SUBCONTRACTrNG.
CONSUL T ANT shall not subcontract any portion ofthe work to be performed under this Agreement
without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee.
CONSlJL TANT shall be responsible for djrecting the work of any subconsuitants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever conccrning
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be flilly responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall cbange or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of
the city manager or his designee.
SECTrON 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSUL T ANT will assign Doug Boccignone
as the Project Supervisor to have supervisory responsibility tor the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services to represent CONSIJL T ANT dw-ing the day-to-day work on the Project. If
circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator. or any other key
personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any
key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval ofthe ITY's project
manager. CONS L TANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CrTY finds do
not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are w1cooperative, ur present a threat to the
adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to (he safety of persons or property.
The City's project manager is Karla Dailey. Utilities Department, Resource Management Division,
PrOlesSll)nnJ Servkes
Rev. Nov. 1.2011
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 , Telephone (650)329-2523. The project manager will
be NSUL T ANT's point of contuct with rc:spcct to performance. progress and execution of the
Services. The CITY may de :;ignate an alternate project manager from time to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATEIUALS. Consultant will retain ~ole and exclusive
ownership of all right, title and interest in its work papers, proprietary information, proces es,
methodologies, know-how and software and any patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret and other
intellectual propcI1y rights which existed prior to the del ivery of onsliitant's services ("ConslIiLant
Property'·). To the extent thnt any work product delivered to the City contain onsultant Property,
Consultant grants the City a non-exclusive. non-assignable, royalty-free license to use it solely in
connection with the subject of the engagement. This Section 14 shall survive termination of the
Agreement.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will perm.it CITY to audit, at any reasonable time
during the term of this Agreement and for threc (3) years thereafter, CONS LTANT's records
pertaining lU mailers covered by this Agreement. CONSU TANT further agrct! to mai.ntain and
retain such records for at kust three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fllilest extent pcrmitled by law. CONSULTANT ·hall protect,
indemnify, defcnd and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, ofliccrs, employees and agents
(each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any and all third party demands, claims, or liability
of any nature, including death or injury to any person. property damage or any other loss. including
all costs and c.xpenscs of whatever natmc including attorneys tees, experts lees. court costs and
disburse ments ("Claims") re'-lIlting from, arising out of or in allY manner rel ated to performance or
nonperfonllance by CONSULT AN T. its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this
Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnilied Party.
I n.2. Notwithstanding the abow, nothing in this Section 16 sha.11 be construed to
require CONS(LTANT to indemnil~· an Indemnined P.ury Ii-om Cbims arising from the active
negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnitied Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's services and duties by CITY shall not
operate as a waiver of the right of indemniilcJlion. The provisions of this Section 16 shall ~urvive
the expiration or early termination of this Agr~"'ll1enl.
16.4 NotwiUlstanding Sections 16.1 through 16.3, CONSULTANT shall not be
required to indemnify 'ITY for any liability. loss or damage in excess of the amollnt of
insllrance coverage in the professional liability requirements set i"orth in Section 18 and Exhibit
"0",
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party orany breach or violation orany covenant,
telm, condition or provision of this Agreement. orofthc provisions of any ordinance or law. will not
be deemed to be a waiver orany other term, covenant, condition, provisions. ordinance or law, or of
I~rof. sionnl. Cf\·kcs
Re\', Nuv. 1.2011
any subsequent breach or violation orthe same or of any other term, coven:lI1t, condi.tion, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full
force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "0".
CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming C ITY 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 Rati.nu Guide ratings of A-:Vll or higher which are licensed or authorized to
transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT
retained to perfonn Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, nanling CITY as an additional
insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concun·ently
with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk
Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not
be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the
Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or moditication. If the
insurer cancel.s or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days' notice to
CONSULTANT, CONSliLTANT shall use best efforts to endeavor to provide the Purchasing
Manager written notice of the cancdlation or modification. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for
ensuring that current certificates <;vidcL1cing 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 lianility hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions
of thi s Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obligated for the full and tOlal amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as
a result of the Services perfonneu lmder this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss
arising after the Agreement is term.inated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TF:RMlNATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERViCES.
19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance orthe Services, in whole or
in part, or tcrminate thi s 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 perfonnance ufthe Services.
19.2. CONSUl;r ANT may tcnninate this Agreement or suspend its performance of
the Services ny giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY. but only in the event of
a substantial failure of performance by CITY.
PrQres~dm1:t1 Seryjcc~
itl!'v.NM.I.2011
19.3. Upon slich suspension or term.ination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager im.mediately any and a.ll copies of studies, sketche ·, drawings. computations, and
other data. whether or not completed, pr"pared by CONSUlTANT or its conn·actors, ifanY.llr given
to CONS LTANT or its contractors, if any , in connectiol1 with this Agreement. Such materials will
become the property of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, ONSUL.TANT will be paid
for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on
or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days alter giving notice) of suspension or termination: provided,
however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account oCa default by CONSULTANT,
CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONS L TANT's
services which are of direct and inunediate benefit to CLTY as such detenmination may be made by
the City Manager actin" in the reasonable exercise ofhjslher di scretion. The following ections will
survive any expiration or termination Oftllis Agreel11ent: 14, 15 ,16,19.4,20, and 25.
19.5. No payment, pa11ial payment. acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will
operate as a waiver on the part of ClTY of any of its rights under this Agreement,
SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereundcr will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by
certified mail, addressed as follows:
To ClTY: Oftice of the City Clerk
City of Palo Ito
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at th e address of 'ONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF lNTEREST.
21.1 . In accepting thi s Agreement. CONS L TANT covennnts tllat it presently has
no interest, and will not acquire any interest. direct or indirect, iinancial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT furthercovemmts lhat, in the performance of this Agreement,
it will not employ subconsuitants. contractors or persons having such an inkrcst. CONS LTANT
certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an offi ce·r
or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
orthe Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government ode of tile 'tate of 'u lil'ornia.
21.3, I f"the Project Manager determines that CONS LT ANT is a "Consultant" as
I>rofessional SCf\'ICCS
I{tv. Nov. I. 2011
that term is defined by the Regu.lations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT
shall h~ l\;quired and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDlSCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.51 O. CONSULTANT certifies that in the perfonnance of tlus Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion,
disability, national origin. ancestly, 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 0(' the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section
2.30.5 I 0 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY 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. CONS L T ANT shall comply with waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City's Zero Waste Program. Zero
Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third,
recycling or composring waste. In particular, Consu.ltant shall comply with the following zero waste
requ.irements:
• All printed materials provided by Consultant to City g~nerated 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, uluess otilerwise approved
by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional
prillting 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 pur~hased in
accordance with the City's Enviromnental Purchasing Policy including but not
limited to :xtended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
paCkaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Oflice.
• Reusable/r':lllrnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant. at no additional
cost to the City, l'or reuse or recycli.ng. Consultant shall providc documcntation from
the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION
24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisiuns of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto and the Palo Altu Municipal Code. Tlus Agreement will term.inate without any peoalty (a)
at the end of any fiscal year in the event that fUllds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,
or (b) at any lime within a fiscal year in the event thaI funds are onJy appropriated t'or a pOltion of
the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall lake
precedence in the event of a contlict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this
Agreement.
SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
Professional Services
Rev. Nov, 1,2011
25,1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of CaJitornia,
25,2, In the event tbat an action is brought, the parties <lgrec t.hat trial of such action
will be vesl~d exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara. State of
Calif(Jrnia,
25.3, The prevailing party in uny aClion brought to enforce the provisions of this
Agreement may recover i Is rea~onable costs and attorneys' fee s expended in connection with that
action, The prevailing party shall be entitkd to recover an arnolU1t equaJ to the tair 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 ~upersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document Illay be amended only by a written instrument. which is signed by the parties,
25 ,5, The covenants, tenns. conditions and provisions of this Agreement" i II apply
to, and will bind. the heir , successors. executors, administrators, assignee , and consultants of the
parties,
25,6, If it court of competent jurisdiction tinds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, tile unaffected provi sions of this
Agreement and any amendments Ulereto will remain in full force and ellecL
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 refen-cd to in any
duly executed amendment hereto arc by such re ference incorporated in this Agreement and will be
deemed to be a palt of this Agreement.
25,8 If, pursuant to this contrad with CONS LTAN T, City shares with
CONS LTANT personal info rmation as defined in alifornia Civil Code section 1798,81.5(d)
about a alifornia resident ("PersonallnloIDlation''), CONSULTA T shall maintain rcasonable and
appropriate security procedw'cs 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, CONS L T ANT s hall nOl use Personal Information lor direct
marketing purposes without City' , exprc~ , written consent
/I
/I
1/
II
II
25,9 All wlchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
Prolcsstonlll Scrvicc~
Rev, No". I. 2011
/I
/I
25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they
have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when
executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized
representatives executed this Agreement on the date iiI's! above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO FLYNN RESOURCE CONSULTANTS INC.
City Manager
By : I0~A ,~
Name: VO\I\..,I., A. !o:.<:)jI1M~
Title: C.h'~~ F~W1~M f)AAz-.tV"
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Ass!. ity Attorney
Attachments:
EXHIBIT "A":
EXHIBIT "B":
EXHIBIT "e":
EXHTBIT "C-l ":
EXHIBIT "D":
S OPE OF WORK
SCHEDUl.E OF PERFORMANCE
COMPENSATION
S HEDULE OF RATES
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Prolcssionnl Sc-rviccs
Rev N\w. 1. 2011
EXfnBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The consultant may be asked to perform services in the following areas:
A. Monitor and analyze CAl SO, CP C, CEC, FERC, PG&E (Grid Planning), regional
transmission planning groups. and other related agenc ies ' activities, and, based on discussions
with Sta fl~ represent the City's interes ts in proceeding.
Consultant will monitor, analy:e and, represent/he Ci/y's interest in Ihe aclivi/ies of
the CAISO, CPUC 'EC PERC. PG&E (Grid Planning) emd other agencies as relatcd to CAISO
lari//amendmenfS, grid management charges, congestion charges, transmission access charges,
neUira/ily and a/her charges and pro/ecl Ihe City's in/ere '1.1. Consultant will recommend regul(){ory
Sirategiesfor the Cify and positions in proceedings bejilre Ihe FERC. CEC. CPUc. CAISO and
other ltgencies as appropriate.
Consultant will monitor Ihe developing ( 'ul!filrniu electricity markel design and
energy markets, and Slale and Federal involvement in Ihe electricity industry us Ihey relute to
serving eieclric load in the Sun Francisco G,."alcr 8ay Areu (8ay Area). Consultant will identify Ihe
!Jay Area specific risks/or th e 'ity/i'om /ocatiol7al marginal pricing local capacity rcquiremenls,
lransmission constraints, and Stale impos ~d measures .IiiI' deliverability, outage coordination,
maintenance siandards and fhe use oj'muni-owned transmission lines and local )!eneraliol1.
B. Maintain an ongoing p(csence at the CAISO 10 represenl the CilY 's inlerests effective I ,
Consultanl shall maintain routinc and ,n!lJicienf access to key policymakers and stai!'
at the CA ISO 10 facilitale, upon City authorization, ~(fcclive and efficien! representation of the
City'.\· viewpoints and concerns on 8ay Area Iransmission and syslem oper(/lion issues.
C. Work with th e City 10 cswblish regulatory and l egi ~lalive objectives. goa ls and pri ori lies.
Consultan! will communicate on a regular hasis with the City staff and develop
regulatory and legislative obiectives and Sirategies/or Ihe City.
Prvfcsstonal \-crY ices
Rev Nov I. 2011
D. Assist City with analysis, improvement and expallsion of transmission, generation, and
reliability issues for the City and in the Bay Area.
Com'ullant will assist the City in identifying, developing and promoting cost-effective
and long-term solutionsjor reliability and economic transmission needs, transmission/or renewable
resources, local generation, and non-wires solutions, Consultant may assist in efforts to upgrade
City's transmission interconnection to the grid. Consultant may also recommend economic
transmission expansion or olher alternatives/or the Bay Area.
Consultant will perform powerflow, short circui! and/easibility studies for electric
transmission, suhstalion and generation conceptual plans as directed hy City stafr Consultant will
provide technical supporl 10 the City in coordinalion wilh PG&E, CAISo. the Western Area Puwer
Administration, or other agencies os required concerning Ihese plans.
E, Assist City with issues related to public power and municipal utilities.
Consultant will assist the City wilh municipal utility issues including hut nOI limited
/0 jurisdiction, tax-exempt bonds. access 10 low-coS! federal power, renewable energy, energy
~fficiency/demand re~p(Jn.~e, greenhouse gas regulations including cap and trude, olher
environmental initiatives, independence in selling rates, local generation evaluation and
implementation, CFTC Glnd Dodd-FrankAcl implications and involvement in Joint Powers Authority
jor investment in Relleration and transmission o/electricity and delivery services.
F, Assist City with is,ues related to grid reliability standards.
Consultant will assist the Cily with requi,.ement.~.ror registration and compliance
with NERC and WEC . grid reliability slandardl'.
G, Provide City with other electricity-related services as needed.
The rapidly developing electriCity industry scenario in California will require olher
Prolcssiollal Sl!rviccs
Rcv.Nov.1.2011
advisory services from the consultanl tiS Ihese n~ed~ are identified by City sll!ff
I-l. Assist City in coordinated t:I'forts with other municipal utilities.
Consultant will assistlh .. Ci(1' in coordinllling efforts wilh olher maniei/wl utilities,
including the Bay Area Municipal Transmission (iroup (BAMx), on issue.l' .I'uch a.l' de.\·('rihed in A
Ihrough G abow.
DEUVERABLES
The deliverables will be detcnnined on u task -by -task basis. Deliwmbles include one-time
written reports, periodic wrillen reports and updatc.s. oral presentations, recommendations and
analysis. All reports and ""Titlea material must be provided to and approved by Resource
Management Division (RM) ·taff prior 10 delivery to outside agencies.
l'r{,fc,slon.:tI Sc:rv ic(;s
Re". Nov. 1,2011
EXHJBIT "8"
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of days/weeks spec ified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or
decrea~ed by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY
so long as all work is completed within the term of tbe Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below wililin 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice 10 proceed.
Milestones
I. Consulting Services
( 'ompletion
No. of Days/Weeks
From NTP
On call
ProJi:ssitll1sl St:rvICCS
Rev. Nov. I. 20 11
EXHIBIT "c"
COMPENSA TlON
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSUL TANT for professional services pelformed in
accordance with the tenns and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule
attached as Exhibit C-I,
The compensation to be paid to CONS 'LTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit "A" ("Services") and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $225,000,
CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services" including reimbursable expenses. within this
amount. Any work performed or expen es 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
ITY,
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime. word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insw'ance and other ordinary business e,xpenses 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 CONS 'L TANT 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 phonc service charges, facsimi Ie
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requcsts for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
i,nJormation, Any expense anticipated to be morc than $100 shall be approved in advance by
the CITY' s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSUL rANT shall provide additional sen'ices only by advanced. wril1en
authorization from the CITY, The CONS ULTANT, at the CITY's project manager's request,
shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of service .
schedule, level of e.ffort, and CONS L TANT's proposed maximwn compensation, including
reimbursable cxpenses, It)r such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit -I, The
addilional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and
agreed to in writing by the CITY's Project Manager and ONS LTANT prior to
commencement oflhe , erviccs, Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements
and restrictions in this Agreement.
l'roi"cs~lt,"aJ S~r1/IC'(S
Rc\, Nov. 1,2011
EXHIBIT "C-J"
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
FlyfU1 Re source Consultants J nc. hourly rates for professional services are listed below:
Principal
Managing Consu.itant
Sen.ior Consultant
Consultant
Associate Consu.ltant
Ana.lyst
$270-$295 per hour
$250-$270 per hour
$200-$250 per hour
$170-$200 per hour
$140-$ I 70 per hour
$90-$140 per hour
Reproduction, printing, communications, computer services, and other miscellaneous support
services shall be billed at 5% (live percent) ofthe labor cost for the billing period. This
additional "non-labor" cost will be included for each billing period.
AIlIT3vel, food, and miscellaneous expenses, except automobile mileage, associated with the
provision of services hereunder shall be billed at cost. Automobile mileage will be billed at the
rat<! approved by the Internal Revenue Service.
For any month in which specialized modeling software is used to perform services under this
agreement, the following charges shall apply:
Power flow modeling
Short circuit modeling
Market modeling
$225 per month
$700 per month
$3 ,500 per month
Spe.cialized software costs lhat exceed tJle above amounts may be billed with the prior approval
of RM stalT.
rror~ssi~lI'Ial Sl.:rvkl.:s
Rev Nov. 1.2011
EXHIBIT "D"
IN SURAN CE REQUIREMENTS
CONl1<Al""rOK -10 1111. CITV OF P I I) AI Ttl ICI'1 VI, AT Til II< SOl h I XI'I,;<S£, ~IIAI I. FOR l il T: TERM OF 'I HI, CON I'RACT
OBTAI N A, 0 MAIN I'/\IN INSURANCE IN '1'11 1. AMOIl, ,FOR THI· CO V),I Gi,SPI£IH LD I!bWW"H)o'()lmF;ll8Y COMPANl t~
WITH AM BEST'S KEY RATINGOl'A·:VII, OR IIICII ER, U(,EI'Sm ORAl 'IIORI7-Er)TOTltAI'SACT INSlilt" n, flt 'SI~,}::'''~ IN
Til E: STATE 01-' CAU f<O RNIA ,
AWARD IS CONTINGI;Nl ON COMPLIANcr WI I'l l CI I'Y'S INSURANCI, R~OIJI HI ,\1ENTS AS SI'EC IHW, nLLOW
MItHMOM LIMITS
REQUIRED TYl'E or COVERAGti REQUIRSMZ14"I'
EACH
YES
'OS
YSS
yes
YES
OCCURRENCE AGGREGATB
WOIIK IOI!'::; COMPeNSATION STA),U10R\'
f,MPLQ YER'S IIAIlIl ITY [AnI reH\,
IlODILY INJURY SI.QOO,OO) SI,OOO,OOO
OENERA L I IAllILl l'V,lNCli'))I '0
I'ERSO AI. INJUI< y, 11R An FORM PROI'''R I Y )) t.MG~ Sl,ooo,OOO $1.000,000
PROrmn y DAMAGE OI,ANK£T
CONTRACTUAl . AND Fill LEG"'. BODII,Y INJURY , PI<OI'ERTI' DAMAGI. $1,000,000 $1.000,000
LlAOIl ITY COMIII NLD
BODILY INJUIIY $1.000,000 $1,000,000 . E ell PERSON .. 1.000,000 I.OOO,O()()
-t'JICI I OCCUR Il "N I-$1,000.000 $1.000,000
AUI MOil II.!: I.I/IUI U rY,lN LUDI '0
ALL 0\\ FD, III R 1,1), NON-OWNED PH. PFHYDAM fiE $1,000.000 $1,000,000
onl )11. r Ii 1UR Y AND PROPERTY $I,OOO.f>OO $1.000.000
DIIMAG~ ":OMfl INFD
PROI'r.SS IQ, AI. Ll ABILl TY,INCI. IJl NO,
!C,RROR -AND OMISSIONS,
lAI I)(V\l..TICE \WHFN PPLI """'I1I.F),
AND NFGL IGENT PFRFORMANCb ALI. DAMI\G~~ SI.OOO,OOO
lTlE CITY OF r ALO ,1 1."1'0 IS TO DE NA "ED II~ liN iIlIDITIONA I.INSURI':O' CO. m ALTOR. A'I IT' '0 1 I, COST AND EXPENSE,
SHAU (JUTi-\IN .AND MAIN"IAJ , IN F\JL~ FORC'E AND I ),FFCl I'I IIWU IIOIr)' Till' 111<" rFRM 0 1' A'lV RES ULTANT
I\Li I~ 1-FMC l,lHEI 'SURA" 'I; OVERA ,~IIERI,IN OESC'IUBED,I'I~ RfNG NO'I ONI Y CONTRACI'OR ANIlII S SI UCONSULTANTS,
II' ANY. a UT AI '0. WITII lIiE 10. CEPTIO 01 WORK eRS' COMl'lNSATION, tMPLOYER'S LI IlIL I ry ,\ND PROFESSIONAL
INSURANCE, NA.\IIi'o'C lIS ADDITIONAL I"SI.:KW S ClT\" n COtrNCIL MEMBER. • OFI,'ICI·.R.S'. ACE\lTS. ~\ ~D EMPLOVt:V.s.
I. IN URA t:E OVbRAGI, MUST 1 'I UI1£:
A II PKOVI ION FOR II WR)"I'E I illiZi l' (301 I llY ADVANCE 'OTI E TO CITY OF CIIANGE IN
CO VF RA G ~ OR OF COVI:RAGI . (; NCc.LL TTON; AND
11. A ONTRAC.'lJAL J.I M JII.ITY ENDDRSEMFNT PI/OVIDIN(i URA NCE COV FRJI ,E FOR
CONTRACTOI(,S AG RcEME "I ro INOEMN II'Y CI ry.
c. IJ I;)) '1'IIlLh liMO 'TS I FX 'I'S$ 01' 5,000 R[Q IR[ Cil Y'S PRI OII APPROVAL,
II. CONTACTOR M $1' SUI3MIT CliRTIFI C,\TES(S ) 0 1' I, lJRA CE EVIDENC ING REQUII!F.D COVeRAGE,
II I. E DOR:;f;.MENT PROV ISIONS, WITH RESPE T TO II III INSlJKA N 'r, IIFFORDED '1'0 ",\DDITIONA!.
r SUREDS"
A PR IMAR)' CO" ERA d'
wn II KI!SPCCT TO CLA IMS IIR I ING OUl OF Tim OPF,RATIONS OF IIiE AMED " SlJIU'D, INSURANce liS
AFFORDED 131' TillS POLICY I' PH 1M RY ANI) IS NOT M)DII'ION.~I. 'I() OR l'ON I'R IBln INC; WI n I NY <l'n lEI(
INSIJR t:E 'A RRlf'D 131' OR FOR '11-11', HE bFII ()F rHE M)DITIONAL INS lu ;n s.
IJ. CTlOSS !.I6 1l1LI'I Y
l)rufe"'SJOnn.l Sc:n-iclI!s
Hc\ ()v.I.2(H l
THE NAMING OF MORb THAN ON E PbR ON, FIRM, OR CORPORATI ON A, INS REDS U DE!( TH E POLICY SHALL
• OT. FOR I'IIAT REASON AI.ONI::. EXTING ISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSU RED AGMN 'T ANOTHER, BUT TIII~
ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF M ULTIPLE IN' RWS, SHALL NOT IN 'REASE nit 1'0'1 AL LIABILITY OF
THE COMPA NY UNDER Ti llS POLICY,
c NOlieI' Of CANCELLATION
I. IF II Ir POLICY IS ANCELED BEFORE n S EXPIRATION DA rE FORANY REASON OHlER
THAN THE NON-P YM E/'.'T OF PREM IUM, '1'1 110 ISSUfNG COMPANY SHALL USF ITS ilI.';ST
EFFORTS TO ENDEAVOR TO PROVID E CITY AT LEA T A THIRTY (30) DA Y WRI rI _.
NOTI CE BEFORE TilE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANCELlArION.
2. IF IIII' POLICY I. l'A CbLW [lEFORE IT-EXPIRATION DATE rOR lllG NON-I'AYMENT
OF PREMI M. THE ISS INC COMPANY HALL PROVIDL: ITY AT LEAST A TE '(IO)DAY
WRIT IlON NOli 'Il BeFORE Tl-Ill EFFECTIVE DATE 01' CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL DE MAILED TO:
PlIRCIJASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO. CA 94303
l)rofcs~jOllilJ Scrvlr':cs
Rev Nov. 1.2011
C ITY OJ.' PALO AI.TO CONTRACT NO. CI4IS02J7A
AGREEMENT 8HWEEN T il E C ITY OF PALO ALTO AND
NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC.
FOR "ROn:SSIONAL SERVICES (GAS)
This AKre<:ment is entered into on this 9th day o f September, 2013. (-Agreemeul'') by
and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chancred municipal corporation (-C[Tr).
and NAVIGANT CONSUL T ING,INC .. a Delaware corporation, located at 3100 Zinfandcl Drive,
Suite 600, Rancho Cordova. CA 95670 (-CONSULT ANT").
REC ITALS
The following recitals are a substantive ponlOn of thIs Agreement.
A. CITY Intcnds 10 panlClpale in enellY (ga! & electne) technIcal, regulatory. and legislati~e
pI'OCC'SSCS (-Project") and des ires to engage a consultant to assist city staff 10 In energy (gas &
clcctne) techDlcat. n:gulatory. and legislative processes in connectIOn with the Project ("Services,.
B. CONSULTANT has represented that il has the necessary professional expcnJSe.
qualifieillons, and CapabJlII)', and III required hcCllSC:ll and/or certifICations to provide the Services.
C. CITY in reliance on thc$c reprcsentallonsdcsires to engage CONSUL TAr..'T to provide the
Services as more full), described In ExhibIt -A-. atlJle~ 10 and made a part of this Agreement.
NOW. THEREt'ORE, In COllSidenUon o f the rccuals, covenants, terms. and conditIOns, in
this Agrccmcnl. the parties agree:
AGRJ.:EMENT
SECTION I. SCOPE OF S t:RVICF~~. CONSULTANT shall pcrfonn the Services described in
Exhibit -A-in acoordaoce with the 1mJ\S and eondnions contained in this Agreement. 'The
pcrfolTl1llDCe of all Services shall be \0 the reasonable satisfaction ofCITV.
SEcn ON 2. TERM.
The ICnn of this Agreement shall be fmm thc dIIte of its full execution through September 8, 2016
unless Icnninated earlier punuant to Section 19 o f this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCln:OULE Ot' PERFORMANCt:. Time isorthe essence in the pcrf()!llllUl(:eof
Services under this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall complete the Services within the term orchis
Agreement and in accordance with Ihe schedule sct fonh in Exhibit "if', attached toam! made a part
of this Agreement. An)' Services for which times for pcrfonnance B", not specified in this
Agreement shall be comme nced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and
""<CII_I s.r.1ooo
... ...,. 1.1011
timely manner based upon the eircumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT.
CITY' s a~ment to eKtend the let'tIl or the stllcdule for petformano::e shall nO( preclude recovery of
damages fOl" delay if the e>:tcruion II required due to the faull of CONSUL TANT.
!., I~Th~i:';i~~;:~::::::;i~ to be paid to o;;"' .. ;;o"'~ ir ". mcluding both payment
for professional 5Crvices and n imburuble expenses. shall not e>:cecd Two Hundred Twen!)' Five
Dollars ($225,000). The applicable rates and schedule of paytnCllt are set OUt in Exhibit "C-I".
entitled "HOURLY RATE SCHEDUlE,M whIch IS auachcd 10 and made a pan of this Agreement.
Additional Services. ifany. shall he autho!v.cd In acconlance With and subject to the provisions of
uhibit -C. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services pcrfOlTl1ed
.... ithout the prior wrinen authorization of CITY Addihonal Sco·tea shall mean any ..... ork that is
determined by crn' to be n«cssary for the proper completion of the I'mject. but which is not
mcJudcd within the Scope: of Services dcscrihcd 10 ElIhibit MA".
S ECTION S. INVOICES. In order to I"llClUCSt payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices 10 the CITY describing tht' services perfonncd .00 the applicable chargcs (iocluding an
identificalion of prn;onncl who perfonned the servIces. houri wORed, hourly ntles. and
reimbursable eltpenses). based upon the CONSULTANT's btlhngrateS{5C1 forth in Elthibit ·'C-l-).
If applicable, Ihe invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The
informalion in CONSULTANT's payment requests shall be subjeel to verificalion by CITY.
CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City', project manager at tlte address specified in
Seclion 13 below. The City will genrntlly process and pay invoices wlIhin Ihirty (JO) days of
receipt.
All of the Serviccs shall be
supervision, CONSULT ANT represents
it possesses the professiooal and technical personllCl necessary to perform the Services required
by this A~menl and that the pcnonnc:l have sufficient skill and e"perience to perform lhe Services
assigned 10 them. CONSULT Al'o'T repmenlS that il. its employees andsubc:onsultants. ifpcrrnined,
have and shall maintain during the Icon of Ihis Agrttment all licenses, pemtliS, qlllllificallons.
insulllllCe and approvals ofwhatcvl'f DalUre thai an legally requi red 10 perform the S«vices.
All of the services to be furnIshed by CONSULTANT under thl$ a~menl shall meet thc
professional standard and qllllli ly that prevail among professionals in the s:trne discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged lD relaled won: throughout California under lhe same or similar
circumstances.
SF-eTION 7. COMPLlANC t: W ITIII.,A WS. CONSULTANT shall k«p ilSclfmformed orand
In compliance with aU fcdcntl, stale and local laws. ordinances. rcgulaUQn5. and onImi thai may
affect in any manner the Project or the perfont"llll1Ce of the S«v,ces or \bose engaged to perform
Services under Ihis Agreement, CONSULTANT shall procun all penm!S and IlCCflSCS, pay all
chllfgcs and fees, and gi"e all nolices l"llCluired by law in the performance o(the S«vices.
SECTION 8, ERRORS/O:".II SSIONS, CONSULTANT shall correct. al noCQlitloCITY. any and
all errors, omissions. or ambiguities in the work producl submined 10 CITY, pro"lded CITY gives
I'm'= 'Sa-_
I ... No-1.1011
noIice to CONSULT A"'T. I fCONSUL T ANT has prrpared plans and specifications or other design
OOcumnus 10 conSlIlICt the Project, CONSULT Al'.'T shall be obligated to COITC(:[ any and all errors.
ormssions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of [he Project.
1111$ obhgation $hallsurvi\'c termination of the Agreement.
. If this Agrt'(:mcnt pertains to [he design of a public ""orks
rut;;;;i! estimates of probable construction costs BI cach phasc of
submiual. I fthc total estimated construction cost at any submitu.1 exceeds ten percent (10"10)
of stated construction budget. CONSULT ANT shall make recommendations to the
C ITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget. incorporate CITY approved
~commendatiolls. and revise the design to meet the Project budget. at flO additional cost to CITY.
SECTION 10. INDEI'.:NOENT CONTRACfOR It is umlcrstood and agreed tbat in performing
the Services under th iS Agreement CONSULTANT. and any person cmployed by or contracted with
CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials ulldCT this Agreement. shall act as and be an
independent contl1letor and nOl an alieni Of employec of the CITY.
St:cnON ! I. ASSIGNMt:NT. The panics agrt'(: that the elfpenise and e~perience of
CONSULT ANT are material eonsi<krotions for this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall flO( assign or
tl1lnsfCT any IfltereSt in thIS Agrt'(:lllCnt nor thc performance ofanyofCONSUL TAr.."'·sobligations
hereunder wllhoullhe prior wrilten consent of the cil}' manager. ConscnllO onc assignmctll will DOt
be deemed to bc consent to lny suMequenlllSsignmcnt. Any assignment made without the appro\'B1
of the cuy manager Will be VOid.
SJ:CTION 12. SUBCQi"TKACTING.
CONSULT ANT shall nol subcontract any portion of the work 10 be pcrfonned under this Agreement
without the priOf' wnltcn authoriullion of the city manager or designee.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work o f any subconsultants and fOf' any
compcnsahOO due to subconsultants. CITY assumes flO rcspon5lblhty ..... hatsoever cooecming
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible 10 C ITY for alt acts and omiSSions ora
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change 01" add subconsullltnl5 only with the prior approval of
the Clty manager or his designee.
St:CTION IJ. PROJECIMANAGt:MENT. CONSULTANT will assign Gordon Pickenng
as the Project Supervisor 10 have supenisory responsiblhl}' for thc perfOl1llllll«. progress. and
e!feculion of the ScnolCes IOrepresenl CONSULT ANT during theday·to-day won: on the: Project. If
cireurruUUICcs cause the substitullOn of the project director. project coordinator, or any other key
personnel for any ~ason. the appointment ofa substitule project director and the assignment of any
kcy new or replacement penonnc:l will be subject to the pnor wnnm appTO\'B1 ofthc CITY's project
manager. CONSULTANT, at ClTY's request, shall promptly remon~ personnel wlwl CITY findsdo
DOt perform the Services In an acceptable manner. ~ uncooperntivc. or present a threat to the
adequate or timely complellon of the Project or a threat to the safety nfpersons or property.
The City's proJcct manager IS Karla Dailey. Utlhtles Department, Resource MWUlgement Division,
250 Hamilton Avenue. Palo Alto, CA 94303, Tel~'PlIone (650)329-2523.lbc project manager will
~ 9 ' _I s.r"...
be CONSULTANT's point of OOIItacl wilh rcspecllO pcrfOl'1DilllCe, progl'e$S and execution of the
Ser'1f:es. The CITY may designate an alternale projecl manager from bme to time:.
S.:CTlON 14. OWNERSHI P OF MATERIAI.s. Consultant .... iII retain sole and exclusive
owncnhip of all right. lide and interest in ilS work papers. proprietary infonnallon. processes,
methodologies, know·how and software and any palent. copyright. trademark, tnIde seem and other
intellectWlI property righlS which eXlliu:d prior 10 the dchay ofCOIl5IlIWlt', services ("Consultant
PI OJ .... I'y~). To the extent that any work product delivered to the City contains Consullam Property.
ConsulWlI grantslhe City a non-cxclusive, non·assignable. royalty·free licetl!ie 10 Wi!: il solely in
conncetJOn with the 5ubject of the engagement, This Section 14 shall sutVi\'e termination of the
Agra:ment.
SECTION I!I-. AUDITS. CONSULTANT Will permil C ITY 10 audil, alany reasonable lime
during the term of this Agreement and for thra: (3) years thereafter. CONSULTANT's records
pertaming 10 matteT!; co\'ered by thiS Agreemenl. CONSULTM'T funher agrees 10 maintain and
retain such records for at leaSI three (3) years after the expif'1l,tion or earlier tennination of this
Agreement
St:cn ON 16, INllt.:MNITY,
16,1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect.
indenmify, defend and hold hannless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agenlS
(each an "Indemnified Party") from and against any alld all third party demands. claims. or liability
or any nalUre, including death or injury to any pet"SOn, property damage o r any Olher loss, including
all costs alld expenses of wllutever nature inc luding a!lomeys fees, experts fees. court costs and
disbursements ("ClaIl115") resulting fium, arising out of or in any manner related 10 perfomllince or
nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officel1l, employees, agents or COT\traetors under this
Agreement, regardless of whelher or nOl it IS causcd in part by an Indemnified Pany,
16,2, Notwithstanding the above. nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed 10
«l'luin:: CONSULTANT to illdemnify lin Indemnified Pany from Claims arising from the aclive
negligence. sole negligence or willful misconduct oran Indemnified Pllrty,
16.3, The acceptance of CONSUL T ANT"s services and duties by CITY shan nOI
operate WI B wB1Verorth~ right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive
the expil'lltion or early termination of this Agreement,
16.4 Notwith,ullIding Sections ]6,1 through 16.3, CONSULTANT shall 110( be
required to indemnify CITY for any habilily, loss or damage in excess of the amount of
insurance coverage in the professional liability rcquiremenlS sct forth in Section ]8 and Exhibit
"0",
s t:C!ION !7! WAIVE KS, The wai\'l:r by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant.
t=n. condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will !lOt
be deemed 10 be a wal\'er of Wly other term, covenant, conduion, provisions, ordinance or law. or of
any subsequent breach or violation of the same or or any OIher term, covenant. colldition, provision,
ordinance or law.
S.:CTION 18. IN"SURANCE.
18.1. CONSUL TANT.at its solecooandupenst".shall obtain andmalnmin. in full
force and effect dW'HIg the lam ohhis A8='menl, the insurance oo\'erage desaibc:d in Exhibil ~D·.
CONSULTANT and ilS COntnlCIOfS. if any, shall oblllin a policy endorsement nammg CITY as an
addlllonal insured under any general liability or aUlOmobile policy or policies.
IS.2. All insul1Iocc covmllge required hereunder shall be provided through carrien
wi!h AM !ksc', Kev Raling Guide l1I1ings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to
1l1IOSOCI il1llurancc business in the Stale of California. Any and all OODirllCtOB o[CONSUL TANT
retained 10 perform Sen'ices UDdcr!hlS Agreement will obtain and maintain, io full force and effect
during the term of this Agreement, identical insWllIlCC' covCl1Ige. namiog CITY as lID additional
inJiured under such policies lIS reqUired above.
1S.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed wi!h CITY concurrmtly
with the c"te<:ulion ofthisAgreemenL l1lecertificates will be subje<:t 10 !he appro\'aJ ofC/TV's Risk
Manager and wIll contain an endorsement stating that the insunmce is primwy covel1lgc and will DOl
be canaled, or materially reduced in IXlVel1lge or limits, by the iosUJ'CT exccpI: after filing WIth the
Purchasins Manaserthirty (30) days' prior wnncn lIOIicc of the cancellation ormodlfication. If !he
inslUl;l'" cancels or modifies the insuT"lI1H:c and provides less than thirty (30) days' notice to
CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall usc best efforts to endeavor to provide the Purchasing
Manager "TlIICTl nolice ofthccancel1atioo or modification. CONSULTANT shall be respoosible for
ensuring !hat curn:-nt certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasins
Manager dunng the enhre term of this Agrument.
18.4. n.e procuring of such required policy or policies of insunHlce will not be
construed 10 limil CONSUL TAN1's liabilily hereunder nor to fulfillthc indemnification provisions
of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be
obltgllted fonhe full and total amount of any damage, iOJury, or loss caused byordireetly arisingas
a n:sult of the Services perfonncd under this Agreement, inclUding such damage, injury, or toss
arismg after the Agreement ;s terminated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. n :RMINATION OR SUSPENS ION OF' AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. TheClty Manager may suspend the pctfonnance of the Services. in whole or
in pllr1, or lerminPle Ihis Agreement. with or wi thout cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written
notice Iheroofto CONSULTANT. Upon receipt ofsueh notice, CONSULTANT will immediately
discontinue ils perfonllance of the Services.
19.2. CONSULTANT may Icnninate Ibis Agrccmcntorsuspend its pcrfonnanccof
the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior writlcn notice thereoflO CITY, but only in the event of
a substantial failure of performance by CITY.
19,3. Upon sueh suspcn~ion or tcrmin.:ltion. CONSULTANT shall deliver 10 the
" « ,'_1 Sorv.ooo _ Nov I.NIl
City Manager immediately any and all C()Jlies of studies, sketches. dra .... ;ngs. computatlOOS. and
odler data. whether or not completed. p~ by CONSULT ANT or lIS COIlInlClOrS. if any. or given
to CONSULT AA'T or ilSoontrxlOf'S. ifany. incoonection .... ;lh Ihis Agreel1l('nt. Such materials wilt
become the propeny of CITY .
19.4. Upon such suspensionor tCflTlination by CITY ,CONSULTANT will be paid
for the !krvices 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 slISpCflsion or terminatiOll; provKlcd.
ho ..... evt'f, if this Agreement is suspended or termmated on account ofa default by CONSULTANT.
C ITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion o(CONSUL TANT's
scndCC'S which are of direct and immediate bcnefittoCITY as such determination may be made by
the City Manager acting in the reasooable elCcn.:ise ofhislhcr discretiOIl. l1Ie f01l0 .... ;ng Sections will
survIVe any ClCpirallOO or tenninallon of this Agreement: 14. 15, 16. 19.4.20, and 25.
19.5. No payment. partial paymcnt.lICccplBDCe, orpanial acceptance by CITY wlll
O]X'rate as. waiver on tbe pan nfCITY of lilly of ilS righlS under this Agreement.
St:cnON 20. NOTlCt;S.
All notices hereunder will be gIven in writing and ma,led, postage prepaid. by
cenified mail, addressed.s follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
1)0~1 Office BOlC 10250
I'alo Alto, CA 94303
WIth II. copy to the l'urchllSing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Allention of the proJC(;t dlm:\Or
at the address of CONSUL TANT recited ahove
St:CTION 21, CONt'U C I" Of' INURES"!".
21.1. In accepting thisAgn:ement, CONSULTANT CO\'enanlS that it presently has
no intettSt. and will not acquire any mttrest. direct or uidlrc<:t, financ ial orothCl"Wise. which would
confliel in any manner Of degree wllh Ihe performance of the Services.
21 .2. CONSULTANT funherC(lvenants that, lIlthc performance ofthisAgrecmetlt.
it WIll nOI employ subcoruultanlS. conlractors or persons having such an interest CONSULTANT
certifi~ thai no]lCr$OIl ..... ho lias orw,lI ha\e any financial mt=1 under thIS Agrumcm is anoiflCer
or employee of CITY : this provisioo will be Interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions
oftbc Palo Allo Muni<:ipal Code and the GO\'emmenl Code orthe State ofCaltfornta.
21 .3. If the Project Mllnagerdetermines that CONSULTA.NT is a "ConsultanC as
lhaltcrTl1 15 defined by !he RegulationJof !he Fatr Polmcal Practices Comnllssion. CONSULT M'T
,F I_
ll<>. _ I. lOll
5hall be required and agrees to fi le the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the
Palo Alto Municipal Code lind the I'olitical Rcform Act.
S ECTION 22. NONOISCRIM INA1·ION. As set forth in Palo Alto MUnicipal Code section
2.30.510. CONSULTANT certi fies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shaH TlOt
discriminate in the employmem ofany person because oflhe mce, skin color, gender. age, rehgion,
disability, nallOnal ooglO. arocestry, Soe)(ual orientation. hoosing status, marital status, familial status,
wcightor height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges Ihat it has read and ~tands the
provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Aho MUnicipal Code rdating to Nondiscrimination
Requirements and the penalties for violation therwf, and agrees to meet all requircmcllls ofScclion
2.30.5 10 pcrt.DlI1l11g to nomilsoenminahon 111 employment
~~~~;;o;<;;; IIohl(:h are available at the Pun;hasing Department. incorporated by
reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City'S Zero Waste Program. Zero
Waste best pnctICCS ux:IOOe first mimmlZlng and reducing waste . scoond, reusing waste.nd third.
recycling orcomposllng Wasfe. ]n partIcular. COIUullall1 shall comply With !he following zero waste
requil'CTllCnts;
• All pnnted TnlIlenals pnmdcd by Consultant to Clly generated from I pcr5Ol13l
computer and printer IndOOmg but 001 limited 10, proposals. quotes, in\·oices.
reporu. and public cducallOO malenals. shall be double-Sided and pnntcd on a
minimum ofJO% or greater post-consumer contmt paper. unless od!crwise approved
by the City's Projecl Manager. Any submitted matenals primed by a professional
printing company shall be a mlmmumoOO%or greatcrpost-consumermaterial and
pnmed With vegetable based inks.
• Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purcbased in
accordance with thc City's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but oot
limited to Ex:teOOcd Producer ResponSibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this poltey is on file at the Purchasing Officc.
• Reusabld rerumable 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 10 veritY that pallets are not being disposed.
SECfION 24. NON-A PPROPRI ATION
24.1. ThisAgn:cmcnt is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Chllrtcroflhe ellyof
Palo Alto and the PaloAl1O Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without anypcnalty(a)
allhe md of any fiscal year in the evellt that funds an: IlOI appropriated for !he following fiscal year,
or (b) at lIny time within a fiscal year in the evmt that funds are only appropriated for a portioo of
the fiscal year and funds for thi S Agreement IIrc 00 longer available. This section shall take
precedence in the event ora conflict with any other covenant, tenn, conditioo, or proVISIOn oflhis
Agreement
SECTION 25. MISCEU.ANE:O US PROVISIONS.
25.1. This AgtcelllClIt will be gO\'emctI by the laws ofthc State ofCaltfomia.
'"F 1 _ _ _ 1.2011
25.2. In the event that an action is brought, theparties agree that trial of such action
w,ll be vested eJlclusIVl'ly in the state couru of California io the County of Santa Clara, State of
California.
25.3. Thc pn:vailing party in any action brought 10 l'nfon:e the proviSIOns of this
Agreement may rcco~er its reasonable COSts and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that
action. The pre\'ailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of
legal serviees provided by attorneys employed by it as well as allY anorneys' fees paid to third
parties.
25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement betwe.:n the
panics and supersedes all prior negotiatiOns, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document muy be amended only by a written instrument. which is signed by the panics.
25.5. The covenants, terms. conditions and provisions of this Agreemenl will apply
10. and will bind. the heirs, successors. exeCUtors. administrators, assignees, and consultants of the
parties.
25.6. Ir, coun of oompetcmjunsd,ction finds 01" rules thai any provision of this
Agreement 01" any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable. the unaffected proVisions of this
Ag:reemcnt and any amendments thereto will remain in full fon:e and effect.
25.7. All exhibits refcm-d to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices.
attachments, and schedules to this Agreement whICh, from IIIIlC to time, may be referred 10 in any
duly executed amendment heR'to are by su.ch reference incorporated in this Agreemenland will be
deemed to be a part ofth'$ Agreement.
25.8 If, pUr.luant to this contract with CONSULTANT, Cily shares with
CONSULTANT pefl()fll] mformatlon as defined III Califonua Civil Code section 1798.815(d)
about II California resident ("PCIWRlI Infonnatlon "). CONSULT AJ>IT shall maintain reasonable and
approprime secunty proccdun:s to prok"Ct thai PCr.IO{I8 I Informallon, and shall ioform City
Immediately upon leamin8 that there has been a breach m the security of the system or in the
security of the PersonallnformatiOfl. CONSUL TAJ>IT $hall 001 usc PelliOlllll (nformaooo fordin:ct
marketmg purposes without Cily'$ express wnllen consent
25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply 10 thl$ agreemenL
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
""" ,-R ... )000,0. Utll
1/
1/
25.10 The indivKluals cxccunng tillS Agreement represcol and walTllDl that they
ha\'c the legal capacity and authority to do so 00 bdtalf o{!heir ~\'e legal entities.
25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple CQ\lJlIerpartS, which shan. when
executed by all the pal1ies. constitute a single binding Ilgrttmcnt
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the panics hereto hue by !heLr duly authorized
repf'csctualives executed this Agreement on the dalc fim above written.
e rn'OF PALO AI-TO
By:
City Manager
Title: J)/I~c:hr
APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1'7'tT2-? UJ/3
Senior Asst. City Attorney
AUa.chments:
EXHIOIT"A":
EXIiII3lT"O":
EXHI [!lT"C":
EXHIBIT "C-I":
EXHI OIT"O":
SCOPE OF WOR K
SCII EDU LE OF PER~'ORMANCE
COM PENSATION
SCII EDU LE OF RATES
INSURANCE REQUIREM ENTS
,,' _5«> _
_ _ 1.2Cl1I
EXHl8IT ~A~
SCOPE OF SERVICES
l1Ie consullJont may be asked to perform services in the follo .... ing Im'as:
A. Monitor and analyze CPUC and FE RC proc«dings and represent the City's Interests.
ClHISulfan/ sholl mOl!lfor and analyze orders. decisiom, andfilings by and before fhe
CPUC tmd Ihe FERCjor i"'fXJCl on the Cily. COn$ulllJnt shtJll kkrltify issues Inat nIQ}' impactlhe
City's cosu or abIlity 10 exercise local conlrol and rocommcnd courses 0/ aclion 10 N!pnscntlM
City s intereJu /If sucn pl"OCeedlngs. Including presentation o/teslilOOny. SpecifICally. ConsulwlII
shall pro.o/(k Ihis S''Pporl,/or PetiE's PSEP, PGtiE's BACP and PG&E'$ GRC.
B. Maintain an on·going presence at the CPUC and P(;&E \() represent the City's Interests
elTectively
Consultant slwfl mUinlain routine and sufficient occeu 10 kPy policynwkers alld stufJ
at the CPUC I<J /ocillwte, upon Cily Qlllhorizutian. effective and effICient representlJtion O/Ihe City's
l·iev.poIIllS and collcerns on gus regulatory issues. Consultant ... iII also muintain rolltine contact
.... iln key staff Q/ PGd-E.
C. Work with City to establish regulatory and legislative objectives. goals and priorities.
COI'$lIltalll .... iII commllnicll/e on a regular Ixlsis .... ilh City staff ulld {/e l'elop
regulatory amlleg/Slali~ objectil·e.' and strategies /ur the City. CansU/lOnt .• hall perform .... ork
requested by the City to SlIpporl utlilinlng its gus acquisition. gllS storuge alld Immporlotion
ahjectj,'eJ.
D. AssiSt City in negotiation w.th any PG&E Settlement processes
COrlSultanl shull assist City staff in negotiating .... ith PGtiE through any rele\IUnl
settlement proceucs.
E. Assist City with issucs rclpted to publicly-owned natural gPS uti liti es.
Consultant will ass/stine City wllh pub!ic!y-o ... ncd gm utility issues including 001 nul
,oJ Is-.:..
a... frio« I. XIII
limited tojurislliction. fllX-ext:mpt bonds, ent:rgy efficiency, gret:nhou.)!e gas regula/ions including
cop wultrode, other environmemaf inilia/ives, independence in selling rUle!!, Cf7C ,,,,d Dodd-
Fronk Ael implieafions, and involvemenl in Joint Powers AUflwrity for investment in namral gas
supplies und faciliTies.
F: Provide the City with miscellancous natural gas procurement and transportation related
consulting serv ices
Consultant shull perform other namral gas-relmeli "'ork w requested by Cil)' slaff
!'r<.f ... ioMI s.rn...
R ... N .. I.lOII
EXHIBIT "'8M
SCII £I)ULE OF PERJ.-ORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perfonn the ServiCes so as 10 complete each mi lestone within the number of
dayslwecksspecified below. The time rocomplclC each milcstooc may be increased ordecreased by
mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSUL TANT and CITY so longasall work
is completed within the teoo ortne Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of
work consiste nt with the schedule below wi thin 2 weeks of receipt of the notice 10 proceed.
l. Consulting Services
Completion
No. of OaysIWecks
From NTP
On call
EX lll81T ~C"
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees 10 eompellSale the CONSULTANT forprofC'SSlonal services perfonned III
aceordance with the terms IU1d conditiON orthis Apeemcnl based 00 the hourly rale schedule
allacbed lIS Exhibit C-I.
The compensation 10 be paId 10 CONSULTANT under thIS Agreement for all sen'ICes
described in Exhibit -A" (-SI;orviccs-).nd reimbursable expenses shall 001 exceed $225,000.
CONSULTANT a~ 10 complete all Services. including reimbursable expenses, "ithin this
amounl. Any wor\:: performed or expen5e5 IncUJTed for "hich pa>'ment would result in a tOlaI
exceeding lhe maximum amount of eompensation set forth herein shall be 91 no cost 10 the
CITY.
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The adminiSlTative, overhead, secrrtarial lime or $CCrelanal overt.me, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing. insurance andOlher ordinary business expenses are included
within the scope of paymeUl for scrvices and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall
reimburs.:. CONSULTANT for the followiuK reImbursable expenses at cos!. Expenses for
which CONSULTANT shall be reimbtmed are:
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area. iacluding transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed al actual cost subject to the City of Palo Aho's pohey for reimbul"lCmeUl oflTavd
and meal eltpenses for City of Palo Alto cmpl oyees.
B. Long distance telephone SCrvlce charges, cell ular pbonc service charges, facsimile
lnlnsmission and postage charges arc: reimbursable al actual cost.
All mjuests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropnate backup
mformalion. Any expense anticipated to be more than S I 00 shall be apprm'ed in advance by
the C ITY's project manager.
ADDITIONAL SE RVlC.:S
The CONSULTANT shall provide add.tKJrUII services ooly by advanced. wrinen
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY '$ project manager's mjucst,
sha.1I submit a detailed wriuen proposal includmg , descopuon of Ihe scope of servH:CS,
schcdule.\C',·d of effort. and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation .• acluding
reimbursable expenses. for such services based on the rates set fonh III Ext"blt C_I. The
additional services scope. schedule and max.imum compensation sha.1l be IlCgotialed and
agreed to in writing by the CITY's Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to
commencement of tile services. Payment for additional services is subjcct loall mjuiremcnts
and restriclions in this Agreement.
", .--~ __ ',:roll
I':XHI81T "C-l ~
HOURI. Y RA TF. SCH [DUU :
Na~'iganl hourly Tates for professional services are listed below:
Man.aging Director
Director
Associate Director
Managing Consultant
Senior COllsultant
Consultant
Admin Support
$397 per hour
$354 per hour
$309 per hour
$255 per hour
$222 per hour
$169 per hour
$136 per hour
The above Tates shall be adjusted each year. commencing January 1.2014,10
reflect the cllange in Tales csl3blished by Navigant.
Gas regulatory serviccs provided under this contract. including reimbursable
expenses, sball not exceed 575,000.00 in the first contract year. Should the contraci be extended,
services, including reimbursable expenses, sball not exceed $75.000.00 in tbc SC(:ond year and
575.000.00 in tbe tbird year.
Testimony sball be billed at not less than eight (8) hours per day.
Reproduction, printing, communications, computer services. and other miscellaneous support sball
be billed at niles for such services as detennined from time to time and officially C'Stablished by
Navigant.
EX I-IIIJI T "0"
INSURANCE ItfQUIREMENTS
CONTI\ACTOI\S TO THE CITY 01' r AUl M.TO (CITY). "T THtl1C SOU! EXPE..sI!. SIl"LL t"Oll TH~ TeRM Of Tilil COt<TIlACf
OIIT"IN "ND "'''IKT "IN INSUIlANC~ IN nl~" I.IOUNTS fOIl TH~ conllAUt. sn:crf lED 8ELDW. "rmRDlD IV C01>I' .... ·m:s
.. ITH "." II:.-U·8 I1r.. lUI Tl~ Of' M ' I I. ()II IllCm: It. I.ICI;."S(D Olt "IITIIOIUUD 1 0 TIlAN'J.<cr INSU ..... ~r. l OS' ~ W IN
THL !IT",Tr. Ot· C'O'I."·OIl:o!I ....
(;[Nl:AAl U,,8IUT'l' .INCLUIINO
PUSON.u.INJ\..IlY. lIRQAD ' or.M
MllUMOIIILf UI\BIUT'I'. I1'CI.lIOIf'o(I
"lL """NUl. ",uo. _.o ... .,..w
.... 0fDSI0NAL u.o.BIlITY. r.«':LUOI!OG.
uaOU ...... OONIUIO!<!.
!AA1..I'ItM:1lC1> ('1111-10< "I'PU('AllUL
"SI,> N'.(;i.I()[/o,T ~JOC1I
".000_
" .....
IIOOILY INJUIlY .... ~lIl'1lO1'U1n
TIlE cln Of' ,,,1.0 "LTD 1lI ro K N.'-... [II"' ....... oWIII"riOS"L IS~t'ICUI COt<nt.\CTOIl. "T rn SOt.ECOST .... "1) U'EI"S£.
5HA.l.I. OIIT"'" A..'ill MlJNTIoIN. IN FULL roan ""0 [Ina TH~ TH[ EN111U; THlM OF.>.NY lUSUI.TANT
.o.GIt£DIEXT. 1111! r.o."WIlANCT. COVERAoGf. t«IlEIN Ot:JCll.lIllll. I\<ISUlU'IiO NOT O!'ol Y COIlBACTOIt A..'1J rn SIJ9C()!o,~T""~"TS.
l.I' .>.NY. BUT.u..50. WIT1l 11111 UCI:J'11ON 01' Vo'QIlUI.lI· COMPENSAoTIO"'. EMI'LOvn'S lL\81UTY .-NO ~
I~SUIlANC£.IO"."I~G '" "DDIT1ON~L '..-S\.IlF.D5 on. IT5 cOt. '\CIL "l. ... I(RI, Otl"Jc;[1IS, "Cr.NT1 ....... D l.""""·LI&
I. TNSURA'ICE CO'/[RAGE MUST TNCLlJl)E:
.... ... PROVISION FOIl A WRIITLN mlRTY (30) D"Y ADVANClI SOT1CE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
CO'/[RAGE OR Of COVERAGE CANCEU.A TION. AND
B. A CONl'RACTlJAL UAIlILITY F.NOORSJ:M[NT PROV1DING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOIl
COlooTRACTOR 'S AOREE."IENT TO INDEM NIFY CITY
C. DWUCTlIlLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF SHOl REQUIRIICITY'S PRIOR AI'f'ROVAL.
II CONT"CTOR MUST SUB!>i 1T CERTlflCATES(S) OP INSURANCH rVIDrNCING REQUIRW CO'/[RAGE.
III ENDQRSB19."T I'ROVISIONS, Wlnl RliSPI'.CT TO n il! INSURANCE AFFORDED TO "ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS'
.... PRl'IMYCOYEItAGC
Wlnt Rf.sl'ECT TO Cl.AIMS ... RISING 0IJf OF TItE OPERATIONS Of nil! 1'1 .... "'£0 INSURED. INSURANCE AS
MFORD£O BY nns I'Ol..ICY IS I'IU).!ARV ANI> IS NOT AOOlnONAL TO OR CON1lI.lBtlTlNG WITH ....... 'Y OllIEJt
INSURA.'iCE CARRIED IIY OIl t·Ok mE BENEFIT Of m E A[)[)fl"l()WAL INSUREDS
II. CJIOSs U ... IIU,ITY
,_" --a... Now '.)1111
TIlE NAMI"O Of' MORE THAI'< 0/I0.'E I'ERSOS. fIRM. OR aJIIJ'OItAllON AS INSUREDS miDU. TIlE POLICY SHAW.
>:01", fOIl. n iAT REASOS ALOSe. EXTIMlUISH AI<o'Y MlGirrs Of THE I''SlJR[D AGAISST ANOTlfER. BIIT nils
r...:ooasEMOoT. AND mE NMiNO Of Ml.A..n Pt..E ISSUlEDS. SHAU. NOT NCJ.EASE nm TOTAL lIABIUlY Of
TIlE COMMNY UNDI':R THIS POLICY
C !SOI1eE Of CANCEIL\JION
IFnlE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXI'IUTlCN 0.0.1"£ fOR ANY iU!ASOS OTIIER
TIIA.": THE NOS~A YMENT or l'RE.\Uuw. THE LSSlJING COMf' ....... 'Y SHALL uS!; ITS BaT
£FfQll:TS TO ENDI'.A \"()R. TO PROVIDE aTY AT LEAST A THIRTY (XI) DAY .... 'lUTTEN
NOTICE 8EFOkE me EffECTIVE 0.0. TE OF CASCEllA nos
2 If THE I'Ol.ICY IS CASCELED 8EFORE ITS EXI'1MA noN 0.0.1"£ FOR TIm '«lS·'A YMENT
Of 1'1I.E.\lJUM. TIIE ISSUINGa)MI'ANY SllAU PIlOVlOECITY AT \..£AST A Tf.": (11)) 0.0. Y
W1UTT'EN NOTICE BEFORE nlE EFfECTIVE DA1"£ OF CANCElLI. nos
I'o01'IC£SSIlALI. 8t; MAIL[U 1'0:
ruRc IlAs .... G AND CO'TRACT AD:YII,'iISTIlA TIOS
OTY Of 1'.0.1.0 ALTO
1'.0. BOX II!5t
'AI.OAI.TO.CA J.lltJ
"f --I~ __ .1.1011
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3974)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/9/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of Sole Source Purchase Authority
Title: Approval to Increase the Existing Sole Source Purchase Authority with
National Meter and Automation, Inc. in the Amount of $150,000 a Year for
Two Years for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $900,000 to Purchase
Additional Meters for the Large Water Meter Replacement/Repair Project
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve an increase to the existing sole source purchase
authority with National Meter and Automation, Inc. in the amount of $150,000 per year for two
years for a total not to exceed amount of $900,000, to purchase additional meters for the Large
Water Meter Replacement/Repair Project. Since the original sole source purchase authority
was for $600,000 over three years, approval of this increase will bring the total not to exceed
amount of the sole source purchase authority to $900,000 over three years.
Background
Funds for this project have already been approved under Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
WS-80015. This request is for the allocation of additional funds to the existing sole source
purchase authority.
During the normal course of business over many years, staff has observed that Badger water
meters have a long life span, are accurate, relatively inexpensive, and problem free. Further,
field staff are trained on both the repair and maintenance of Badger water meters. Different
meters from different manufacturers would result in additional costs being incurred to
maintain and manage adequate inventory stock for different types of meters; different types of
calibration equipment; additional training for all field service technicians to repair and test
different types of meters; and possible mis-reads by meter readers who would need to become
accustomed to multiple types of dial layouts.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Standardizing metering equipment is a cost-effective way of reducing both inventory costs and
meter repair and replacement costs by reducing the margin for errors and “re-works” in the
field, that can otherwise be caused by a lesser familiarity with a piece of equipment.
National Meter and Automation, Inc. is the Northern California distributor of Badger water
meters. In January 2013, the City Manager’s Office approved the use of a sole source purchase
National Meter and Automation, Inc., pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.360(e).
The approval for $200,000 per year ($600,000 total) is valid for three years (2012-2015). Since
the amount of the original sole source purchase was within the City Manager’s approval
authority pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.210(b), Council approval was not
requested. This request for an additional $300,000 over the next two years would increase the
total amount of the sole source purchase to $900,000 for the three year term of the
agreement, and requires Council approval. Note that because water meters
are purchased as dictated by business need and inventory levels, and individual Purchase
Orders are issued throughout the year as needed, there is no single Purchase Order number
associated with this request.
Discussion
City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) meter records indicate a substantial number of water meters
are in need of replacement or repair. Replacing aged meters produces fiscal benefits by
optimizing revenue recovery. CPAU plans to replace aged water meters with new meters that
employ the latest technology to measure water flow without moving parts within the meter.
To examine its meter records and to initiate an aggressive/accelerated meter maintenance and
replacement program, in 2011-2012 CPAU contracted with a third party to conduct an audit of
the City’s installed water meters. The audit recommended that, due to age, many of the large
water meters (ranging from 3-inch to 8 inch-meters) were in need of replacement. Other
smaller meters were recommended for replacement within the next few years, and it was
recommended that all other meters be calibrated and when possible repaired. In reviewing the
audit results and in light of staff’s training and familiarity with Badger water meters, staff again
recommends that water meters be standardized through a single manufacturer to reduce
inventory and maintenance costs and meter reading confusion.
Based on the audit results, CPAU is pursuing an accelerated meter replacement and repair CIP,
WS-80015 (Attachment A). The CIP includes meter purchases for new customers, upgrading
meters for current customers, and replacing obsolete meters that are no longer repairable. The
CIP also includes testing and calibration of certain water meters annually. An Invitation for Bids
(IFB) for replacement, repair and calibration of large water meters has been published and a
separate contract will be awarded for those services. This project will result in more accurate
usage data and will reduce water losses caused by meters that no longer produce accurate
reads.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The existing sole source purchase authority with National Meter and Automation, Inc. is
sufficient for the course of regular business, but will not accommodate the additional meters
needed to complete an “accelerated meter replacement and repair” capital improvement
project. Based on the findings of the audit, approximately 100 meters of various sizes (3 inches
to 8 inches) require replacement. Due to the large number of meters identified for replacement
over the next two years, the amount approved under the original sole source request will be
exceeded. This amended sole source request is for an additional $150,000 per year for two
years, for a total not to exceed amount of $300,000. If approved, the amended sole source
purchase authority will be for a total of $900,000 over three years, from December 2012 to
December 2015. Staff recommends that Council approve an increase of $300,000 to the sole
source purchase authority with National Meter and Automation, Inc.
Resource Impact
Funding for this request has already been approved under CIP Water Meters (WS-80015).
Environmental Review
Council’s approval of this sole source purchase authority does not meet the California
Environmental Quality Act’s definition of a “project” pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21065, thus environmental review is not required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Water Meters (WS-80015) (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3999)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/9/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Verizon Wireless Contract Renewal
Title: Approval to Utilize the Renewal of The Western State Contracting
Alliance (WSCA) Contract for Wireless and Cellular Services with Verizon
Wireless
From: City Manager
Lead Department: IT Department
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council retroactively authorizes the use of the Solicitation and
award criteria of the Master Service Agreement effective 06/15/2011 through
10/31/2016, with the option to extend the contract for two more years. Contract
Number: 1907 and The State of California Western States Contracting Alliance Verizon
Wireless Contract Number: 7-10-70-16, Supplement 12 (MSA 1907.pdf,
Supp_12_Verizon_User_Instructions_July_24,_2013).
Executive Summary
The Western States Contracting Alliance (“WSCA”) is a cooperative group-contracting
consortium for state government departments, institutions, agencies and political
subdivisions (i.e., colleges, school districts, counties, cities, etc.,) for the states of
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. This is a contract
between the Western States Contracting Alliance, acting by and through the State of
Nevada Department of Administration, Purchasing Division. The State of Nevada has
been authorized by WSCA to negotiate a Master Agreement as Lead State, for and on
behalf of WSCA and its members. The contract allows the City to utilize Verizon
Wireless, T-Mobile, AT&T and/or Sprint networks.
Background
The City has over 500 devices which consist of cell phones, wireless devices and
equipment with an annual spend of roughly $186,000 per year. By using the WSCA
City of Palo Alto Page 2
contract the City can utilize the significant cost savings that this contract sets forth.
(1907 WSCA Pricing Sheet _AZ CA CO ID NE OK OR UT WA_ 7 9 13.pdf). Examples of
where the City saves money using this contract are the elimination of activation fees
and no early termination fees. The City has been using the WSCA contract since 2006
and would like to continue using the WSCA contract for all mobile needs. The State
WSCA contract has been renewed through 10/31/2016, with an option to extend the
contract for two more years. The City currently has an account with Verizon Wireless
having the IT department as the master account. Several sub-accounts have been
created under the master account for each City department. Each City department is
responsible for payment of their respective accounts each month.
Discussion
By utilizing the WSCA wireless contract, the City can receive more aggressive cellular
rate plans and significant hardware cost savings. It also allows the City to expand and
offer additional options for smartphones, in turn creating a smartphone standard for the
City. The discount given to the City using the WSCA contract is 22% off of the standard
pricing. For example, a standard 2GB data plan per month costs $30 per month on
Verizon. Under the WSCA contract that same 2GB data plan costs $23.40 per month.
Verizon offers agencies that utilize the WSCA contract an unlimited data plan that is not
available to other customers. The plan is available to the City under the WSCA contract
at $37.99 per month. Business Plans not on WSCA start at 450 Minutes with text
included at $64.99 per month. WSCA allows the City to use flat rate plans which charge
$0.06 per minute. It is a pay as you use feature. That line will not be charged a
monthly service charge, only charged by the number of minutes used.
In addition to cellular services and equipment, the City will also be utilizing the contract
pricing to purchase tablet devices and create a tablet standard from the product line
offered from Verizon Wireless. IT will open up the ability to all City departments to
purchase IT standardized tablets. Those devices will come to IT for configuration and
tracking and then sent out to the ordering department. This new tablet standard is part
of the Digital City Strategy that IT is implementing. It will help provide innovative
technology solutions that support City departments in delivering quality services to the
community. Tablets are growing in popularity largely due to the cost being less than a
laptop, they are smaller and lighter than laptops and regarded as easier to use. By
utilizing this contract, it also allows IT to keep up with the department demand for
mobile computing and leads the way into supporting a more mobile workforce.
Resource Impact
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Funds for these services are provided from departmental operating budgets. No further
cost savings will result from the benefits that the City has already received by operating
under this contract.
Environmental Review
Approval of this contract does not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no Environmental Assessment is required.
Attachments:
MSA 1907 (PDF)
1907 WSCA Pricing Sheet _AZ CA CO ID NE OK OR UT WA_ 7 9 13 (PDF)
Supp_12_Verizon_User_Instructions_July_24,_2013 (PDF)
1
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
Verizon Wireless Pricing Sheet
Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Contract for Services #1907
For States Including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Utah & Washington
VZW Nationwide for Government Share Calling Plans
Unlimited National Mobile to Mobile and Night & Weekend Minutes
No Domestic Roaming or Long Distance Charges
Monthly Anytime
Voice Minutes
WSCA Discount
No additional discounts apply
Unlimited
Push to Talk
Per-Minute
Rate After
Allowance
0 $15.99* Not Included
$0.25 100 $23.98 $2.00
200 $27.29 $2.00
100 Messages
(Text, Picture and Video) Included
Incoming Text
$0.02 /
Outgoing Text
$0.10 / Pic &
Video $0.25
Data Sent or Received $1.99/ MB or per data package**
Unlimited Messages
(Text, Picture and Video) $12 additional monthly access per line
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. See attached Calling Plan and Feature Details for important information about calling
plans, features and options. *The $15.99 zero access plan can only be 50% of an accounts total share lines. **3G Smartphones and 3G Data Multimedia Phones
require a data package.
WSCA Nationwide for Government Calling Plans
Unlimited National Mobile to Mobile and Night & Weekend Calling Minutes
No Domestic Roaming or Long Distance Charges
Monthly Anytime
Voice Minutes
Monthly Access Fee
Non-Shared Minutes
Monthly Access Fee
Shared Minutes
Friends &
Family
(Up to 10 numbers)
Per-Minute
Rate After
Allowance Monthly Access Fee with a 22% WSCA Discount
400 $35.88 $27.99 $38.45 $29.99 Not Included $0.25
600 $52.56 $41.00 $55.12 $42.99
Included* 1000 $67.94 $52.99 $70.50 $54.99
100 Messages
(Text, Picture and Video) Included
Incoming Text
$0.02 /
Outgoing Text
$0.10 / Pic &
Video $0.25
Data Sent or Received $1.99/ MB or per data package**
Unlimited Push-to-Talk $2.00
Unlimited Messages
(Text, Picture and Video) $12 additional monthly access per line
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. See attached Calling Plan and Feature Details for important information about calling
plans, features and options. *Friends & Family eligibility varies on selected calling plan. ** 3G Smartphones and 3G Data Multimedia Phones require a data package
2
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
VZW Nationwide for Business Calling Plans
Unlimited National Mobile to Mobile and Night & Weekend Calling Minutes
No Domestic Roaming or Long Distance Charges
Unlimited Text Messages for Talk & Text Plans
Monthly Anytime
Voice Minutes
Talk Talk & Text Friends &
Family
(Up to 10 numbers)
Per-Minute
Rate After
Allowance Monthly Access Fee with a 22% WSCA Discount
450 $39.99 $31.19 $59.99 $46.79 Included w/ Share*
$0.25
900 $59.99 $46.79 $79.99 $62.39
Included* Unlimited $69.99 $54.59 $89.99 $70.19
Share Option $5 $3.90 additional monthly access per line
100 Messages
(Text, Picture and Video) Included
Incoming Text
$0.02 /
Outgoing Text
$0.10 / Pic &
Video $0.25
Unlimited Push-to-Talk $2.00
Data Sent or Received $1.99/ MB or per data package**
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. See attached Calling Plan and Feature Details for important information about calling
plans, features and options. *Friends & Family eligibility varies on selected calling plan. ** 3G Smartphones and 3G Data Multimedia Phones require a data package.
Share Everything for Small Business Plans:
Talk, Text and Data Government Subscribers
Monthly Line Access (Is NOT eligible for Monthly Access Charge discounts)
Smartphones Basic Phones Jetpacks/Netbooks/Notebooks/
USBs/ 4G LTE Routers
Tablets
$40.00 per device $30.00 per device $20.00 per device $10.00 per device
Monthly Account Access Fee with a 22% WSCA Discount
Monthly Account Access Maximum Number of
Lines (per billing account) Shared Data Allowance Domestic Data Overage
$40.00 $31.20
10
300 MB
$15.00 per GB
$50.00 $39.00 1 GB
$60.00 $46.80 2 GB
$70.00 $54.60 4 GB
$80.00 $62.40 6 GB
$100.00 $78.00 10 GB
$110.00 $85.80 12 GB
$120.00 $93.60 14 GB
$130.00 $101.40 16 GB
$140.00 $109.20 18 GB
$150.00 $117.00 20 GB
$225.00 $175.50
25
30 GB
$300.00 $234.00 40 GB
$375.00 $292.50 50 GB
General Allowance Minutes Unlimited
Domestic Long Distance Included
NationalAccess Roaming $0.002 per KB(Canada)/ $0.005 per KB (Mexico)
Unlimited Domestic Text, Picture, and
Video Messages Included
3
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
Canada and Mexico Only Feature
Monthly Account Access
Monthly Shared Minutes
for Long Distance and
Roaming
Maximum Number of Lines
(per billing account)
Voice Per Minute Rate after
Allowance
$15.00 1,000 (for plans that share up to 10 lines) $0.35 per minute $25.00 2,000 (for plans that share up to 25 lines)
Data Usage (Pay As You Go) $0.002 per KB(Canada)/ $0.005 per KB (Mexico)
Global Data Package Feature
Monthly Account Access (Is eligible for Monthly Access Charge discounts)
Monthly Line Access Data Allowance (non-share) Data Overage
$25.00 per device 100 MB $25.00 per 100 MB
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. Access fee discounts applied at the account level only. Included Text Messages
originating in the U.S. to Canada and Mexico, and originating from Canada to the U.S. Prevailing rates apply to all other messages.Text Messages originating from
Mexico are $0.50 per message sent (per recipient) and $0.05 per message received. Customers subscribing to Share Everything for Small Business Plans and non-
Share Everything for Small Business Plans will be billed on separate billing accounts and invoices.
Voice Sharing (Canada and Mexico only, if selected): At the end of each bill cycle any unused voice allowances will be applied to the overages of the other lines
on the same account beginning with the line with the highest overage need. Calling plan changes may not take effect until the next billing cycle following the request.
Global Data Package. Not available in all countries. $0.02 per KB for countries not included in the global allowance
Sharing: Sharing is available only among Government Subscribers on the Share Everything for Small Business Plans – Talk Text and Data. At the end of each bill
cycle any unused data allowances will be applied to the overages of the other lines on the same account beginning with the line with the lowest overage need.
Calling plan changes may not take effect until the billing cycle following the change request. Each sharing Subscriber’s unused allowances will pass to other sharing
Subscribers that have exceeded their GB allowance during the same monthly bill period. Data allowances from Share Everything for Business plans will not share
with any non-Share Everything for Small Business Plans.
Share Everything for Small Business Plans: Basic Phone Talk Only
Government Subscribers
Up to ten (10) lines Only (per billing account)
Monthly Line Access and Monthly Account Access (Are NOT eligible for Monthly Access Charge discounts)
Basic Phones Only
Monthly Device Access Charge $30.00 per device
Monthly Account Access Charge $10.00
Domestic Anytime Voice Allowance Per Month 700 Minutes (shared)
Voice Per Minute Rate (after allowance) $0.45
Unlimited Domestic Night & Weekend Minutes Included
Unlimited Domestic Mobile to Mobile Included
Domestic Long Distance Included
NationalAccess Roaming $0.002 per KB(Canada)/ $0.005 per KB (Mexico)
Domestic Data $1.99 per MB
1000 Domestic Text, Picture, and Video Messages $10.00 per device
Domestic Text, Picture, and Video Messages (Pay As You Go) $0.20 (SMS) Text sent/received
$0.25 (MMS) Picture/Video sent/received
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. Not eligible for monthly access discounts.
Share Everything Talk-only plans are not available for accounts with Smartphones or data devices. Customers subscribing to Share Everything for Small Business
Plans and non-Share Everything for Small Business Plans will be billed on separate billing accounts and invoices.
Sharing: Sharing is available only among Government Subscribers to this Share Everything for Small Business Plans Basic Phone Only Plan. At the end of each bill
cycle any unused voice allowances will be applied to the overages of the other lines on the same account beginning with the line with the lowest overage need.
Calling plan changes may not take effect until the billing cycle following the change request. Each sharing Subscriber’s unused allowances will pass to other sharing Subscribers that have exceeded their minute allowance during the same monthly bill period. Canada and Mexico minutes cannot be added to this plan. Domestic
Data MBs, and Text, Picture and Video messages are not eligible for sharing. Voice allowances from Share Everything for Small Business Basic Phone Talk Only
Plans will not share with any non- Small Business Basic Phone Talk Only Plans.
4
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
Share Everything for Small Business Plans
Basic Phone and/or one (1) Smartphone Only: Talk, Text and Data
Government Subscribers
Up to ten (10) lines Only (per billing account)
Monthly Line Access is NOT eligible for Monthly Access Charge discounts.
Monthly Account Access is eligible for Monthly Access Charge discounts
Basic Phones and/or one (1) Smartphone Only per account
Basic Phones One (1) Smartphone
Monthly Device Access Charge $30.00 per device $40.00
Monthly Account Access Charge $40.00
Domestic Anytime Voice Allowance Per Month Unlimited
Domestic Long Distance Included
NationalAccess Roaming $0.002 per KB(Canada)/ $0.005 per KB (Mexico)
Domestic Data 300 MB
Domestic Data Overage $15.00 per 300 MB
Unlimited Domestic Text, Picture, and Video Messages Included
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. Not eligible for monthly access discounts.
Share Everything for Small Business Basic Phone and/or one (1) Smartphone Only Talk, Text and Data plans are available for accounts with Basic phones and only one (1) Smartphone device, excludes all other device types. Customers subscribing to Share Everything for Small Business Basic Phone and/or one (1) Smartphone
Only Talk, Text and Data plans will be billed on separate billing accounts and invoices from non-Share Everything for Small Business Basic Phone and/or one (1)
Smartphone Only Talk, Text and Data plans.
Sharing: Sharing is available only among Government Subscribers to this Share Everything for Small Business Plans Basic Phone and/or one (1) Smartphone Only
Plan. Customers with multiple Smartphones must select from Share Everything plans that include 1 GB of data or higher. At the end of each bill cycle any unused
voice allowances will be applied to the overages of the other lines on the same account beginning with the line with the lowest overage need. Calling plan changes may not take effect until the billing cycle following the change request. Each sharing Subscriber’s unused allowances will pass to other sharing Subscribers that
have exceeded their minute allowance during the same monthly bill period. Voice allowances from Share Everything for Small Business Basic Phone and/or one (1)
Smartphone Only Talk, Text and Data plans will not share with any other voice and or data plans.
Nationwide Flat Rate Calling Plans
The Nationwide Flat Rate Calling Plans are NOT eligible for monthly access fee discounts and promotions
No Domestic Roaming or Long Distance Charges
Monthly Anytime Voice Minutes Corporate Subscriber Monthly Access Fee
0 $11.99
Per Minute Rate $0.25
Data Sent or Received $1.99/ MB or per data package*
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. See attached Calling Plan and Feature Details for important information about calling
plans, features and options. *3G Smartphones and 3G Multimedia Phones require a data package.
WSCA Local Flat Rate Calling Plan
The WSCA Local Flat Rate Calling Plan is NOT eligible for monthly access fee discounts and promotions
For Corporate Liable Government WSCA Subscribers Only
Monthly Access Fee $8.99
Anytime Minutes 0
Per Minute Rate $0.10
Domestic Long Distance $0.20 per minute
Roaming $0.69
1000 Night & Weekend Minutes
OR
1000 IN Calling Minutes
$5.00 additional monthly access fee per line
5
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
Nationwide Non-Share Push to Talk Calling Plan
The Push to Talk Unlimited calling plan is NOT eligible for monthly access fee discounts
Monthly Access Fee $19.99
Home Airtime Minutes* 0
One to One & Group Talk Unlimited
Data Sent or Received $1.99/ MB or per data packageg
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. See attached Calling Plan and Feature Details for important information about calling
plans, features and options. Push to Talk terms and conditions apply. *Subscribers to the Push to Talk Unlimited Calling Plan cannot place or receive regular cellular
wireless calls other than to 611 and 911. (These calls may be placed anywhere in the Nationwide Rate and Coverage Area). If the voice block feature is removed,
subscribers will be charged $0.25 per minute for non-Push to Talk voice calls. g3G Smartphones and 3G Multimedia Phones require a data package.
WSCA Share Push to Talk Calling Plan
The WSCA Push to Talk Only Calling Plan is NOT eligible for monthly access fee discounts
For Corporate Liable Government WSCA Subscribers Only
Monthly Access Fee $18.99* Per-Minute Rate
After Allowance
Home Airtime Minutes 0
$0.25
One to One & Group Talk Unlimited
Night & Weekend Minutes Unlimited
Nationwide Mobile to Mobile Unlimited
Long Distance and Roaming Included
Data Sent or Received $1.99/MB or per data package**
100 Messages
(Text, Picture and Video) Included
Incoming Text $0.02 /
Outgoing Text $0.10 /
Pic & Video $0.25
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. See attached Calling Plan and Feature Details for important information about calling plans, features and options. Push to Talk terms and conditions apply. *The $18.99 Push to Talk Plan can only be 50% of an accounts total share lines. **3G
Smartphones and 3G Data Multimedia Phones require a data package
WSCA 3G/4G Nationwide Email for Government Calling Plans
Unlimited National Mobile to Mobile and Night & Weekend Calling Minutes
No Domestic Roaming or Long Distance Charges
Unlimited Data Allowance for Email & Domestic Messaging
Monthly Anytime
Voice Minutes
Monthly Access Fee
Non-Shared Minutes
Monthly Access Fee
Shared Minutes
Friends &
Family
(Up to 10 numbers)
Per-Minute
Rate After
Allowance Monthly Access Fee with a 22% WSCA Discount
400 $61.53 $47.99 $64.09 $49.99
Included* $0.25
600 $78.19 $61.00 $80.76 $62.99
1000 $93.58 $72.99 $96.14 $74.99
National Access Roaming $0.002 per kilobyte
Unlimited Hotspot/Tethering $10 additional monthly access per line
Unlimited Push-to-Talk $2.00
Add-a-Line $35.99**
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. See attached Calling Plan and Feature Details for important information about calling
plans, features and options. *Friends & Family eligibility varies on selected calling plan. **The $35.99 Add-a-Line plan can only be 50% of an accounts total share
lines.
6
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
WSCA Smartphone Calling Plans for Government Subscribers
No Additional Discounts Apply
Includes Wireless Sync or BlackBerry Solution compatible with Microsoft Outlook, Lotus Notes, POP3, and IMAP email accounts. .
Discounted Monthly Access Fee $35.99
Domestic MB Allowance Unlimited
Home Airtime/Min. Rate $0.12
Nationwide Mobile to Mobile Unlimited
Domestic Text, Picture and Video Messages Unlimited
Domestic Long Distance1 Included
Overage Rate Per KB n/a
National-Access Roaming $0.002 per Kilobyte
Notes: Subject to the NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess terms and conditions; additional terms and conditions apply to Unlimited, Megabyte (MB), Smartphone and
BlackBerry Plans. BroadbandAccess is available only in specific markets; please see www.verizonwireless.com for current availability. NationalAccess is available in
the National Enhanced Services rate and coverage area; see map for details. †Roaming, toll, and long distance charges may apply when making and receiving calls
outside of the NationalAccess home airtime rate and coverage area and in CDMA countries, see International Roaming terms and conditions. Per minute roaming
applies to Voice calls and Quick 2 Net. †Domestic long distance is included when placing calls in the America’s Choice home airtime rate and coverage area. †††Long
distance charges will apply when making or receiving calls outside the United States.
Share Everything for Small Business Data Only Plans: Government Subscribers
Monthly Line Access (Is NOT eligible for Monthly Access Charge discounts)
Jetpacks/Netbooks/Notebooks/USBs/ 4G LTE Routers Tablets
$20.00 per device $10.00 per device
Monthly Account Access Fee with a 22% WSCA Discount
Monthly Account Access Maximum Number of Lines
(per billing account) Shared Data Allowance Domestic Data Overage
$30.00
10
4 GB
$15.00 per GB
$40.00 $31.20 6 GB
$50.00 $39.00 8 GB
$60.00 $46.80 10 GB
$70.00 $54.60 12 GB
$80.00 $62.40 14 GB
$90.00 $70.20 16 GB
$100.00 $78.00 18 GB
$110.00 $85.80 20 GB
$185.00 $144.30
25
30 GB
$260.00 $202.80 40 GB
$335.00 $261.30 50 GB
NationalAccess Roaming $0.002 per KB(Canada)/ $0.005 per KB (Mexico)
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com.
Access Charge discounts applied at the account level only. Share Everything Data-only plans are not available for accounts with Smartphones or basic phones.
Open Development approved devices cannot be activated on Share Everything plans. Customers subscribing to Share Everything for Small Business Data Only
Plans and non-Share Everything for Business Data Only Plans will be billed on separate billing accounts and invoices.
Sharing: Sharing is available only among Government Subscribers to this Share Everything for Small Business Plans Data Only Plans. At the end of each bill cycle
any unused data allowances will be applied to the overages of the other lines on the same account beginning with the line with the lowest overage need. Calling plan
changes may not take effect until the billing cycle following the change request. Each sharing Subscriber’s unused allowances will pass to other sharing Subscribers
that have exceeded their GB allowance during the same monthly bill period. Text, Picture and Video messages are not eligible for sharing. Data allowances from
Share Everything for Small Business Data Only plans will not share with any non-Share Everything for Business Data Only Plans.
7
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
Mobile Broadband Machine to Machine (M2M) Share Group 1 Plans - Low Usage
Monthly Access Fee with a 22% WSCA Discount on plans $34.99 or higher
The calling plans below reflect the monthly access charge discount. No additional discounts apply.
Mobile Broadband Machine-to-Machine Plans: 1 Megabyte 5 Megabytes 25 Megabytes 50 Megabytes 150
Megabytes
Domestic Shared Data Allowance Per Month 1 MB 5 MB 25 MB 50 MB 150 MB
Monthly Access Charge $5.00 $7.00 $10.00 $15.00 $18.00
Overage Rate Per Megabyte $1.00
National Access Roaming $0.002 per Kilobyte(Canada)/$0.005 per Kilobyte (Mexico)
Mobile Broadband Machine to Machine Plans (M2M) Share Group 2 Plans - High
Usage
Monthly Access Fee with a 22% WSCA Discount on plans $34.99 or higher
Calling plans with a monthly access fee of $34.99 and higher are eligible to receive a monthly access charge discount.
Mobile Broadband Machine-to-Machine Plans: 250 Megabytes 1 Gigabyte 5 Gigabytes 10 Gigabytes
Domestic Data Allowance Per Month 250 MB 1 GB 5 GB 10 GB
Monthly Access Charge $20.00 $25.00 $50.00 $39.00 $80.00 $62.40
Overage Rate Per Megabyte $0.015
National Access Roaming $0.002 per Kilobyte(Canada)/$0.005 per Kilobyte (Mexico)
Note: Machine to Machine coverage included the Verizon Wireless 4G, 3G and 3G Extended networks. See attached Calling Plan and Feature Details for important
information about calling plans, features and options. Government Subscribers may supply their own authenticated Equipment (CPE) approved by Verizon Wireless
to be activated on these plans. Netbook, Smartphone, and Tablet devices are not eligible for Mobile Broadband M2M pricing. 4G service requires 4G Telemetry
equipment and 4G coverage. All terms and conditions of the Agreement apply to M2M service and M2M Lines as a Wireless Service. Customer may select either
the Account Share or Multi-Account Share option on the Mobile broadband Machine-to-Machine (M2M) Share Plans.
VZW Data Package Requirements
The Data Packages are eligible for monthly access fee discounts and promotions, when available*
Data for Feature Phones and Smartphones
Monthly Access Per Line when
added to an eligible voice plan Data Allowance Rate After Allowance Optional Business Email
Feature Compatible with server based
email solutions
N/A -0- $1.99 per MB N/A
$10.00 75 MB $10.00 per each additional 75 MB of
usage N/A
$30.00 $23.40* 2 GB** $10.00 per each additional GB of
usage $15.00
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. See attached Calling Plan and Feature Details for important information about calling
plans, features and options. NationalAccess Roaming will be charged at $0.002 per KB (Canada) and $0.005 per KB (Mexico). *The $30.00/2GB data package is eligible for monthly access fee discounts when combined with select Business calling plans. **Smartphone Subscribers require a data package with a minimum
allowance of 2GB. Personal Email Feature is included with all data packages contained herein. These plans are not eligible for discounts on month to month
activations.
Mobile Broadband Data Plans
Mobile Broadband Pricing for Tablets, Netbooks, 4G LTE Modems, 3G & 4G LTE Dedicated Mobile
Hotspots
Monthly Access Fee $30.00*† $39.99
Monthly Allowance 2GB Unlimited
Per GB Rate After Allowance $10.00 per each additional GB of usage
NationalAccess Roaming $0.002 per KB(Canada)/ $0.005 per KB (Mexico)
Per Minute Rate†† $0.25 per minute
Domestic Long Distance Included
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. See attached Calling Plan and Feature Details for important information about calling
plans, features and options. 4G and 3G Mobile Broadband coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. 4G service requires 4G equipment and 4G
coverage. *The $30.00/2GB plan is not eligible for monthly access fee discounts. †The $30.00 2GB plan is not available with 4G LTE modems (USB and embedded
Notebooks, and is not available with 3G and 4G LTE Dedicated Mobile Hotspots. ††Per Minute Rate applies to voice calls, IS-95 and other non-NationalAccess
data usage in the United States.
8
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
WSCA Nationwide Global Email for Government Calling Plans
Unlimited National Mobile to Mobile and Night & Weekend Calling Minutes
No Domestic Roaming or Long Distance Charges
Unlimited Data Allowance for Global Email & Domestic Messaging
Monthly Anytime
Minutes
Monthly Access Fee
Non-Shared Minutes
Monthly Access Fee
Shared Minutes
Friends &
Family
(Up to 10 numbers)
Per-Minute
Rate After
Allowance No Additional Discounts Apply
400 $65.63 $67.52
Included* $0.25 600 $77.99 $79.90
1000 $89.40 $91.31
National Access Roaming $0.002 per Kilobyte
Unlimited Push to Talk $2.00
Notes: Current coverage details can be found at www.verizonwireless.com. The Unlimited Data allowance applies in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the
rest of the world where coverage is available. See attached Calling Plan and Feature Details for important information about calling plans, features and options.
These plans are not eligible for discounts on month to month activations. *Friends & Family eligibility varies on selected calling plan.
Global Data Optional Features
Monthly Access Fee with a 22% WSCA Discount
Monthly Access Fee Allowance
Rate After Allowance
(Global Data Plan
Countries)
Rate per KB (non-Global Data Plan Countries)
$25.00 $19.50 100MB
$25.00 per each
additional 100 MB
used
$0.02 per KB ($20.48/MB)
Pay Per Use (for subscribers not using the Global Data Feature)
Monthly Access Fee Allowance Rate per MB
(Canada) Rate per MB (Mexico) Rate per MB (Rest of
the World)
N/A N/A $2.05/MB $5.12MB $20.48/MB
Notes: Current coverage details and list of Global Data Countries can be found at www.verizonwireless.com/global. See Calling Plan Optional Features section for important information about calling plans, features and options. Applies to all global-capable phones and internet devices. Customer must subscribe to a domestic
Mobile Hotspot plan to use the service globally. The majority of your monthly usage must be in the United States. All data usage, including tethering and hotspot,
deducts from the same data allowance.
Global Voice *
Canada $0.69/min
Mexico $0.99/min
Caribbean and Europe As low as $1.29/min
Standard Rates for Other Countries As low as $1.29/min
Global Value Plan Rates As low as $0.99/min
Notes: Current coverage details and list of Other Available Countries can be found at www.verizonwireless.com/global. See attached Calling Plan and Feature
Details for important information about calling plans, features and options. *Applies to all global-capable devices. Must be added to a domestic 3G Mobile Broadband calling plan with domestic 3G Mobile Broadband Connect/Mobile Hotspot.
9
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
Global Messaging *
Global Text Messaging
Canada $0.20 per recipient per message sent and $0.20 per message received, or according to your
Domestic Messaging Plan
Other Countries $0.50 per recipient per message sent and $0.05 per message received
Global Picture and Video Messaging
Canada, Mexico and Puerto Rico $0.25 per recipient per message sent or received, or according to your Domestic Messaging
Plan, plus global data roaming charges.
Other Countries $0.50 per recipient to send, $0.25 per message to receive plus global data roaming charges.
Visit verizonwireless.com/internationalmms for supported countries.
Notes: Current coverage details, and list of Other Available Countries can be found at www.verizonwireless.com/global. See attached Calling Plan and Feature
Details for important information about calling plans, features and options. *Applies to all global-capable devices. Must be added to a domestic 3G Mobile
Broadband calling plan with domestic 3G Mobile Broadband Connect/Mobile Hotspot.
Pay Per Use Data Roaming*
Monthly Data Allowance N/A
Monthly Access Fee N/A
Rate After Allowance (Canada) $0.002/KB ($2.05/MB)
Rate After Allowance (Mexico, $0.005/KB ($5.12MB)
Rate After Allowance (Other
Available Countries) $0.02/KB ($20.48/MB)
Notes: Current coverage details and list of Other Available Countries can be found at www.verizonwireless.com/global. See attached Calling Plan and Feature
Details for important information about calling plans, features and options. *4G devices require Pay Per Use subscription to roam outside of the U.S. and Canada.
International Eligibility is required to roam in many countries.
Verizon Wireless Plan and Feature Details
10
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
Plans and Associated Charges: Billing, shipping and end-user address must
be within an area where Verizon Wireless is licensed and provides service.
Charges for calls will be based on the cell sites used, which may be outside the
calling plan coverage area even when the subscriber is physically within the
coverage area. Time of the call is based on the telephone switching office that
carries the call, which may be different from the time of day shown on
subscriber’s phone. Unused monthly minutes and/or Megabytes are lost. On
outgoing calls, charges start when subscriber presses SEND or the call connects
to a network, and on incoming calls, when the call connects to a network (which
may be before it rings). A call may end several seconds after subscriber presses
END or the call disconnects. Calls made on the Verizon Wireless network are
only billed if they connect (which includes calls answered by machines). Billing
for airtime and related charges may sometimes be delayed. Calls to "911" and
certain other emergency services are toll-free and airtime-free. Airtime may be
charged when dialing toll-free numbers.
Anytime Minutes: Anytime Minutes apply when making or receiving calls from a
calling plan’s rate and coverage area. Coverage information is available at
www.verizonwireless.com. Airtime is rounded up to the next full minute.
Allowance minutes/Megabytes are not transferable except as may be available
on plans with sharing. In order to gain access to coverage in newly expanding
markets, subscribers must periodically dial *228 to update roaming information
from voice or Smartphone devices; from the VZAccess Manager, go into
“Options” and click “Activation,” while in the National Enhanced Services Rate
and Coverage Area every three months. This may alter the rate and coverage area. Automatic roaming may not be available in all areas and rates may vary.
Roaming charges may be delayed to a later bill.
Long Distance: Unlimited domestic long distance is included when calling from
the plan’s rate and coverage area, unless otherwise specified in the plan.
Unlimited Messaging: Unlimited Messaging is included with the Talk & Text
Plans and is available in the National Enhanced Services rate and coverage area in the United States. Messaging applies when sending and receiving (i) text, picture
and video messages to and from Verizon Wireless and Non-Verizon Wireless
customers in the United States, (ii) Text, picture, and video messages sent via email, (iii) Instant messages, and (iv) Text messages with customers of wireless
carriers in Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Messaging is
subject to Text, Picture, and Video Messaging Terms and conditions. Premium
messages are not included. Friends & Family for Business: Calls directed to and
received from an account’s listed Friends & Family numbers shall not use
Monthly Anytime Voice Minutes. For Nationwide for Business plans with 900 minutes or more or 450 minute plan with the share option can add up to ten (10)
Friends & Family numbers. Only calls from Nationwide Coverage Area to
designated domestic landline or wireless numbers (excluding Directory Assistance,
900 numbers, or customer’s own wireless or Voicemail access numbers) may be
added; all qualifying lines on an account share the same Friends & Family
numbers, up to account’s eligibility limits; My Verizon, My Business Account or
Verizon Enterprise Center is required to set up and manage Friends & Family
numbers.
Mobile to Mobile Calling: Mobile to Mobile Calling minutes apply when making
calls directly to or receiving calls directly from another Verizon Wireless
subscriber while in the Nationwide Rate and Coverage area. Mobile to Mobile
calls must originate and terminate while both Verizon Wireless subscribers are
within the Mobile to Mobile Calling area. Mobile to Mobile Calling is not available
(i) with fixed wireless devices with usage substantially from a single cell site, (ii)
for data usage including Push to Talk calls, Picture or Video Messaging (iii) if Call
Forwarding or No Answer/Busy Transfer features are activated, (iv) for calls to
Verizon Wireless customers using any of the global services, (v) for calls to
check Voice Mail, (vi) in those areas of Louisiana and Mississippi where the
users roaming indicator flashes, (vii) in Canada and Mexico and (viii) to users
whose current wireless exchange restricts the delivery of Caller ID And (viiii) for
incoming calls if Caller ID is not present or Caller ID Block is initiated. Mobile to
Mobile Calling minutes will be applied before Anytime Minutes.
Night and Weekend Minutes: Apply to calls made in a calling plan’s rate and
coverage area only during the following hours: 12:00 am Saturday through 11:59
pm Sunday and 9:01 pm to 5:59 am Monday through Friday. If both Night and
Weekend and Mobile to Mobile Calling minute allowances apply to a given call,
Mobile to Mobile Calling minutes will apply before Night and Weekend minutes.
However, if either allowance is unlimited, the unlimited allowance will always
apply first.
Nationwide for Business Share Option: The Share Option is available to
businesses with a minimum of five (5) Nationwide for Business lines on the same
account with the share option. The Monthly Anytime Minutes of all lines on an
account will be aggregated, and then allocated first to the line with the highest
anytime minute usage, and then to the line with the next highest usage.
Push to Talk: Push to Talk calls may only be made with other Verizon Wireless
Push to Talk subscribers, and only from the National Enhanced Services Rate
and Coverage Areas. The Push to Talk feature can be added to plans with a
monthly access fee of $34.99 or higher.
For optimal Push to Talk performance, all callers on a Push to Talk session must
have a device that supports EV-DO Rev. A and receives EV-DO service. A Push
to Talk call is terminated by pressing END or will automatically time out after ten
(10) seconds of inactivity. While you are on a Push to Talk call, voice calls will go
directly to Voice Mail. When you are on a voice call, you can’t receive a Push to
Talk call. You cannot prevent others who have your wireless phone number from
entering you into their Push to Talk contact list. Only one person can speak at a
time during Push to Talk calls. When using your phone keypad to make a Push
to Talk call, you must enter the ten-digit phone number of the called party.
Presence information may not be available for all Push to Talk contacts. The
accuracy of presence information may be affected by the network registration
status of a Push to Talk contact. Your Push to Talk service cannot be used for
any applications that tether your phone to computers or other devices for any
purpose. Push to Talk-capable phone and plan/feature required. Push to Talk
subscribers cannot use Push to Talk or other data products and services (i.e.
Picture Messaging, Mobile Web, Get It Now, Mobile Broadband Connect, etc)
while roaming on other carriers' networks at this time.
International Eligibility: International Eligibility requires a minimum payment
history and credit approval; a contract term and security deposit may also be required. Failure to maintain these requirements may result in suspension of
International Eligibility without notice. You can remove International Eligibility at
any time by calling Customer Service. You are responsible for any unauthorized use of your SIM Card and will safeguard security codes. Upon termination of
service, destroy your SIM Card. See verizonwireless.com/global for details.
International Long Distance: You need International Eligibility to make
international calls to most countries, but you can make calls to some North
American destinations without it. Additional surcharges may apply when calling
certain countries; see verizonwireless.com/global for details. Verizon Wireless International Long Distance Value Plan: International
Eligibility required to call most countries. Value Plan feature is not available on all
Plans. Rates are subject to change without notice. Standard International Long
Distance rates apply in addition to airtime charges per your Plan on calls made
from the Verizon Wireless network. Rates and service availability may vary when
your phone’s banner displays “Extended Network.” Value Plan rates apply only on calls to Value Plan Countries made from your Plan’s Rate and Coverage
Area. If a subscriber’s Plan’s Rate and Coverage Area includes calls to any
Value Plan country, those calls will be billed per the Plan. Except when roaming
on another carrier’s network, in which case that carrier's rates, taxes and
surcharges apply. For Value Plan subscribers, calls made from the Verizon
Wireless network to countries not included in the Value Plan will be billed at
standard International Long Distance rates. Additional surcharges may apply
when calling certain destinations, see www.verizonwireless.com/international for
details.
International Roaming: Some services, such as premium text messaging,
directory assistance, entertainment lines and third-party services, may be
available, and charges for these services will be billed (along with applicable toll
charges) in addition to roaming rates. Message-waiting-indicator service is not
available where Text Messaging is not available. When using Global Phone, or
Global Data services, or if you subscribe to a Nationwide Plus Canada or
Nationwide Plus Mexico Plan, and you’re roaming near country borders, calls
may be carried by a cell site located in a neighboring country and billed at that
country’s rates. Verizon Wireless will terminate your service for good cause if
less than half of your voice or data usage over three consecutive billing cycles is
on the Verizon Wireless National Enhanced Services Rate and Coverage Area.
See verizonwireless.com/global for rates and destinations, which are subject to
Verizon Wireless Plan and Feature Details
11
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
change without notice. International Eligibility required for GSM roaming, and for
CDMA roaming in many destination. Rates, terms and conditions apply only
when roaming on participating GSM and CDMA networks in published
destinations. Availability of service, calling features, and Text messaging varies
by country and network and may be restricted without notice. You must add
International Eligibility to your account to roam in many destinations. Visit
verizonwireless.com/naroaming. By using Equipment outside the United States,
subscriber is solely responsible for complying with all applicable foreign laws,
rules and regulations (“Foreign Laws”), including Foreign Laws regarding use of
wireless phones while driving and use of wireless camera phones. Verizon
Wireless is not liable for any damages that may result from subscriber’s failure to
comply with Foreign Laws.
Roaming in CDMA countries outside of the US: CDMA Roaming rates are
available at www.verizonwireless.com. Roaming in CDMA countries is only
available in “CDMA” mode where service is available. Where Text messaging is
available, Customer will be charged $0.50 for each message sent and $0.05 for
each message received, and applies when roaming in most foreign countries.
Text messaging rates are subject to change. An update to Equipment software is
required to roam in S. Korea.
Roaming in GSM countries: CDMA/GSM Global Phone, activated in the United
States with compatible subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card required. Rates,
terms and conditions apply only when roaming on participating GSM networks in
published Global Phone countries. Service may be available in additional
countries, but airtime rates, availability of calling features, and ability to receive incoming calls (including return calls from emergency services personnel) may
be restricted. See www.verizonwireless.com for coverage and airtime rates.
Service in certain countries may be blocked without prior notice. Where Text
messaging is available, Customer will be charged $0.50 for each message sent
and $0.05 for each message received. Text messaging rates are subject to
change. Text messages may be sent only to MTNs of (i) Verizon Wireless customers, and (ii) customers of foreign wireless carriers that participate in
international text messaging. Check www.vtext.com for the most current list of
participating foreign carriers. Data Services: Verizon Wireless charges you for all data and content sent or
received using our network (including any network overhead and/or Internet
Protocol overhead associated with content sent or received), as well as
resolution of Internet Protocol addresses from domain names. Sending or
receiving data using a virtual private network (VPN) involves additional VPN
overhead for which you will be charged. Please note that certain applications or widgets periodically send and receive data in the background, without any action
by the user, and you will be billed for such data use. Applications may
automatically re-initiate data sessions without you pressing or clicking the SEND
or connect button. Data sessions automatically terminate after 24 hours. A data
session is inactive when no data is being transferred. Data sessions may seem
inactive while data is actively being transferred, or may seem active when the
data is actually cached and data is not being transferred. If you have a Data Only
plan and use voice service, domestic voice calls will be billed at $0.25/minute.
Verizon Wireless is implementing optimization and transcoding technologies in
our network to transmit data files in a more efficient manner to allow available
network capacity to benefit the greatest number of users. These techniques
include caching less data, using less capacity, and sizing the video more
appropriately for the device. The optimization process is agnostic to the content
itself and to the website that provides it. While Verizon Wireless invests much
effort to avoid changing text, image, and video files in the compression process,
and while any change to the file is likely to be indiscernible, the optimization
process may minimally impact the appearance of the file as displayed on your
device. For a further, more detailed explanation of these techniques, please visit
verizonwireless.com/vzwoptimizationwww.verizonwireless.com/global.
Verizon Wireless strives to provide customers with the best experience when
using our network, a shared resource among tens of millions of customers.
To further this objective, Verizon Wireless has implemented Network
Optimization Practices designed to ensure that the overwhelming majority of data
customers aren’t negatively impacted by the inordinate data consumption of a
few users. If you use an extraordinary amount of data and fall within the top 5%
of Verizon Wireless data users, Verizon Wireless may reduce your data
throughput speeds when connected to a congested cell site. The reduction can
last for the remainder of the current bill cycle and the immediately following bill
cycle to ensure high quality network performance for other users at locations and
times of peak demand. For a further more detailed explanation of these
techniques please visit www.verizonwireless.com/networkoptimization.
Data transfer amounts will vary based on application. If you download an audio
or video file, the file may be downloaded in sections or in its entirety; data
charges will apply to the portion downloaded, regardless of whether you listen to
or watch all of it. You may access and monitor your own data usage during a
particular billing period, including during the Return Period, by accessing
My Verizon online or by contacting Customer Service.
Data Services: Permitted Uses: You can use Verizon Wireless Data Services
for accessing the Internet and for such uses as: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email;
(iii) intranet access (including accessing corporate intranets, email and individual
productivity applications made available by your company); (iv) uploading,
downloading and streaming of audio, video and games; and (v) Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP).
Data Services: Prohibited Uses. You may not use our Data Services for
illegal purposes or purposes that infringe upon others' intellectual property
rights, or in a manner that interferes with other users' service, that violates
trade and economic sanctions and prohibitions as promulgated by the
Departments of Commerce, Treasury or any other U.S. government agency,
that interferes with network's ability to fairly allocate capacity among
users, or that otherwise degrades service quality for other users. Examples
of prohibited usage include: (i) server devices or host computer
applications that are broadcast to multiple servers or recipients such that
they could enable “bots” or similar routines (as set forth in more detail (ii)
below) or otherwise denigrate network capacity or functionality; (ii) “auto-
responders,”“cancel-bots,” or similar automated or manual routines that
generate amounts of net traffic that could disrupt net user groups or e-mail
use by others; (iii) generating “spam” or unsolicited commercial or bulk e-
mail (or activities that facilitate the dissemination of such e-mail); (iv) any
activity that adversely affects the ability of other users or systems to use
either Verizon Wireless’ services or the Internet-based resources of others, including the generation of dissemination of viruses, malware, or
“denial of service” attacks; (v) accessing or attempting to access without
authority, the information, accounts or devices of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate Verizon Wireless’ or another entity’s network or
systems; or (vi) running software or other devices that maintain
continuous active Internet connections when a computer’s connection would otherwise be idle or “any keep alive” functions, unless they adhere
to Verizon Wireless” requirements for such usage, which may be changed
from time to time. Verizon Wireless further reserve the right to take measures to protect our
network and other users from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in
performance. These measures may impact your service, and Verizon Wireless
reserves the right to deny, modify or terminate service, with or without notice, to
anyone Verizon Wireless believes is using Data Services in a manner that
adversely impacts the Verizon Wireless network. Verizon Wireless may monitor your compliance, or other subscribers’ compliance, with these
terms and conditions, but Verizon Wireless will not monitor the content of
the communications except as otherwise expressly permitted or required
by law. [See verizonwireless.com/privacy]
Unlimited Data Plans and Features (such as NationalAccess,
BroadbandAccess, Push to Talk, and certain VZEmail services) may ONLY
be used with wireless devices for the following purposes: (i) Internet
browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate
intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship
management, sales force, and field service automation). The Unlimited Data
Plans and Features MAY NOT be used for any other purpose. Examples of
prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) continuous uploading,
downloading or streaming of audio or video programming or games; (ii) server
devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera
posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine–to–machine
connections or peer–to–peer (P2P) file sharing; or (iii) as a substitute or backup
for private lines or dedicated data connections. This means, by way of example
only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired
Verizon Wireless Plan and Feature Details
12
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies
using P2P file sharing services and/or redirecting television signals for viewing
on laptops is prohibited.
For individual use only and not for resale. We reserve the right to protect our
network from harm, which may impact legitimate data flows. We reserve the right
to limit throughput or amount of data transferred exceeding 5 GB in a given
month, and to deny or terminate service, without notice, to anyone we believe is
using an Unlimited Data Plan or Feature in any manner prohibited above or
whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels. Anyone using
more than 5 GB per line in a given month is presumed to be using the service in
a manner prohibited above, and we reserve the right to immediately terminate
the service of any such person without notice. We also reserve the right to
terminate service upon notification to the customer.
Unlimited VZAccess and VZEmail: NationalAccess, BroadbandAccess, and
GlobalAccess data sessions may be used for the following purposes: (i) Internet
browsing, (ii) e-mail, and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate
intranets, e-mail and individual productivity applications like customer
relationship management, sales force and field service automation). Unlimited
VZAccess, VZEmail and Push to Talk services cannot be used (i) for uploading,
downloading or streaming of movies, music or games, (ii) with server devices or
with host computer applications, other than applications required for BlackBerry
or Wireless Sync service, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or
broadcasts, automatic data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), automated machine-to-
machine connections, or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, or (iii) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. Additionally, Unlimited
VZEmail services cannot be used for, (i) access to the Internet, intranets or other
data networks, except as the Equipment’s native applications and capabilities
permit, or (ii) for any applications that tether Equipment to laptops or personal
computers other than for use of the Wireless Sync or BlackBerry Solutions.
Unlimited BroadbandAccess and NationalAccess data sessions automatically
terminate after 2 hours of inactivity, unless Subscriber has Mobile IP (MIP)
capable Equipment.
Data Roaming: In the Canadian Broadband and Canadian Enhanced Services
Rate and Coverage Areas, usage will be charged at a rate of $0.002/KB or
$2.05/MB. In the Mexican Enhanced Services Rate and Coverage Area, usage
will be charged at a rate of $0.005/KB or $5.12/MB. In other available countries,
usage will be billed at a rate of $0.02/KB or $20.48/MB. International Eligibility is
needed to roam in many destinations. Current coverage details, and list of Other
Available Countries can be found at www.verizonwireless.com/global
Global Data Optional Features: Global PC Card required for international use.
Global PC Cards will not work in the United States or Canada and Global Data
Optional Features subscribers will need a NationalAccess or Mobile Broadband
PC card for domestic use. The domestic and Global PC Cards cannot be used at
the same time. Prior to leaving the United States, subscribers must install Global
Data Optional Features VZAccess ManagerSM and run the OTA wizard. Global
Data Optional Features subscribers must activate and update their Preferred
Roaming lists while in the National Enhanced Services Rate and Coverage Area
every three months. Verizon Wireless reserves the right to terminate the service
of any subscriber whose total usage is less than half on the Verizon Wireless
National Enhanced Services Rate and Coverage Area over three consecutive
billing cycles. .
Global Email SIM Cards: SIM Cards are available for use with your Global PC
Card, Global Smartphone, or Global Phone. Verizon Wireless is not responsible for any unauthorized use of subscriber’s SIM Cards and subscriber must
safeguard security codes. Placing your GlobalEmail SIM in any other non
BlackBerry or Smartphone device could result in additional charges or
termination of service. Upon termination of service, subscriber must destroy SIM
Card.
M2M Data Plan Terms and Conditions
A data session is inactive when no data is being transferred, and may seem inactive while data is actively being transferred to a device, or seem active when actually
cached and not transferring data. Customer must maintain virus protection when accessing the service and is responsible for all data sent and received including
“overhead” (data that is in addition to user-transmitted data, including control, operational and routing instructions, error-checking characters as well as
retransmissions of user-data messages that are received in error) whether or not such data is actually received. Verizon Wireless will not be liable for problems
receiving Service that result from Customer’s device.
Megabyte (MB) Data Plans: M2M data usage is rounded to next full kilobyte at end of each billing cycle. Any unused portion of the megabyte allowance is lost.
Equipment will not indicate kilobyte usage.
NationalAccess Roaming Feature: Not for use with Mobile Office Kits. Dynamic IP addresses will be assigned when roaming. Usage rounded up to next full
kilobyte. For information on where NationalAccess Roaming is available, see www.verizonwireless.com.
Roaming in CDMA countries outside of the US: Roaming in CDMA countries is $0.69 per minute plus the servicing carrier's long distance charges, toll charges,
surcharges and taxes, which are billed on a pass-through basis. Roaming rates in Canada and Mexico may vary. Roaming in CDMA countries is only available in
“CDMA” mode where service is available. An update to Equipment software is required to roam in S. Korea.
Data Roaming: In the Canadian Broadband and Canadian Enhanced Services Rate and Coverage Areas, usage will be charged at a rate of $0.002/KB or $2.05/MB.
In the Mexican Enhanced Services Rate and Coverage Area, usage will be charged at a rate of $0.005/KB or $5.12/MB. For more information on roaming in Canada
and Mexico, visit verizonwireless.com/naroaming. In the Bermuda, China, Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Israel, Saipan and South Korea Enhanced Services
Rate and Coverage Areas, usage will be billed at a rate of $0.02/KB or $20.48/MB. I-Dial is needed to roam in many destinations. Only the Canadian Broadband
Rate and Coverage Area supports EV-DO.
M2M Data Plan Share Options
Share Options: Sharing is available only among Government Subscribers on applicable M2M Low Usage and High Usage calling plans.
Account Share: Customer may activate up to 15 share groups per account. Sharing is available only among M2M Lines on the Mobile Broadband M2M Account
Share Plans on the same billing account, in the same usage group (Low Usage and High Usage plans cannot share with each other). Unused KBs will be
distributed to M2M Lines with an overage on an as needed basis to M2M Lines on the same billing account that have exceeded their MB allowance during the same monthly billing period. At the end of each bill cycle any unused KBs allowances will be applied to the overages of the other M2M Lines on the same account
beginning with the line with the lowest overage need until depleted. Customers subscribing to Mobile Broadband M2M Account Share Plans will be billed on
separate billing accounts and invoices from Subscribers to the Mobile Broadband M2M Profile Share Plans. Multi-Account Share: Customer may activate one (1) share group per profile (Low Usage and High Usage plans cannot share with each other); however, customer
may have multiple bill accounts on the same profile. Sharing is available only among M2M Lines on the Mobile Broadband M2M Multi-Account Share Plans on the
same profile, in the same usage group. Each sharing M2M Lines unused KBs will pass to other sharing M2M Lines that have exceeded their data allowance during the same monthly bill cycle. Unused KBs will be distributed proportionally as a ratio of the KBs needed by each applicable M2M Line to the total KBs needed by all
sharing M2M Lines on the same profile. Customers subscribing to Mobile Broadband M2M Profile Share Plans will be billed on separate billing accounts and
invoices from Subscribers to the Mobile Broadband M2M Account Share Plans.
Note: 1A profile is defined as a Customer’s overarching account of record under which Customer may have multiple billing accounts
13
Verizon Wireless offers this pricing utilizing the terms and conditions of the Western States Contracting Alliance (WSCA) Master Service Contract #1907,
Addenda and Attachments can be found on AboutWSCA.org site for your consideration and review
Regulatory Surcharges and Fees
Verizon Wireless’ pricing does not include federal, state, local or foreign fees, assessments or other charges (collectively “fees”), which must be billed based on the jurisdiction in which the subscriber’s cellular number is set up and located. Fees vary by state and local areas and are subject to change without notice.
Verizon Wireless cannot provide a comprehensive list of all charges and regulatory fees required and assessed when using a wireless device because they vary
greatly from one jurisdiction to another.
In addition to taxes, surcharges and fees that we are required to collect, we will also collect charges to recover or help defray costs of taxes and governmental
surcharges and fees imposed on us, and costs associated with governmental regulations and mandates on our business. These charges include, among others, a
Regulatory Charge and a Federal Universal Service Charge, and are described below in more detail. These charges are Verizon Wireless charges, not taxes, and
are subject to change. Because these charges are not taxes, your tax exemptions, if any, will not apply to these charges.
Federal Universal Service Charge
Wireless carriers are assessed by the federal government to fund the delivery of universally-affordable telecommunications and information services under the
Federal Universal Service Fund (FUSF) program.
The Federal Universal Service Charge (FUSC) is a percentage of the customer’s applicable monthly wireless service charges based upon an assessment rate that
changes quarterly. The rate for the quarter beginning – July 1, 2013 is 3.60% of the following items:
• Cellular Access for voice calling plans (only on first 79% of this item)
• Verizon Wireless Toll
• Roaming Charges
• Activation Charges
• Re-connect fees
• Landline Connect Fee
• TXT Messaging monthly service
• TXT Messaging usage • Airtime usage for voice calls • Mobile to Mobile feature
• Nights and Weekends feature
• Toll free feature
The FUSC on other separately billed interstate and international long distance charges is 15.10%.
The quarterly percentage rate described above for the FUSC is applied in our billing system.
Verizon Wireless also imposes state universal service charges. These charges vary by jurisdiction and are subject to change depending on changes in the state
universal service impositions on Verizon Wireless.
Regulatory Charge
The FCC assesses wireless carriers the costs of enforcement, policy and rulemaking. The Regulatory Fee recovers Verizon Wireless’ share of these costs, as well as
some of the costs of implementing regulatory mandates, such as number portability. The Regulatory Charge is a flat charge of $0.16 per Mobile Telephone Number
(MTN) per month (excluding BroadbandAccess and NationalAccess Plans) and is $0.02 per mobile number per month for BroadbandAccess and NationalAccess
Plans, but is subject to change over time.
Regulatory fees impacting the wireless industry are constantly evolving and are subject to change without notice. For more information you can visit the FCC’s
website at www.fcc.gov.
The FUSC and Regulatory Charge are included in the “Verizon Wireless Surcharges” section of the bill.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4020)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/9/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Appeal of 240 Hamilton Avenue ARB Approval
Title: Council Review of an Appeal of the Director's Architectural Review
Approval of a 15,000 square foot, Four-story, 50 foot, Mixed Use Building in
the CD-C-GF-P Zone District located at 240 Hamilton Avenue and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends a Council MOTION to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (contained
within Attachment G) and the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment A) for
Architectural Review Approval of a new four-story, 50 foot tall mixed use building at 240-248
Hamilton Avenue.
Executive Summary
The Council is requested to review the appeal of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s (Director’s) approval decision, which is consistent with the 3-0-1
recommendation of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and consider whether or not to pull
the item off the Consent Calendar. If removed from the Consent Calendar by a vote of three or
more Council members, the Council may discuss the appeal and on the same night, decide on
whether to uphold or overturn the Director’s decision, based upon evidence presented at the
ARB hearing. Alternatively, the Council may decide to hear the project “de novo” at a new
public hearing set for a future date, to fully consider the project and adopt findings for Council
action at that hearing. If this option (“de novo” hearing) is selected, the Council may wish to
schedule the project for a date certain to consider more than just the evidence presented at the
ARB hearing(s).
The Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment A) reflects the two components of the
application, the ARB and Variance requests (file #13PLN-6), for a new four-story, 50 foot tall
mixed use building containing 4,527 square feet of new commercial floor area and 3,473 square
City of Palo Alto Page 2
feet of new residential space. The RLUA allows Council the ability to approve the Architectural
Review application with the Architectural Review approval findings recommended by the ARB
and approved by the Director, as well as to view the Variance findings that have not been
challenged in this appeal. Staff has also included in the RLUA six Context-Based Design Findings
(followed by written evaluation of the project with respect to the Context Based Design Criteria
and Downtown Urban Design Guide considered by the ARB in the June 6, 2013 staff report) for
Council consideration.
The objections of the appellant, Douglas Smith (whose letter includes 23 co-signers), relate to
three main topics: 1) The aesthetic quality of the approved design and its impact on the
surrounding heritage buildings, 2) staff’s analysis of the parking requirement and exacerbation
of the parking deficiency downtown, and 3) the Architectural Review process. The appeal letter
is provided as Attachment B. The appellant had submitted similar objections in a written letter
(including two other co-signers) emailed to staff and provided to ARB the day prior to the
second public hearing. The appellant did not speak to the ARB at the second hearing, so the
appellant’s “evidence” presented at the hearing was only done so in writing. The Council
should nevertheless consider the written submittal (Attachment C), which was also provided at
places, as evidence, along with the ARB staff reports and attachments thereto.
The project includes a Variance approval to allow the building to encroach into the required
seven foot special setback along Hamilton Avenue and the required six foot special setback
along Ramona Street. This Variance approval has not been challenged in the appeal and is
reflected in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
Background
Council Review Authority
This item initially appeared on the August 19, 2013 Council Agenda, as required within the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 18.77 and was continued to the September 9, 2013 Council
meeting. The Municipal Code states that Council may:
1. Adopt the findings and the decision of the Director; or
2. Remove the appeal from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes, and:
a) Discuss the appeal and adopt findings and take action on the appeal based upon the
evidence presented at the ARB hearing; or
b) Direct that the appeal be set for a new hearing before the City Council, following which
the City Council shall adopt findings and take action on the application.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
As noted, the evidence includes the project plans, the appellant’s first letter (Attachment C),
ARB meeting minutes (Attachments E and F) and the ARB staff reports (Attachments G and H).
Included to Attachment G (June 6 ARB staff report) is the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Appeal Filing
The appeal was filed in a timely manner, within 14 days following the ARB recommendation and
Director’s decision, as per code requirement. Appellant Douglas Smith, resident of 345 Forest
Avenue (Lanning Chateau) located approximately two blocks east of the project site, was
mailed a notice of the of the Director’s Decision on July 23, 2013. On August 5, 2013 the appeal
(Attachment B) was filed. The letter of appeal includes 23 co-signers. The appellant’s objection
is directly related to three main topics: 1) The aesthetic quality of the approved design and its
impact on the surrounding heritage buildings, 2) staff’s analysis of the parking requirement, and
the project’s contribution to the parking deficiency downtown, and 3) the review process itself.
There are no objections to the Variance request and approval.
The appellant spoke to the ARB on June 6, 2013, noting his opinion that the proposed building
character would not be compatible with the character of the area.
On July 15, 2013, the appellant emailed a letter (Attachment C) to staff, who forwarded the
letter to the ARB the day prior to the July 18, 2013 hearing. In the email accompanying the
letter, the appellant stated:
“The review process has been inadequate. I explain in detail how the design
does not comply with the Municipal Code nor the Comprehensive Plan, and
must be rejected. I currently have the support of two other local citizens
concerned about the aesthetics issue, who have approved and co-signed the
letter. There will be much more support should we have to appeal an ARB
approval of this project. Please distribute this letter to parties whom you
consider need to be aware of this objection.”
The appellant did not speak to the ARB at the second ARB meeting.
Project Description
The Architectural Review (AR) application, submitted on January 1, 2013, was accompanied by a
Variance request for encroachments into the special setbacks of Bryant Street and Hamilton
Avenue. The project is a new four-story, 50 foot, mixed-use building comprised of 15,000
City of Palo Alto Page 4
square feet (sq. ft.) of floor area. The building will replace a 7,000 sq.ft. one-story building.
Further description is provided in the attached ARB reports. The July 23, 2013 Director’s
approval (Attachment D) includes both the Architectural Review approval, which follows the
ARB’s 3-0-1 approval recommendation, and the Variance approval. The appeal did not
reference the Variance and therefore the Variance request was not reviewed by the Planning
and Transportation Commission.
ARB Review and Recommendation
The first ARB hearing of June 6, 2013 was attended by four of the five members on the ARB
(one member recused himself due to conflict of interest). June 6, 2013 verbatim meeting
minutes are provided as Attachment E. At the June 6, 2013 ARB hearing, the ARB received the
staff report, which included references to context based design criteria, ARB approval findings
contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020 (d), and the Downtown Urban Design
Guidelines, heard from the applicant and reviewed the project plans, and listened to public
testimony by the appellant. The ARB’s recommendation included conditions that the following
items return for additional ARB review:
1. Provide pedestrian friendly amenities at the ground floor level;
2. More articulation is needed on the back walls, specifically, on the southwest elevation
between floors two and four; and
3. Consider incorporating more cedar siding at another location on the building.
On July 18, 2013, three ARB members (one member recused and one absent) conducted the
hearing and listened to public testimony from two speakers. The ARB had also received letters
via email prior to the hearing (these are attached to this report as Attachment I). Verbatim
meeting minutes are provided as Attachment F. The first speaker expressed concerns about the
downtown parking deficit and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and his opinion about
benefits to developers providing additional parking spaces while also helping the
neighborhoods. The second speaker discussed how the intrusion of parking from the downtown
area to the neighborhood is very unfair to the residents. She stated that the proposal violates
the ARB charter. After careful consideration, the ARB recommended approval of the project,
with a condition to return to subcommittee with an improved relationship of tile banding to
cedar siding. The Director’s Designee approved the project on July 23, 2013 as recommended
by the ARB. The ARB recommendation also included modification to ARB approval findings #4,
13, and 14.
Finding #4 specifically states:
City of Palo Alto Page 5
“In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character.”
Staff’s draft finding #4 was made in the affirmative in that the overall design is consistent with
the Downtown Urban Design Guide guidelines in the following ways:
1. The project creates enhanced vehicular and pedestrian entries;
2. The project provides varied building mass and height;
3. The project maintains Hamilton Avenue as pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian environment
with complimentary outdoor amenities.
At the July 18, 2013 ARB hearing, the ARB recommended that finding #4 be revised as not
applicable. The reason for this as stated by the ARB was because the area does not have a
unified design character, but contains a diverse mix of historic and modern buildings. Findings
#13 and #14 were revised to account for the addition of landscaping to the project. The
approval letter, which referenced the ARB findings and approval conditions as being attached,
is provided as Attachment D to this report. The ARB findings and approval conditions, as well as
Variance findings, have been carried forward into the draft RLUA (Attachment A). The condition
to return to subcommittee has been placed as the final approval condition (condition #89) in
the RLUA.
The ARB staff reports are provided as Attachments G and H to this report. The attachments to
these reports include zoning compliance table and comprehensive plan policy conformance
table. Project plans are provided to Council members only. The reports and plans were
provided to the libraries and available in City Hall Planning office and on the City’s website prior
to the ARB public hearings.
Discussion
The appellant’s appeal letter focuses on aesthetics, parking impact, and review process,
discussed below:
Aesthetics
As described in both of the appellant’s letters, one of the purposes of architectural review is to
“promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the
same time are considerate of each other.” The ARB reviewed the project at two separate
meetings (June 6 and July 18, 2013) and approved the project on a 3-0-1 vote based on the
project’s consistency with the ARB findings, the Context-Based Design Criteria, and the
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Downtown Urban Design Guide. In addition, the project demonstrated consistency with
Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs and was zoning compliant, given the allowances in
the zoning code with respect to parking and the Variance requested for special setback
encroachments.
The appellant makes the point that the design is incompatible with the historic buildings in the
immediate environment and that the design is neither high quality nor considerate of its
surroundings. In the appeal letter, the appellant provides the addresses of the historic
buildings and ratio of historic buildings to newer buildings in a one block radius. In the
appellant’s earlier letter (Attachment C), he provides examples of other buildings which he
believes blend harmoniously with heritage architecture in the vicinity (page 5 of the appellant’s
first letter).
The project site is located across the street from, and therefore outside of, the historic Ramona
District (the 500 block of Ramona Street, between Hamilton and University Avenues excluding
buildings fronting University). The existing building, constructed in 1938 but since modified, has
no historical significance. As for compatibility with the adjacent Ramona Avenue historic
district, in general, the Secretary of Interior standards prescribe a visual distinction between
new and historic buildings. The contrast between a modern building and a historic building
allows for the average person to tell what is historic and what is new.
The project was recommended for approval by the ARB because the project showed
consistency with goals of the Context-Based Design Criteria and the Downtown Urban Design
Guide, and because the ARB determined that the ARB approval findings, which include findings
addressing aesthetic concerns, could be met given recommended revisions that were
incorporated into findings attached to the approval letter. The draft RLUA contains ARB findings
presented to and then modified by the ARB on July 18, 2013. The ARB was not presented
specific Context Based Design Criteria findings as a single attachment. The RLUA contains the
standard, applicable Context Based Design Findings (six of the eight findings are applicable to
the project, findings 1-3, 5, 6, and 8). An excerpt of the first staff report (Attachment H)
discussing the project in reference to the Context Based Design Criteria and Downtown Urban
Design Guide is provided below (in italics). These have been placed in the RLUA to support the
generic Context Based Design Findings.
Context Based Design Criteria
The proposed building design appears to be consistent with many of the
requirements of the Context-Based Design Criteria as outlined in Section 18.18.110
of the Zoning Code. In summary, the project would provide pedestrian walk-ability,
a bicycle-friendly environment, connectivity through design elements, and street
facades having a strong relationship with the sidewalks and the street to support
City of Palo Alto Page 7
and encourage pedestrian activity. Bicycle storage is to be provided in the below
grade parking garage as well as at grade along both Hamilton Avenue and
Ramona Street. The ground floor design is intended to be an attractive streetscape
design with a combination of clear frameless glass, porcelain tile and stainless steel
canopies above each entrance along Ramona and Hamilton. Separate entrances
would also be provided for each use along the first floor including the main lobby
area.
The building would minimize massing with increased setbacks at the first floor in
addition to other design elements, such as a recessed entry and canopies that
would be located above the primary entry points. The first floor design employs
different materials and colors, including porcelain tile, clear frameless glass and
cedar cladded garage door. Floors two through three are designed to function as
the “architectural block” that distinguishes the commercial office portion of the
building from the rest of the building. This area would primarily consist of a
structural glazed curtain wall with a combination of clear dual glazed glass and
translucent laminate glass. The area would be outlined by a cream colored
limestone wall. The residential units on the fourth floor would be set back from the
block face below. The units would be capped with a hip roof composed of metal
and outlined by a composite metal panel. The elevator shaft and stairwells would
be white cement plaster.
The parking design is consistent with the design criteria in that the parking spaces
would be located below grade and is concealed from public view by a recessed
garage door.
Downtown Urban Design Guide
The Downtown Urban Design Guide is meant to advise the applicant, staff and the
ARB regarding development and design in the downtown area. The Downtown
Urban Design Guide divides the downtown area into districts, each having a unique
identity and design characteristics. The site is located within the Hamilton Avenue
District according to the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The Hamilton Avenue
District is a mixed office/commercial/retail district with some residential uses. The
primary goal of the Hamilton Avenue District is to promote Hamilton Avenue as an
active mixed use district with a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian experience. The
development of three or more story buildings surrounding Civic Center Plaza are
encouraged to help create a stronger urban edge within this area.
The proposed project is consistent with the recommendations for this district. Staff
finds that this project, with its extensive use of storefront glazing, first floor
City of Palo Alto Page 8
recesses and canopies, and pedestrian friendly amenities such as sunshades, street
trees and ample sidewalk widths, would contribute significantly to the goal of
creating an exciting pedestrian environment. The guidelines also encourage
additional height for buildings at corners. The proposed building of 50 feet is
consistent with both the Zoning Code and the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
Parking
Existing zoning code provisions in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) stated that the
proposed project is required to provide three parking spaces for the two residential units
located on the fourth floor. The project is providing four parking spaces on site, but
introduction of a curb cut to reach those spaces would result in the loss of two street spaces.
The three floors of non-residential floor area, 11,527 square feet, are not associated with a
requirement for provision of off-site parking spaces for the following reasons:
1. The existing 7,000 square feet of commercial floor area (5,000 sq.ft building + 2,000
sq.ft. mezzanine) is “grandfathered” within the Commercial Downtown zone district and
Downtown Assessment District (site assessed previously for 20 parking spaces). As such,
the project is not required to provide parking spaces on site for the existing amount of
floor area, since grandfathered floor area may be replaced. The existing, permitted
2,000 square foot mezzanine is exempt from the parking requirement per PAMC
18.52.070(a)(3). The mezzanine was not assessed as floor area for the parking
assessment when originally constructed, because it was considered as “incidental
office” to the previously permitted retail use or vacant at the time of the engineer’s
report as described in this code section. A building permit confirms it as in existence in
1986.
2. A total of 4,327 square feet of commercial floor area would be transferred to the site,
via the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. The floor area is coming from a
valid sender site to this site, deemed to be an eligible receiver site. These are valid,
recorded Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The first 5,000 square feet of floor
area transferred to a receiver site is exempt from the otherwise applicable on-site
parking requirements for new floor area.
3. The remaining 200 square feet of commercial floor area (7,000 sq.ft. + 4,327 sq.ft. + 200
sq.ft. = 11,527sf) is considered exempt from parking requirements due to a one time
allowable 200 square foot bonus, per PAMC 18.18.070 item (a)(1).
There will be a net reduction in the number of street parking spaces directly adjacent to the
site, due to the proposed curb cut along Ramona Street. This curb cut and driveway allow for
access to the onsite parking garage. The loss of the two off-site parking spaces will be offset by
the applicant’s provision of in-lieu payments for two parking spaces. The in-lieu payments will
be applied toward the construction of a public parking garage.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Review Process
The ARB is charged with design review of all new construction, and changes and additions to
commercial, industrial and multiple-family projects. The ARB’s goals and purposes are to:
Promote orderly and harmonious development of the City.
Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City.
Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements.
Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent
areas.
Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which,
at the same time, are considerate of each other.
Projects reviewed by the ARB that are located in commercial zone districts, such as the CD
(Downtown Commercial) zone district, are subject to the requirements of the Context-Based
Design Criteria. Development in commerical districts are responsible for establishing context
and showing compatibilty with adjacent development and are to be pedestrian-oriented.
Additionally, for projects located in downtown Palo Alto, both staff and the ARB rely on the
Downtown Urban Design Guide which is a document meant to advise the applicant, staff and
the ARB regarding development and design in the downtown area. The Downtown Urban
Design Guide divides the downtown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design
characteristics.
The Director’s approval letter (Attachment D) sets forth the applicable PAMC sections and
notes that the project on the subject property met all of the the Architectural Review findings,
Variance findings, and was consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies.
Policy Implications
The appeal is based on issues related to the ARB findings and the parking requirements of
PAMC Ch.18.52. The Director’s decision to approve the application is consistent with both
staff’s and ARB’s recommendation to approve the project based upon the ARB and Variance
findings and subject to the conditions of approval.
Resource Impacts
The project will add 4,527 square feet of new commercial floor area and 3,473 square feet of
City of Palo Alto Page 10
new residential space. One time revenues would include development impact fees of
approximately $207,135 and the payment of two in-lieu parking spaces in the amount of
$121,500. Documentary transfer tax is not applicable , as the property will not change hands.
On the expenditure side, the project’s net new commercial square footage is not likely to add
additional demand for City services. Any costs for services are anticipated to be offset by the
Development Impact Fees mentioned above. All application processing costs are covered as
part of the cost recovery application.
Environmental Review
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
were prepared and circulated, with a required 20-day public review and comment period
beginning on May 10, 2013 and ending on May 30, 2013. No comments were received. The
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is located in Attachment G (June 6, 2013 staff
report).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOC)
Attachment B: Appeal Letter (PDF)
Attachment C: Appellant's First Letter dated July 15, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment D: Director Approval letter dated July 23, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment E: June 6, 2013 Architectural Review Board Verbatim Excerpt Minutes
(PDF)
Attachment F: July 18, 2013 Architectural Review Board Verbatim Excerpt Minutes
(PDF)
Attachment G: June 6, 2013 ARB Staff Report (with attachments) (PDF)
Attachment H: July 18, 2013 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (with attachments)
(PDF)
Attachment I: Public Correspondence (PDF)
Attachment J: Project Plans (Councilmembers and Libraries only) (TXT)
240 Hamilton Ave Page 1
DRAFT
ACTION NO. 2013-0X
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 240 HAMILTON AVENUE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 13PLN-00006
(HAYES GROUP, APPLICANT)
On September 9, 2013, the Council upheld the Director of
Planning and Community Environment’s July 23, 2013 decision to
approve the Architectural Review of a new four story, approximately
15,000 square foot retail/office/residential building at 240
Hamilton Avenue 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 July 18, 2013, in a public hearing continued from
June 6, 2013 to allow the applicant to make project modifications,
and following staff review of a Variance request and public review
of an Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of a new four
story, approximately 15,000 square foot retail/office/residential
building at 240 Hamilton Avenue.
B. On July 23, 2013, following the ARB’s recommendation
for approval, the Director of Planning and Community Environment
(Director) approved the project for a new four story, approximately
15,000 square foot retail/office/residential building at 240
Hamilton Avenue. Notices of the Director’s decision were mailed
notifying neighbors of the decision.
D. Within the prescribed timeframe, an appeal of the
Director’s decision was filed by Palo Alto resident Smith.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, as the
lead agency for the project, has determined that a Mitigated
Negative declaration (MND) will be required for this project
subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA. The public notice period for the MND began on May 10,
2013 and concluded on May 30, 2013.
Attachment A
240 Hamilton Ave Page 2
SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. The design
and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies
with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC
Chapter 18.76.
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This finding
can be made in the affirmative in that the project
incorporates quality design that recognizes the regional and
historical importance of the area as described in the
Comprehensive Plan and reinforces its pedestrian character.
The proposed project for a new mixed use building is
consistent with the land use designation. The project is
also consistent with The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive
Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing
commercial properties so that these commercial areas are more
competitive and better serve the community. The commercial
properties could be redesigned to be more attractive and
inviting for pedestrians;
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of
the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that
the project is located at a prominent corner of the
commercial downtown in an environment with other large
retail/office buildings. The project is designed as a four-
story, 50 foot building that is adjacent to similarly sized
buildings. The building has been designed to encourage
pedestrian activity;
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
design would accommodate the proposed retail, office and
residential uses. The proposed building would have ample
storefront glass, recesses, and awnings to create an inviting
retail and pedestrian environment. The design is also
consistent with the requirements and recommendations of both
the Context Based Design Criteria and the Downtown Urban
Design Guide;
(4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design
character or historical character, the design is compatible
with such character. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the overall design is consistent with the
Downtown Urban Design Guide guidelines in the following ways:
240 Hamilton Ave Page 3
a. The project creates enhanced vehicular and pedestrian
entries;
b. The project provides varied building mass and height;
c. The project maintains Hamilton Ave. as pleasing, tree-
lined pedestrian environment with complimentary outdoor
amenities.
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different designated land uses.
This finding is not applicable in that this project is not
situated in a transition area between different designated
land uses;
(6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on
and off the site. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the new building is compatible with the
existing context of the retail/commercial downtown
environment;
(7) The planning and siting of the various functions and
buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and
provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and
the general community. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the building location is shifted three
feet away from the Ramona St. curb and four feet away from
Hamilton Ave. to provide wider sidewalks to encourage
pedestrian activity down Hamilton Ave;
(8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to
the design and the function of the structures. This finding
can be made in the affirmative in that the building has
provided an adequate amount or recesses to the zoning
requirements of the “P” overlay and the intent to add
interest at the ground floor for pedestrians. Additionally,
the project provides sufficient open space for the
residential component in the form of four rooftop terraces;
(9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the
main functions of the project and the same are compatible
with the project’s design concept. This finding can be made
in the affirmative in that project includes sufficient
automobile and bicycle parking, and common open space areas.
The project includes widening the walkable area for the
sidewalks on both Ramona St. and Hamilton Ave. to enhance
vehicular and pedestrian safety;
240 Hamilton Ave Page 4
(10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and
convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. This
finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project
has been designed to encourage pedestrian activity with its
greater setback on Ramona St. and Hamilton Ave. The project
also creates an effective and safe automobile ingress/egress
point for the residential occupants;
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated
with the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative
in that the existing city street trees adjacent to the
proposed building will be removed and replaced with new
street trees that are consistent with other street trees in
the direct vicinity;
(12)The materials, textures, colors and details of construction
and plant material are appropriate expression to the design
and function. This finding can be made in the affirmative in
that the proposed colors and materials are will add detail
and interest and are compatible with the commercial retail
environment;
(13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by
the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant
forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable
and functional environment. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that the proposed landscaping helps
achieves the goals of the Pedestrian Combining district by
providing five large planter boxes along the Ramona Street
and Hamilton Avenue sides of the building. Additionally,
closer sidewalk paving score lines have been added to help
support smaller tree wells and better tree spacing;
(14)Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable
of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety
which would tend to be drought-resistant to reduce
consumption of water in its installation and maintenance.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that plant
material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of
being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety
which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce
consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in
that appropriate plant materials are proposed;
240 Hamilton Ave Page 5
(15)The project exhibits green building and sustainable design
that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and
nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content
materials. The following considerations should be included in
site and building design:
Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading,
daylighting, and natural ventilation;
Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates
and reduce heat island effects;
Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;
Maximize on site stormwater management through
landscaping and permeable paving;
Use sustainable building materials;
Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient
energy and water use;
Create healthy indoor environments; and
Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable
environments.
Green building features will be incorporated to achieve
CalGreen Tier 2 standards for the commercial portion and
Green Point Rated standards for the residential portion.
(16)The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of
architectural review as set forth in subsection 18.76.020(a).
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
project design promotes visual environments that are of high
aesthetic quality and variety.
SECTION 4. Context Based Design Considerations and Findings
NOTE – THE BELOW GENERIC FINDINGS ARE PROVIDED FOR COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION; THE JUNE 6, 2013 ARB REPORT
INCLUDED THE SECTION ON CONTEXT BASED
CRITERIA PROVIDED IN ITALICS BELOW.
(1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new
projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly
environment, and connectivity through design elements.
(2) Street building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to
provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s),
to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian
activity through design elements.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 6
(3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to
minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks.
(5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be
provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or
employees of the site.
(6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but
shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or
detract from the pedestrian environment.
(8) Sustainability and Green Building Design. Project design
and materials achieve sustainability and green building design is
incorporated into the project.
Context Based Design Criteria (From June 6, 2013 ARB Report)
The proposed building design appears to be consistent with many
of the requirements of the Context-Based Design Criteria as
outlined in Section 18.18.110 of the Zoning Code. In summary,
the project would provide pedestrian walk-ability, a bicycle-
friendly environment, connectivity through design elements, and
street facades having a strong relationship with the sidewalks
and the street to support and encourage pedestrian activity.
Bicycle storage is to be provided in the below grade parking
garage as well as at grade along both Hamilton Avenue and Ramona
Street. The ground floor design is intended to be an attractive
streetscape design with a combination of clear frameless glass,
porcelain tile and stainless steel canopies above each entrance
along Ramona and Hamilton. Separate entrances would also be
provided for each use along the first floor including the main
lobby area.
The building would minimize massing with increased setbacks at
the first floor in addition to other design elements, such as a
recessed entry and canopies that would be located above the
primary entry points. The first floor design employs different
materials and colors, including porcelain tile, clear frameless
glass and cedar cladded garage door. Floors two through three are
designed to function as the “architectural block” that
distinguishes the commercial office portion of the building from
the rest of the building. This area would primarily consist of a
structural glazed curtain wall with a combination of clear dual
glazed glass and translucent laminate glass. The area would be
outlined by a cream colored limestone wall. The residential units
on the fourth floor would be set back from the block face below.
The units would be capped with a hip roof composed of metal and
outlined by a composite metal panel. The elevator shaft and
240 Hamilton Ave Page 7
stairwells would be white cement plaster.
The parking design is consistent with the design criteria in that
the parking spaces would be located below grade and is concealed
from public view by a recessed garage door.
Downtown Urban Design Guide (from June 6, 2013 ARB Report)
The Downtown Urban Design Guide is meant to advise the applicant,
staff and the ARB regarding development and design in the downtown
area. The Downtown Urban Design Guide divides the downtown area
into districts, each having a unique identity and design
characteristics. The site is located within the Hamilton Avenue
District according to the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The Hamilton
Avenue District is a mixed office/commercial/retail district with
some residential uses. The primary goal of the Hamilton Avenue
District is to promote Hamilton Avenue as an active mixed use
district with a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian experience. The
development of three or more story buildings surrounding Civic
Center Plaza are encouraged to help create a stronger urban edge
within this area.
The proposed project is consistent with the recommendations for
this district. Staff finds that this project, with its extensive
use of storefront glazing, first floor recesses and canopies, and
pedestrian friendly amenities such as sunshades, street trees and
ample sidewalk widths, would contribute significantly to the goal
of creating an exciting pedestrian environment. The guidelines
also encourage additional height for buildings at corners. The
proposed building of 50 feet is consistent with both the Zoning
Code and the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
Section 5. Variance Findings. Variance approval is
based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.030 (C).
The Variance approval has not been appealed.
Variance Request: Three foot encroachment into the six foot
special setback along Ramona St. and seven foot encroachment into
the seven foot special setback along Hamilton Ave.
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, including (but not limited to) size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, the strict
application of the requirements and regulations prescribed
in this title substantially deprives such property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in
the same zoning district as the subject property.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 8
Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from
consideration are: (A) The personal circumstances of the
property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape of
the subject property made by the property owner or his
predecessors in interest while the property was subject to
the same zoning designation.
The existing building is built to the property line as are
many buildings within the commercial downtown district. The
special setback of six and seven feet respectively, imposed
upon this property, only occurs in one other location within
the downtown. Most properties within the commercial
downtown have no setback requirement. This corner parcel,
at only 50 feet wide, is narrower than the other parcels at
this corner. The other parcels range from 75 feet to 100
feet wide.
2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial
compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations placed
upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning
district as the subject property.
The granting of the exception would result in a three foot
encroachment into the required 6 foot special setback along
Ramona St. and a seven foot encroachment into the required
seven foot special setback along Hamilton Ave. It should be
noted that only nine feet of the 45 foot wide building wall
along Hamilton Ave. would encroach seven feet into the
special setback (for the purposes of accommodating an
enclosed stairwell). The remaining 36 feet of building wall
would encroach approximately five inches into the special
setback resulting in setback of 6.5 feet. Even with the
granting of the Variance the project would still provide a
sidewalk width of approximately 11 feet along Hamilton Ave.
and 10 feet along Ramona St. both of which meet or exceed
the sidewalk width requirements in the Downtown Urban Design
Guide. The wider sidewalk and more importantly the shift of
the building mass would improve the pedestrian experience
and enhance the opportunity for retail activity along
Hamilton Ave.
3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title
(Zoning).
240 Hamilton Ave Page 9
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
(Policies, Programs and Goals) as outlined in Attachment E
of the Staff Report.
4. The granting of the application will not be injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general
welfare, or convenience.
The proposed setbacks of three feet along Ramona St. and no
setback to 6.5 feet along Hamilton Ave. will improve the
existing sidewalk width by adding four additional feet in
width to the sidewalk to Ramona St. and three feet additional
sidewalk width to Hamilton Ave. The increased sidewalk widths
will provide for a better overall pedestrian friendly
experience with the Hamilton Ave. District of Downtown. The
requested encroachments into the special setback would not
result in a detrimental impact as it is an improvement over
the existing situation which is a zero setback in this
location.
SECTION 6. Architectural Review Approval Granted.
Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by
the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
SECTION 7. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared The Hayes Group
titled 240 Hamilton Avenue, consisting of 21 pages, and received
June 27, 2013, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of
approval in Section 8. A copy of these plans is on file in the
Department of Planning and Community Development.
SECTION 8. Conditions of Approval.
Planning
1. The cover sheet lists the assessor’s parcel as 139-96-797. Our
records indicate the assessor’s parcel number is 120-27-010.
2. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved plans and related documents received June 27, 2013
except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 10
3. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all
plans submitted for building permits related to this project.
5. The current project is approved to use the one-time 200 square
foot FAR bonus, as permitted per PAMC 18.18.070(a)(1), and
cannot utilize this bonus again for any future development.
6. New construction and alterations in the CD-C zoning district
shall be required to design ground floor space to accommodate
retail use and shall comply with the provisions of the
Pedestrian (P) combining district.
7. The proposed project requires 5,000 square feet of Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR). Prior to building permit submittal,
the applicant shall provide sufficient information so that the
Director of Planning and Community Environment can issue written
confirmation of the transfer, which identifies both the sender
and receiver sites and the amount of TDRs which have been
transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in the office
of the county recorder prior to the issuance of building permits
and shall include the written consent or assignment by the
owner(s) of the TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the
applicant
8. Development Impact Fees, estimated at $207,135.11 shall be paid
prior to the issuance of the project’s building permit. These
fees are adjusted annually in August. Fees shall be calculated
at the rate in effect at the time of permit issuance.
9. For any on-street parking spaces that are removed to accommodate
the project’s driveway curb-cut, the applicant shall be required
to pay parking in-lieu fees for the number of spaces lost. This
fee shall be due to the City prior to the issuance of the
project’s building permit.
10.All future signage for this site shall be submitted for
Architectural Review.
11. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year
from the original date of approval. In the event a building
permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within
the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire
and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension
of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year
expiration.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 11
12. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant
who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or
other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate
the protest at the time the development project is approved or
conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date
that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on
the project. Additionally, procedural requirements for
protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and
exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU
FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW
THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND
EXACTIONS.
13. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP)
Section 1094.5, and the time by which judicial review must be
sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
14. 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 attorney’s 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.
Transportation
15. Car stacker system should provide enough width and depth
for full size SUV. Provide details, etc. of the system for
further review.
16. Long term bike parking for office use is not apparent.
Please identify. Long term bike parking for office cannot
be shared with residential unless separate lockers.
17. Parking reductions assumed. Significant
credits/reductions assumed could be opposed. Consider
providing underground parking, possibly with a vehicle
elevator (instead of ramp) to achieve additional parking.
18. Include loss of on-street parking due to new garage.
Public Works Urban Forestry
240 Hamilton Ave Page 12
19. Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of
public trees #1-6.
20. Six publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-
way along the Hamilton and Ramona streets. Parking garage
ramp and other in-ground elements that will limit new tree
growth potential shall be identified. As mitigation to
offset the net loss for years of public resource
investments and minimize the future years to parity with
infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction, extended asphalt
life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by the trees,
the new frontage should be provided maximum streetscape
design and materials to include the following elements:
• Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree
Management Program. Provide adequate room for tree
canopy growth and root growing volume resources.
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for
sustainability products, such as permeable ADA
sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix
base, and services due to being situated within the
public right-of-way.
Public Works Engineering
21. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the
applicant must replace those portions of the existing
sidewalks, curbs, gutters, curb ramps or driveway
approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s)
of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced,
or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement
in the planter strip. Contact 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.
22. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace
existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-
way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’
arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can
determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for
240 Hamilton Ave Page 13
this project. The site plan submitted with the building
permit plan set must show the street tree work that the
arborist has determined, including the tree species, size,
location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a
note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree
work is required. The plan must note that in order to do
street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for
Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’
arborist (650-496-5953).
23. SUBDIVISION: A parcel/condo map will be required if there are
any units that are proposed “for sale”. The developer will be
required to provide a preliminary parcel map and a parcel map
for city review and approval. The Grading/Excavation and
Building permits will not be issued until the parcel map is
recorded.
24. STEET RESURFACING: The developer will be required to
resurface the entire frontage of each street adjacent to the
property out to the centerline of the street upon completion
of onsite construction. The resurfacing will consist of a
slurry seal or grinding 2” of the existing asphalt and
overlaying 2” asphalt pavement per Public Works’ standards.
Public Works will make the determination between slurry seal
and grind/overlay by inspecting the condition of the road and
estimating the construction impacts. Thermoplastic striping
of the street(s) will be required after resurfacing.
The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at
the building permit phase. You can obtain various plan set
details, forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City's
Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works’
website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms_permits.
Include in plans submitted for a building permit:
25. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of
the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and
discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems
at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are
not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however,
required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as
lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a
sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe
from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet
from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped
area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet
240 Hamilton Ave Page 14
flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant
water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the
plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at
least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to
minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public
Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to
design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems
for the basement.
26. GARAGE/BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation,
including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private
property or into the City right-of-way without having first
obtained written permission from the private property owners
and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works.
27. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during
construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown
well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is
disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through
October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system.
The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest
anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to
be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must
determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to
excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an
exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3
feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If
groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation,
a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or
alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement
and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must
immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system
before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the
water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge
and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required,
the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test
the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works
specifies and submit the results to Public Works.
28. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of
a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering
plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain
approval of the plan during the building permit review, but
the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work
permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must
include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the
site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet
240 Hamilton Ave Page 15
and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center
and on our website.
29. 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 structure a minimum
of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks 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.
30. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading &
excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when
applying for a building permit if the total cubic yardage of
dirt being cut for the garage lift and elevator pit is more
than 100 cubic yards. The application and guidelines are
available at the Development Center and on our website.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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. If a new driveway is in a different
location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk
associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a
240 Hamilton Ave Page 16
thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section.
Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned
driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter
strip.
34. 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
for Land Developments form and instructions are available at
the Development Center or on our website.
35. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan 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. Pedestrian protection must be
provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33
requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or
less, the contractor must place construction railings
sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas.
If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the
contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public
Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier
and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.”
36. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan
to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that
addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including,
but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck
routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete
pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control,
storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact,
noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The
plan will be attached to a street work permit.
Public Works Environmental Services
37.Please note the following issues must be addressed in building
plans prior to final approval by this department:
General Comments:
Consider providing separate service for residential and
commercial units
Trash rooms located in garage will require bins to be placed
curbside on collection day or pull-out service at an
240 Hamilton Ave Page 17
additional charge.
38. PAMC 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
(A) Assure that development provides adequate and accessible
interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash
and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that
trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from
abutting residences as is reasonably possible. (B) Requirements:
(i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to
all residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling
facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to encourage
and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and
recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by masonry
or other opaque and durable material, and shall be enclosed and
covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided
where feasible. Chain link enclosures are strongly discouraged.
(iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be
architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v)
The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas
and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural
review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by
that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section
18.76.020.
39. PAMC 5.20.120 Recycling storage design requirements
The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded
building or other facility shall provide for proper storage,
handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid
waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which
will allow for the efficient and safe collection. The design
shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections
18.22.100, 18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080,
18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080, 18.49.140, 18.55.080,
18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code.
All Services:
a) Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance,
street width and turnaround space) and street parking
are common issues pertaining to new developments.
Adequate space must be provided for vehicle access.
b) Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed
by the solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads)
240 Hamilton Ave Page 18
must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where
permeable pavement is used.
c) Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or
charges will apply.
d) Carts and bins must be able to roll without
obstacles or curbs to reach service areas "no jumping
curbs"
40. Garbage, Recycling, and Yard Waste/Compostables cart/bin
location and sizing
Office Building
The proposed commercial development must follow the
requirements for recycling container space1. Project plans
must show the placement of recycling containers, for example,
within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection
space should be provided for built-in recycling
containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the
placement of recycling containers.
Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access
to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and
compostables.
Collection cannot be performed in underground.
Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77” of
vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In
instances where push services are not available (e.g., hauler
driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property
owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers
in an accessible location for collection.
All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for
bin service.
New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce
ware and tear on walls.
For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables
collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650)
493-4894.
41. PAMC 5.24.030 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD)
1 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2
240 Hamilton Ave Page 19
Covered projects shall comply with construction and
demolition debris diversion rates and other requirements
established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building
Code). In addition, all debris generated by a covered
project must haul 100 percent of the debris not salvaged for
reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter.
Contact the City of Palo Alto’s Green Building Coordinator
for assistance on how to recycle construction and demolition
debris from the project, including information on where to
conveniently recycle the material.
Utilities Electrical Engineering
42. The Utilities will require space on the private
property for installing a pad mounted transformer to serve
the proposed building at the above location.
43. Pad mounted transformer location must be shown on the
plans. Utilities will require a minimum clearance of 8’ in
the front and 3’ around the transformer.
44. Public Utility Easements shall be granted as required
by the City.
45. Any extension of the power distribution
lines/relocation of existing utilities or offsite
modification that needs to be done for providing electric
service to the building will be at applicant’s expense. Any
non-standard installation requested by the applicant shall
be treated as a “Special Facilities” and in that case
special facility charges will become applicable.
46. Applicant shall provide preliminary electric load
calculations for sizing the transformer. Transformer
procurement lead time is 6-8 months.
47. Utilities will provide detailed comments and cost
estimates when plans are submitted to the Building
Department for review and approval
Utilities Water Gas Wastewater
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
48. Prior to demolition, the applicant
shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit
loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing
240 Hamilton Ave Page 20
loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the
existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and
plans they may not receive credit for the existing
water/wastewater fixtures.
49. The applicant shall submit a
request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters
including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be
disconnected or removed within 10 working days after
receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued
by the building inspection division after all utility
services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
FOR BUILDING PERMIT
50. 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 information requested
for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m.,
gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The
applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new
loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any
existing loads to remain).
51. The applicant shall submit
improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must
show the size and location of all underground utilities
within the development and the public right of way
including meters, backflow preventers, fire service
requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift
stations and any other required utilities.
52. 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). The applicant shall be responsible for installing and
upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as
necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This
responsibility includes all costs associated with the
design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the
utility mains and/or services.
53. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations
and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-
site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will
provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and
240 Hamilton Ave Page 21
wastewater capacity needed to service the development and
adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands.
Field testing may be required to determined current flows
and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations
must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer.
The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a
flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to
determine the remaining capacity. The report must include
existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum
monitoring period of thirty continuous days or as
determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study
shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW
engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing
sewer main will be permitted.
54. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or
services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering
section of the Utilities Department four copies of the
installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site
improvement plans in accordance with the utilities
department design criteria. All utility work within the
public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans
that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil
engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete
schedule of work, method of construction and the
manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for
approval by the utilities engineering section. The
applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work
until the improvement plan and other submittals have been
approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering
section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off,
the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of
the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and
services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing
procedures. For contractor installed services the
contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or
wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean
out for wastewater laterals.
55. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA
backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and
new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply
with requirements of California administrative code, title
17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be
installed on the owner's property and directly behind the
water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for
domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of
240 Hamilton Ave Page 22
the RPPA on the plans.
56. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is
required for the existing or new water connection for the
fire system to comply with requirements of California
administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for
existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval).
reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on
the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within
5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced
pressure detector assembly on the plans.
57. 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. Inspection by the
utilities cross connection inspector is required for the
supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
58. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS,
PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense.
59. Existing water services that are not a currently
standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s
expense.
60. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and
connection fees associated with new utility service/s or
added demand on existing services. The approved relocation
of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be
performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the
relocation.
61. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water
and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have
its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral
connection shown on the plans.
62. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is
required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the
location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter
shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other
water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation
and landscape plans submitted with the application for a
grading or building permit shall conform to the City of
Palo Alto water efficiency standards.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 23
63. A new water service line installation for domestic
usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch
through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must
provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid
covers for water meter and other required control equipment
in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the
location of the new water service and meter on the plans.
64. A new water service line installation for irrigation
usage is required. Show the location of the new water
service and meter on the plans.
65. A new water service line installation for fire system
usage is required if existing service is not meeting
current standards. Show the location of the new water
service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the
engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system
including all fire department's requirements.
66. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new
gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must
conform with utilities standard details.
67. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the
location of the new sewer lateral on the plans
68. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for
facilities installed in private property. The applicant's
engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa
Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies
of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as
is necessary to serve the development.
69. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for
condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall
include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s
reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown
as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area,
then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not
of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common
Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written
consent of the City”. All existing water and wastewater services
that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW
utilties procedures.
70. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases,
24
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.
71. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant
is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the
building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be
videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is
installed by directional boring.
72. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of
Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater.
73. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services,
the applicant shall prepare and submit to the WGW engineering
section of the Utilities Department as-built drawings at the
completion of construction of the installation of water and
wastewater utilities to be owned and maintained by the City in
accordance with:
1. Two sets of as-built drawings (hard copies).
2. As-built drawings in 2008 or 2010 AutoCAD format.
3. As-built drawings in .tiff format.
4. Survey points in .csv format for all new utility features.
Note: All survey data shall be collected by a California Licensed
Land Surveyor. The surveyor is responsible to setup all control
points needed to perform the survey work. The accuracy for all
survey data shall be +/- 1cm.
Survey data to be collected (what's applicable):
I. Collect horizontal and vertical data for:
1. Sanitary sewer manholes (rim and invert elevations and
depth)
2. Storm drain manholes and catch basins (rim and invert
elevations and depth)
3. Water valves (cover and stem elevations)
Fire Department
25
74. Provide a Fire Apparatus Access Plan. Show elevations
and how PAFD Ladder Truck will be utilized.
75. Provide an egress plan.
Public Work Water Quality
We have reviewed the site floor plans for this project. Please
note the following issues must be addressed in building plans prior
to final approval by this department:
76.PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee
to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm
drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling
and filtration upon a determination that either or both would
improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground
water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for
discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm
drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the
discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code
(16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the
superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be
compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge,
at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
77. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking
Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to
an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and
to the sanitary sewer system
78. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled
Facilities
New buildings and residential developments providing centralized
solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex
residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area
shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with
grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the
area.
79.PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal
gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing
asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential,
commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is
required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small
copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement
roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt,
provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at
the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of
26
"historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1
or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto
Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
80. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to
the storm drain system.
81. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray
films) shall either submit a treatment application or waste hauler
certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-329-2421.
82. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall
not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact
with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths
of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not
practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be
used for wastewater plumbing.
83. PAMC 16.09.220(c)(1) Dental Facilities That Remove or Place Amalgam
Fillings
An ISO 11143 certified amalgam separator device shall be installed
for each dental vacuum suction system. The installed device must be
ISO 11143 certified as capable of removing a minimum of 95 percent
of amalgam. The amalgam separator system shall be certified at flow
rates comparable to the flow rate of the actual vacuum suction
system operation. Neither the separator device nor the related
plumbing shall include an automatic flow bypass. For facilities
that require an amalgam separator that exceeds the practical
capacity of ISO 11143 test methodology, a non-certified separator
will be accepted, provided that smaller units from the same
manufacturer and of the same technology are ISO-certified.
84. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray
films) shall either submit a treatment application or waste hauler
certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-329-2598.
85. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain
sumps.
86. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers
and Heat Exchangers
It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems,
pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm
drain system.
27
87. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling
Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No
dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent.
Undesignated Retail Space:
88. PAMC 16.09
Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of
the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet
all requirements that would have been applicable during design and
construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food
service facility the following requirements must be met:
Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project:
A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section
16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes
1. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and
installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2)
2. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California
Plumbing Code.
3. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500
gallons.
4. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a
sizing calculation example below.
5. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger
than what is specified on the plans.
6. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be
installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be
installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all
access points or manholes are readily accessible for
inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents. GCDs
located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to
exclude the entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5)
7. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of
three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping,
baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The
plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes
on the GCD. The Environmental Compliance Division of Public
Works Department may authorize variances which allow GCDs with
less than three manholes due to manufacture available options
or adequate visibility.
8. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs.
9. All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2 &
1004)
1. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and
indicated on plans.
28
B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited
Bldg/Plumbing Codes
2. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the
correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly
labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their
discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste
line, shall be included on the plans.
3. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall
be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the
sizing calculation.
4. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a
GCD. These include but are not limited to:
a. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks
b. Three compartment sinks (pot sinks)
c. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for
dishwashers shall connect to a GCD
d. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering
a dishwasher), small drains on busing counters adjacent
to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks
e. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens
f. Prep sinks
g. Mop (janitor) sinks
h. Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be
covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to
a GCD.
i. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures
j. Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease
generating cooking equipment with drip lines
k. Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor
drains/sinks
5. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and
non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is
prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD:
a. Dishwashers
b. Steamers
c. Pasta cookers
d. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens
e. Hand sinks
f. Ice machine drip lines
g. Soda machine drip lines
h. Drainage lines in bar areas
6. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE.
(PAMC 16.09.075(d)).
7. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food
preparation and storage areas.
8. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be
individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5)
29
C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC,
16.09.075(q)(2)
9. Newly constructed and remodeled FSEs shall include a covered
area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the
collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking
fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow.
10. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent
water run-on to the area and runoff from the area.
11. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for
recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs
are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to
a GCD.
12. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately
sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in
the covered area.
13. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted
facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility
being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement.
D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B)
14. FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is
connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest
kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc.
Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger
than a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful.
E. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC) Sizing Criteria: GCD Sizing:
Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GCD Volume
(gallons)
Pre-rinse sink 4 8 500
3 compartment sink 3 21 750
2 compartment sink 3 35 1,000
Prep sink 3 90 1,250
Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172 1,500
Floor drain 2 216 2,000
Floor sink 2
30
Example GCD
Sizing Calculation:
Note:
All resubmitted
plans to Building
Department which include FSE projects shall be resubmitted to
Water Quality.
It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size
larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge
prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning.
There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in
different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced
fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal)
The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention
to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The
FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements
for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and
construction projects.
89. ARB Condition: Prior to submittal of building permit
application, the applicant shall submit to ARB subcommittee
revised project drawings indicating blending of the tile to
relate better to the wood siding pattern.
90. Except as expressly specified herein, the site plan,
floor plans, building elevations and any additional
information or representations, submitted by the Applicant
during the Staff review and public hearing process leading to
the approval of this entitlement, whether oral or written,
which indicated the proposed structure or manner of
operation, are deemed conditions of approval.
Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item
Number
DFUs Total
1 Pre-rinse sink, Item 1 4 4
1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 3 3
2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor
sink, Item 4
3 6
1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3
1 Floor trough, Item 6 &
tilt skillet, Item 7
2 2
1 Floor trough, Item 6 &
steam kettle, Item 8
2 2
1 Floor sink, Item 4 & wok
stove, Item 9
2 2
4 Floor drains 2 8
1,000 gallon GCD minimum
sized
Total: 30
31
91. The approved use and/or construction are subject to, and
shall comply with, all applicable City ordinances and laws
and regulations of other governmental agencies.
92. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a
project applicant who desires to protest the fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a
development project must initiate the protest at the time the
development project is approved or conditionally approved or
within ninety (90) days after the date that fees,
dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the
Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for
protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations
and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020.
IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR
FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE
VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS,
RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements
constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications,
reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government
Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide
notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day
period has begun in which you may protest these requirements.
93. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil
Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial
review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
SECTION 9. 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
attorney’s 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.
32
SECTION 10. Term of Approval. Architectural Review
Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the
original date of approval, 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:
Those plans prepared by Hayes Group Architects entitled 240
Hamilton Avenue, consisting of 21 pages, and received June 27,
2013.
If
, I I; : :"'\..~) i\ LTD, C:\
RE: Appeal of Proposal by Ken Hayes and Forest Casa 1fJMflSci;'S Of'FIC[
to develop the site at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue 13 AUG --~) Lf'l g: ll2
To Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
Introduction
With respect to issues of aesthetic quality and compatibility with neighboring buildings, the Architectural
Review Board and Department of Planning and Community Environment have violated their governing
ordinances and the ARB standards of review by approving this application,
The site is in the middle of an area densely populated with heritage buildings, but the Staff RepOlt barely
mentions the word heritage and completely ignores the historic aspects of review. The ARB, too, avoided
compliance with Code on the heritage topic. The Board appears committed to foisting modernist
buildings on Palo Alto, taking its cue not from the PAMC or the Comprehensive Plan, but from modernist
ideology that the ARB members learned in architecture school, which runs counter to many local statutes.
A further objection from the appellant and co-signers is that the project will exacerbate an already dire
parking shOltage downtown and push dozens more workers' cars into nearby residential neighborhoOds.
Finally, the review process itself, which permits these excesses time after time, is seriously flawed.
Regarding the aesthetic aspect, the most peltinent passages are as follows (our italics):
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020, Architectural Review
(a) "The purpose of architectural review is to: .,. (5) Promote visual environments which are of
high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other."
"d) Findings: Neither the director, nor the city counr,il on appeal, shall grant architectural review
approval, unless it is found. that: (I) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the
site;, .. and (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character;","
The most applicable passages ofthe Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan are:
"Program L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.".
"Program L-49: In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new
development to maintain and support the existing character,"
The proposed Ken Hayes design is absolutely incompatible with the most valued, h.istoric buildings in the
immediate envirOlunent. The proposed design is neither high quality nor considerate of its surroundings.
It is a modernist glass box which would. be entirely out of place at Ramona and Hamilton, surrounded on
three sides by heritage structures. We justify these accusations below.
Context
The site lies next door to Reposado Restaurant (a building eligible for the California Register of Historical
Resources). Across Hamilton it faces obliquely the old classically-inspired former Post Office at 205
Hamilton, and directly faces the Cardinal Hotel. Both use pilasters, among other features, as a decorative
motif. The proposed design substitutes a few cylindrical posts, a poor, abstract imitation of COlmlTIls.
The 240-248 c~rner also lies directly across Hamilton from the 500 block of Ramona, a designated
district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the opposite direction, along the same block
of Ramona as the proposed strllcture, lie three mOre heritage buildings, numbers 668 (Pacific Art League,
a building eligible for the N~tional Register), 642 (now Coconuts Restaurant), and 630, a Birge Clark
design). Number 630's design is sufficiently exemplary tlmt it is depicted in the Palo Alto Comprehensive
PIau, between paragraphs LAS and L-49 which mandate high-quality design and support of historic
character.
In short, the immediate area is saturated with more than a dozen historic structures that exemplify
harmonious style and are officially recognized as deserving preservation and compatibility. At the ratio of
13 (historic) to 7 (newer) buildingsin a J -block radius along Ramona and Hamilton, this is the most
densely historic spot in any commercial area in Palo Alto.
The historic buildings to which We refer are: on Ramona numbers 520-526, 528-530, 532-536, 533-539,
538-542,541-545,628-630,642, and 668. On Hamilton nmnbers 201-215,235,236, and 261-267. The
Plaza Ramona building at 250 University, but bordering on balf of the 500 Ramona block, is a recent
structure but'exemplary in its compatibility Witll its environment
Staff Report is Incomplete
'Therefore it is a great surprise to find no mention of heritage charactar in the project's Staff Report, nor is
the Ramona Street Historic District cited, nor are the three heritage buildings in the 600 block of Ramona
mentioned at all. On page 6 of the report (Staff RepOlt of June 6), tile staff planner Mr. Nortz points out
that the site lies within the Hamilton Avenue District, but mils to refer to the adjacent extension of
Ramona Street that is one of the two designated National Register areas in the city. Mr. NOltz has
completely failed to consider the area's architectural heritage as required by the Municipal Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
When we read wlder his Findings, Paragraph (I) [The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements a/the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan], we.!lfe amazed that Mr. Nurtz states, "This finding can
be made in the aflinnative in that tlle project incorporates quality design that recognizes the regional and
historical importance of the area as described in the Comprehensive Plan ... "
This is false. The design makes no hint of a gesture to recognize "the regional and historical importance
of the area." The whole reason for ultra-simplistic modernist designs like this one is that modernism, from
the outset (starting about 19 J 0), wasta erase all memory of past design and omit references to traditional
architectUre. See the writings of Le Corbusier, Loos, Gropius, and other modernist theorist-architects
who abhorred ornament and promoted use of flat roofs and large expanses of blank wall or glass, among
other elements.
If
As for quality, the review process has nowhere produced any rationale to SUppOlt the above alleged
finding that this is a high'quality design. Mr. NOltz's criteria for a quality design are unstated, and thus
probably constitute not objective Findings but rather subjective opinion. Moreover, in the ARB meeting
on this project held on June6, Ms. Alizadeh answered the oral objections of Appellant Smith saying, "In
terms of your comment that it's characterless, I agree with you partially, that there is a bit of a lack of
general interest, I think, overall."
Thus Mr. NOltz has not even attempted to prove that this is a high-quality design mandated by the PAMC
and Comprehensive Plan, and an ARB member cautiously admits that it's not a great design.
Let us cite a few objective criteria for a good design. First: A good design must have life to it. But the
proposed building has no oblique lines (except a slight slant in the roof, invisible from the street), no
curvilinear lines, and virtually no color. According to Rudolf Arnheim's celebrated book The Dynamics of
Architectural Form, entirely rectilinear buildings are usually aesthetically dead, for lack of lifelike motion
created by these elements. We agree.
Second: There's scarcely anything to look at in this design except large expanses of glass, a thin, brittle
building material which has a sterile character and no innate aesthetic appeal for the viewer. A few
planters 'at street level suggested by the Board constitute lipstick on a pig and do not change its
fundanlental character.
Third, a large building requires several levels offormal subdivision or hierarchy in order to create
a<fSthetic complexity and retain viewer interest. But the proposed simple design appears to consist of
approximately 80 percent glass walls in large expanses. The structure wiJi have nearly no modular
hierarchy and very little visual variety to it, which are also severe flaws in the unloved City Hall building
across the street. They are both far too formally simple for their size and thus monotonous to lo()k at.
Senior Planner Mr. NOltz, Chief Planner Amy French and Acting Director Aknin have certified that the
Findings in this Staff Report show that the building design is high quality when in fact it is not, and their
Findings offer no proof whatsoever.
As for "considerate of its immediate environment" mandated by the Comprehensive Plan and the
Municipal Code, the design is emphatically not aesthetically considerate because most of the buildings
within one block are heritage buildings, while this design is in a completely antithetical style which is
deliberately hostile to historical design.
Yet in Findings Paragraph (2), Mr. Nortz states that the design is compatible with the immediate
environment of the site. He cities as proof only the size and commercial nature of the design. He omits
any mention of the area's aesthetic, heritage'character.
For a defmition of compatibility, see the city's South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, which states:
"Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with that
existing in the neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes
design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained."
(Our emphasis.) .
But the general design characteristics ofthis proposed new building are totally different from all of the
surrounding buildings, excluding only mediocre or bad ones (285 and 300 Hamilton), and there are no
design linkages whatsoever with the many classical and Spanish Colonial Revival structures nearby.
Therefore the Ha)'cs glass-cUltain design is absolutelyjncompatible with the buildings surrounding the
240-248 Hamilton location and does not comply with Municipal Code regulations or the Comprehensive
Plan.
As for Findings Paragraph (4), the PAMC, Ch. 18.76 requires that, "In areas considered by the board as
having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character."
Yet Mr. Nortz avoids mention of historical or unified design of the neighboring buildings by citing only
technical aspects of mass and height, enhanced vehicular and pedestrian entries, and a bland description
. of Hamilton A venue. Here again he has left ollt the critical issue.
June 6 ARB Meeting
At the public ARB meeting on June 6, Appellant Smith addressed the Board and ruticulated many of the
concepts .explained in this letter.
ARB member Lippelt responded to Smith and architect Hayes that, "the design ... is really wonderful."
On the other hand, he admitted that, "With regard to Mr. Smith's comments witb regard to the austerity of
the building, I appreciate that it doesn't fit in with the other historic buildings in the neighborhood."
Addressing Mr. Hayes, he argued that "because of the nature of the architectural approach that you've
taken here, it actually contrasts the other historic structures. And doesn't impose itself upon them from a
false [perspective]:"
But if it doesn't fit into thc neighborhood, and contrasts starkly rather than sharing compatible elements,
then the Municipal Code expressly forbids approval.
One cannot consider the site solely as part of the Hamilton Avenue District, as the ARB and Mr. NOltz
appear to do. The proposed building is twice as long on its Ramona Street side (100 feet On Ramona, 50
on Hamilton), on a block containing three recognized historic buildings, and the Ramona Street National
Register District is only 50 feet away. That historic district falls easily within the "immediate
environment" and within tbe "surrounding development" mentioned in the Municipal Code arid
Comprehensive Plan. A new design at 240 Hamilton must be compatible with these buildings.
Why Does the ARB Ignore the Municipal Code?
On the quality issue, when ARB member Alizadeb stated that she agreed ("partially") with the
Appellant's conclusion that the building had no character, she defended her defense of the design by
referring to her training in architecture school where she was taught not "to create false history." This
appears to mean creating a new building in a more traditional and compatible style such as can be
demonstrated at many fairly recent sites such as 245 and 265 Lytton; 499 and 505 Hamilton; 101,250 and
499 University; and 520 Cowper (the Garden Court Hotel). The public likes these buildings but the ARB
apparently does not.
Ms. Alizadeh and the other ARB members are not bound to uphold the ideology taught by their
architecture professors, though they appear to follow il. They are instead bound by law to administer the
letter and spirit of the PAMC and the Comprehensive Plan, which state clearly that a site like this one
shall be of high quality and compatible with its historic surroundings. The Municipal Code and
Comprehensive Plan do not mention or require "contrast" or "separate and distinct" (Mr. Lippert's ternis),
nor do they mandate that historic buildings to stand out because the new building is starkly different as a
"corporate effect" (the term used by Ms. Alizadeh). We appellants interpret ARB approval of this
proposal as following the members' architecture training and personal style preferences instead of
adhering to the ARB's own Code statutes, which are binding on the Board's review process.
Board member Lew expressed some limited support for Appellant Smith's objections regarding the
Ramona Street heritage buildings. He stated to Mr. Hayes, "For the people who don't like abstract
[design], I would hope that they would see something else in your building." He suggested adding limited
amounts of filigree, planters and awnings. Only planters appear to have been added -which will have too
little effect on the vast expanses of sterile glass wall incompatibly contrasting with the nearby heritage
buildings.
Finally, ARB member Pritchard stated on June 6, "it is a really handsome building," offering no
justification or finding for her opinion, and expressed no reservations regarding the site's historical
context. At the final meeting of July 18, she violated by sleight of hand the letter and spirit of Municipal
Code 18.76.20 (d)( 4) cited above. She referred only to the "unified design character" of the statute,
omitting consideration of the palt addressing "historical character" despite the great preponderance of
historic buildings around the site. She decided that the area did not have a unified design character and
then proceeded to recommend approval.
The refusal of the ARB members to follow their statutes likely has at least two reasons. First, their
ideological training, whereby modern architects are taught at university to defy clear public preference for
traditional design and instead to create minimalist buildings even in historic neighborhoods like this one.
Secondly, the Board members have an innate conflict of interest. Mr. Popp acknowledged a conflict by
. recusing himself from the 240 Hamilton review because he had a prior working relationship with the
applicant architect, Mr. Hayes. We can assume that in a field like architecture where big contracts are
difficult to get, all Board members will be velY reluctant to vote against a project for fear that they will
antagonize the developer and architect and never get any future business from them. Their very reason to
serve on the Board may be at least in PaJt to cultivate such business relationships. Therefore in cases such
as 240 Hamilton, they appear to the public to be serving their own individual interests rather than the
public's. The City Council is aware that many recently built structures have met loud disapproval of their
appearance from the local population, which wondel:s how such ugly buildings as .801 Alma, for instance,
could possibly be approved. 240-248 Hamilton will be another if it is built.
The City Council should seriously consider abolishing and restructuring the Architectural Review Board
to eliminate these prejudices and potential conflicts. The problem of poor designs being approved is of
velY long standing. Three of the five members are currently required'to be architects or designers, and all
of the current members appear to be architects. The citizen point of view should dominate the Board, not
an alien ideology or potential cronyism.
Serious Parking Deficit
The issue of parking is also seriously neglected in this application. No independent CEQA study was
performed to quantify impact on the adjacent neighborhoods, where a severe parking shortage is already
well known.
By our projections, the new facility will push about 50 cars into the residential neighborhoods, about five
times as many as the current worker usage on the site. This is the equivalent to filling 3-4 residential
blocks with downtown worker cars every weekday.
The proposed building will eliminate two on-street parking spots by its vehicle entrance, and create only
four spaces inside, for a net of two. Projected parking use for the proposed commercial square footage of
11,527 is 46 cars at I per 250 sq. ft., plus four more for the penthouses.
The developer is granted grand fathered exemptions for 7,000 square feet of commercial floor area. In
addition, 4500 square feet are exempted via TDRs. It is a cruel irony that TDRs from developer
Giovanotto's renovation of a couple small historic buildings on Homer Street propose to bring dozens of
downtown office worker cars right back into the same quiet Homer neighborhood and adjacent ones' every
day, a negative impact far greater than the little historic buildings ever made. .
The time is overdue to abolish or restructure TDRs because they are being used time and again by
developers to save money at the expense of residential neighborhoods by providing grossly insufficient
parking or none at a11--for the large office spaces they are building.
Here again the Planning Department is asleep at the wheel for allowing this development and many others
to proceed despite new Oil-site parking that will accommodate only a fraction of the worker cars that the
buildings will attract.
SUMMARY
AESTJ.IETICS: The staff planners and their director have ignored requirements of the Municipal Code
pertaining to aesthetic quality of the proposed design and its incompatible impact on the high
concentration of sUfl'ot11lding heritage buildings. The ARB has done the same. All are violating the Code
and are approving this proposal contrary to the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan.
PARKING IMP ACT: The planning Department staff and interim director propose to permit the
developer to add approximately 50 worker ears to tile already overloaded nearby residential streets.
REVIEW PROCESS: The process whereby tliese decisions were made seems to be circular within City
Hall. It seems to us that once the developer and architect have negotiated these and other aspects with the
staff planner, the project roars ahead with no independent review of any elements. ARB appears to
rubber-stamp the planner's repo,rt findings and the planning director appears to rubber-stamp the approval
giving this developer, and pro,bably almost all others, virtually everything he wants.
This process does grievous disservice to the people of Palo Alto by selectively bypassing parts of the
Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan, which were drawn up specifically to protect the people's
interests in present and future. Is this intentional? In an editorial in the Palo Alto Weekly of July 19,2013,
I:
the editors were amazed at "the staltling admission [by City Manager James Keene 1 that staff repOlts on
proposed PC projects are not intended to identify conflicts between Comprehensive Plan policies, but are
meant to provide the findings needed for the council to adopt the staffs recommendation."
The review process on 240-248 Hamilton appears to us to have operated precisely in this manner because
both Planning staff and ARB avoided mention of statutes that would have gotten in the developer's way,
or interpreted them to the developer's benefit. Any rational citIzen who reads the statutes cited above will
surely interpret them as we appellants have.
CITIZEN REQUEST
In the case of 240·248 Hamilton, the Planning Department staff and the Architectural Review Board
members cannot be allowed to ignore the very clear aesthetic requirements of the city's Comprehensive
Plan and Municipal Code. The proposed design does not conform to the ordinance citations presented at
the beginning of this letter. The design also grossly exacerbates existing parking deficiencies.
We the residents of Palo Alto therefore ask the City Council to overturn this approval and require the
architect to design a building appropriately compatible with its heritage neighborhood per the statutes,
and require the developer to provide adequate parking, or leave the site as is.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Smith, Forest Aven Ie '--"""
Co-signers:
I Neilson Buchanan, Bryant Street
, Michael Hodos, Bryant Street
: Ruth Hodos, Bryant Street
I Ken Alsman, Ramona Street
, Linda Scott, Ramona Street
Karen White, Ramona Street
Margaret Kim, High Street
Chris Pickett
Gwen Havel'll
Michael Havern
i Rebecca Geraldi
I
Kristine S. Erving
Robert Gamburd
Richard Charles Brand
Harold S. Luft
Lori Luft
Adrian Arima
. Jeanne Moulton
Howard Gopen
Peter Skinner
Irene Deitsch
Linda Smith
Joe Barta
",
RE: Proposal by Ken Hayes and Forest Casa Real LLC
to develop the site at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Aaron Aknin, Acting Director of Planning
Palo Alto City Hall
Dear Ms. French, Planning Staff, and ARB members,
Introduction
If the Architectural Review Board should approve this design, the Board would be violating its own
ordinance and the ARB standards of review. The pertinent passages are as follows (my italics):
PAMC Section 18.76.020, Architectural Review
(a) “The purpose of architectural review is to: … (5) Promote visual environments which are of
high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other.”
“d) Findings: Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review
approval, unless it is found that: (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the
site;…and (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character;…”
The applicable passages of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan are:
“Program L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces….
“Program L-49: In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new
development to maintain and support the existing character.”
The proposed Ken Hayes design is absolutely incompatible with the most valued, historic buildings in the
immediate environment. The proposed design is neither high quality nor considerate of its surroundings.
It is a modernist glass box which would be entirely out of place at Ramona and Hamilton, surrounded on
three sides by heritage structures. Inexplicably, even the Staff Report on this project fails altogether to
consider the aesthetic aspects and must be considered null concerning the aesthetics issue.
Context
The site lies next door to Reposado Restaurant (a building eligible for the California Register of Historical
Resources). Across Hamilton it faces obliquely the old classically-inspired former Post Office at 205
Hamilton, and directly faces the Cardinal Hotel. Both use pilasters, among other features, as a decorative
motif. The proposed design merely substitutes a few cylindrical posts, a poor, abstract imitation of
columns.
The 240-248 corner also lies directly across Hamilton from the 500 block of Ramona, a designated
district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the opposite direction, along the same block
of Ramona as the proposed structure, lie three more heritage buildings, numbers 668 (Pacific Art League,
building eligible for the National Register), 642 (now Coconuts Restaurant), and 630, a Birge Clark
design). Number 630’s design is sufficiently exemplary that it is depicted in the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, between paragraphs L-48 and L-49 which mandate high-quality design and support of historic
character.
In short, the immediate area within one block is saturated with a dozen historic structures that exemplify
harmonious style and are officially recognized as deserving preservation and compatibility. There are
more historic buildings than newer ones around this site.
Staff Report is Incomplete
Therefore it is a great surprise to find no mention in the project’s Staff Report on this proposal that any of
these buildings has heritage character, nor is the Ramona Street Historic District cited, nor are the three
above-mentioned heritage buildings in the 600 block of Ramona mentioned at all. On page 6 of the
report, the staff planner points out that the site lies within the Hamilton Avenue District, but excludes any
reference to the adjacent extension of Ramona Street that is one of the two designated National Register
areas in the city.
When I read under staff Findings, Paragraph (1) [The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan], I am amazed that the staff planner states, “This finding
can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates quality design that recognizes the regional
and historical importance of the area as described in the Comprehensive Plan…”
In fact the design fails to make any hint of a gesture whatsoever in recognizing “the regional and
historical importance of the area.”
The whole reason for ultra-simplistic modernist designs like this one is that modernism, from the outset
(starting about 1910), was to erase all memory of past design and omit references to traditional
architecture. See the writings of Le Corbusier, Loos, Gropius, and other modernist theorist-architects
who abhorred ornament and promoted use of flat roofs and large expanses of blank wall or glass, among
other elements. Therefore there is no way to improve this design to make it compatible with nearby
classical and Spanish Colonial Revival buildings without making the Hayes design look internally
inconsistent and ridiculous.
As for quality, the review process thus far includes no rationale to support the above finding that this is a
high-quality design. The staff planner’s criteria for a quality design are unstated. I deduce that they
constitute subjective opinion. But there do exist objective criteria for a good design.
First: A good design must have life to it. But the proposed building has no oblique lines (except a slight
slant in the roof, invisible from the street), no curvilinear lines, and virtually no color. According to
Rudolf Arnheim’s celebrated book The Dynamics of Architectural Form, entirely rectilinear buildings are
usually aesthetically dead, for lack of lifelike motion created by these elements. I agree.
Second: There’s scarcely anything to look at in this design except large expanses of glass, a thin, brittle
building material which has a sterile character and no innate aesthetic appeal for the viewer.
Third, a large building requires several levels of formal subdivision or hierarchy in order to create
aesthetic complexity and retain viewer interest. But the proposed simple design appears to consist of
approximately 80 percent glass walls in large expanses. The structure will have nearly no hierarchy and
very little visual variety to it, which are also severe flaws in the unloved City Hall building across the
street. They are both far too formally simple for their size and thus monotonous, hence the public’s
indifference to or dislike of this kind of design.
As for “considerate of its immediate environment” mandated by the Comprehensive Plan and the
Municipal Code, the design is emphatically not aesthetically considerate because most of the buildings
within one block are heritage buildings, while this design is in a completely antithetical style.
In Findings Paragraph (2), the staff planner states that the design is compatible with the immediate
environment of the site, but cites as proof only the size and commercial nature of the design. The staff
planner omits any mention of the area’s aesthetic, heritage character.
For a definition of compatibility, see the city’s South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, which states:
“Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with that
existing in the neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes
design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained.”
(My emphasis.) But the general design characteristics of this proposed new building are totally different
from all of the surrounding buildings, excluding only the mediocre ones (285 and 300 Hamilton), and
there are no design linkages whatsoever with the many classical and Spanish Colonial Revival structures
nearby. Therefore the Hayes glass-curtain design is incompatible with the buildings surrounding the 240-
248 Hamilton location and does not comply with Municipal Code regulations.
As for Findings Paragraph (4), the PAMC, Ch. 18.76 requires that, “In areas considered by the board as
having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character.”
Yet the staff planner inexplicably sidesteps mention of historical or unified design of the neighboring
buildings by citing only technical aspects of mass and height, enhanced vehicular and pedestrian entries,
and a bland description of Hamilton Avenue. He refers to the Downtown Urban Design Guide for
guidelines. But the Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan are the ultimate arbiting documents, and the
design does not conform to their aesthetic requirements for Architectural Review.
June 6 ARB Meeting
At the public ARB meeting on June 6, I addressed the Board and articulated many of the concepts
explained in this letter.
ARB member Lippert responded that, “the design… is really wonderful.” On the other hand, he admitted
that it does not fit in with the neighborhood. Here is his relevant statement, addressing Mr. Hayes:
“With regard to Mr. Smith’s comments with regard to the austerity of the building, I appreciate that it
doesn’t fit in with the other historic buildings in the neighborhood. If this was in fact in the Ramona
District, I think it would be far more problematic. But in fact if you were to follow the Secretary of
Interior standards, the underlying rule there is “Thou shalt not create false history.” And so because of the
nature of the architectural approach that you’ve taken here, it actually contrasts the other historic
structures. And doesn’t impose itself upon them from a false [perspective], ‘Thou shalt not create false
history.’ You’re not creating a false historical structure by going with either a Mission or Spanish Revival
style building. So I think from the Secretary of Interior standards point of view, you’ve done exactly what
it says – ‘Thou Shalt Not Create False History.’ You’ve created here something that is separate and
distinct, and will never ever be confused with a Birge Clark building. It’s a Ken Hayes building.”
If it doesn’t fit into the neighborhood, then the Municipal Code expressly forbids approval.
One cannot consider the site solely as part of the Hamilton Avenue District, when the proposed building
is twice as long on its Ramona Street side, on a block with three historic buildings, and when the Ramona
Street National Register District is only 50 feet away. That historic district is easily within the “immediate
environment” and within the “surrounding development” mentioned in the Municipal Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
On the quality issue, ARB member Alizadeh* stated that she agreed (“partially”) with my conclusion that
the building had no character, saying it had “a lack of general interest … overall.” Thus at least one ARB
member concedes that the design does not have the high quality mandated by the Code and the Plan. She
defended her defense of the design by referring to her training in architecture school where she was taught
not “to create false history,” presumably meaning creating a new building in a more traditional style.
(*The full paragraph of Ms. Alizadeh’s statement appears at the end of this letter.)
But the ARB members are not beholden to their architecture professors. They are bound by law to
administer the letter and spirit of the PAMC and the Comprehensive Plan, which state clearly that a site
like this one shall be of high quality and compatible with its historic surroundings. The Municipal Code
and Comprehensive Plan do not mention or require “contrast,” “separate and distinct,” nor do they
mandate that historic buildings to stand out because the new building is starkly different as a “corporate
effect” (the term used by Ms. Alizadeh). Therefore, I am surprised by Mr. Lippert’s apparent inclination
to approve the proposal, while admitting that the design “doesn’t fit in with the other historic buildings in
the neighborhood.” I interpret Board approval of this proposal as a violation of the ARB’s own Code
statutes, which are binding on the Board’s review process.
Board member Lew expressed some limited support for my objections regarding the Ramona Street
heritage buildings. He stated to Mr. Hayes, “For the people who don’t like abstract [design], I would hope
that they would see something else in your building.” He suggested adding limited amounts of filigree,
planters and awnings. Yet these little additions would not alter the fundamental character of vast expanses
of sterile glass wall incompatibly contrasting with the nearby heritage buildings.
Finally, ARB member Pritchard stated, “it is a really handsome building,” offering no justification or
adequate findings for her opinion, and expressed no reservations regarding the context. The fifth ARB
member had recused himself from review of this project.
Regarding so-called “false history,” the Board misunderstands the phrase. False history means building
indistinguishably from an old structure in a manner that could deceive a viewer. There is abundant local
precedent for creating attractive buildings in a style that is clearly new but similar enough to blend
harmoniously with Palo Alto’s heritage architecture. Some such relatively recent commercial buildings
within four blocks of 240 Hamilton are:
499 Hamilton Avenue
505 Hamilton Avenue
520 Cowper Street, the Garden Court Hotel
101 University Avenue
499 University Avenue, currently the Sprint building
245 Lytton Avenue, a financial center housing Morgan Stanley and Cornish & Carey
265 Lytton Avenue
250 University, the Plaza Ramona complex
Conclusion
I cannot conceive how both the Planning Department staff and the Architectural Review Board members
can ignore the very clear aesthetic requirements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code
with respect to this proposal. The design does not conform to the ordinance citations presented at the
beginning of this letter.
The proposal needs to be carefully redesigned for historical compatibility with the immediate
environment of the site. If the Board approves the proposal as is or only lightly modified, there will
necessarily be an appeal by those of us who are concerned that the City’s approved ordinances and
policies be honored.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Smith, Forest Avenue
Co-signers:
Neilson Buchanan, Bryant Street
Michael Hodos, Bryant Street
*Ms. Alizadeh addressing Mr. Smith: “I think in general, the way that we’re taught in architecture school
is that you don’t want to create false history, like Board member Lippert said. And this also allows those
authentic old buildings to stand out, and to really be seen. And so not everything just gets kind of the
wash of an age. So this is the approach that we’re taught, and I respect that. In terms of your comment
that it’s characterless, I agree with you partially, that there is a bit of a lack of general interest, I think,
overall. I guess I would call it the corporate effect, as opposed to character. But I still think that this is the
approach that we as architects are trained to take.”
July 23, 2013
Ken Hayes
Hayes Group Architects
2657 Spring St.
Redwood City, CA 94063
Subject: 240-248 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00006]: Architectural Review
Dear Mr. Hayes:
On July 18, 2013 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the
application referenced above and as described further below, and the Director of Planning
and Community Environment (Director) subsequently approved the project on July 23,
2013. The ARB’s recommendation included conditions that the following items return to the
ARB Subcommittee for further review:
1. Make the banding of porcelain tile relate better to the cedar siding.
The Director’s approval will become effective 14 days from the postmark date of this letter,
unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The approval was based on the Architectural Review findings in Attachment A and is subject
to staff recommended conditions of approval and additional conditions as noted in
Attachment B. In accordance with California Government Code Section 66020, this letter
includes notice of the amount of development fees and a description of the dedications,
reservations, or other exactions imposed by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the
project, described as follows:
240-248 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00006]: Request by Ken Hayes of Hayes Group
Architects on behalf of Forest Casa Real LLC. for Major Architectural Review Board
review for the demolition of an existing 7,000 square foot, two–story commercial
building and the construction of a four-story, 50 foot, mixed-use building with a new
floor area of 15,000 square feet on a site located at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue. The
project includes a Variance to encroach into the required seven foot special setback along
Hamilton Avenue and to encroach into the required six foot special setback along
Ramona Street. Environmental Assessment: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration have been prepared. Zone District: Downtown Community Commercial (CD-
C)(P)(GF) with Pedestrian Shopping and Ground Floor combining districts.
The fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions imposed by the City in connection with
your development project are described in your conditions of approval and previously agreed
upon mitigation measures attached to this letter, including by reference the approved
development plans. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who
desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a
development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved
or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications,
reservations or exactions are imposed on the project. Any protest regarding the amount of
the development fees or the nature of the dedications, reservations or exactions imposed in
connection with your project must be initiated not later than ninety (90) calendar days
following July 23, 2013. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these
development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code
Section 66020.
IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR TO
FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND
EXACTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
If you have any questions regarding the amount of the development fees or the nature of the
dedications, reservations or exactions imposed in connection with your project, please call
me at (650) 329-2336.
Unless an appeal is filed, this project approval shall be effective for one year following the
effective approval date, within which time construction of the project shall have commenced.
An application for an extension may be made prior to the expiration date. The effective
approval date is fourteen (14) days from the postmark date of this letter. The time period for
a project may be extended once for an additional year by the Director of Planning and shall
be open to appeal at that time. In the event the building permit is not secured for the project
within the time limits specified above, the Architectural Review Board approval shall expire
and be of no further force or effect.
Should you have any questions regarding this ARB action, please do not hesitate to call me at
(650) 329-2336 or the project planner Jason Nortz at (650) 617-3137.
Sincerely,
Amy French, AICP
Chief Planning Official
Attachments:
A: ARB Findings
B: Conditions of Approval
C: Fee estimate (if not provided in approval condition)
Cc: Forest Casa Real LLC, P.O. Box 60177, Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
2
Thursday June 6, 2013 3
REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM 4
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 5
250 Hamilton Avenue 6
Palo Alto, CA 94301 7
8
240 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00006]: Request by Ken Hayes of Hayes Group Architects on behalf 9
of Forest Casa Real LLC for Architectural Review of a new four-story, 50-foot, mixed-use building 10
with 15,000 sq. ft. of floor area, proposed to replace a 5,000 sq. ft., two-story commercial building. 11
Environmental Assessment: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. 12
Zone District: Downtown Community Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping 13
combining districts (CD-C) (GF) (P). 14
15
Chair Malone Prichard: Ok, are we ready? Item Number 5, 240 Hamilton Avenue, request by Ken 16
Hayes of Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Forest Casa Real, LLC for Architectural Review of a 17
new four-story, 50-foot, mixed-use building with 15,000 square feet of floor area, proposed to replace a 18
5,000 square foot, two-story commercial building. We have a staff presentation? 19
20
Jason Nortz, Senior Planner: Yes. Good morning. Excuse me, good afternoon Board Members. The 21
project at 240 through 248 Hamilton Avenue is the demolition of an existing 7,000 square foot, two-22
story commercial building and the construction of a four-story, 50 foot tall, mixed-use building with a 23
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 15,000 square feet, which is a 3:1 Floor Area Ratio. The reason this site is 24
able to achieve a 3:1 FAR is because of the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), which 25
when applied to a mixed-use development allow a higher Floor Area Ratio which otherwise would be a 26
2:1 Floor Area Ratio for other mixed-use projects that aren’t applying TDR’s. 27
28
The project site is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District and close to the southern 29
edge of the Commercial Downtown Zone District. The site is 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep and is 30
located at the southern corner of Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street intersection. Surrounding land 31
uses include office, restaurants, and retail. The ground floor would be retail with office space 32
occupying floors two and three. The 4th floor would be entirely residential consisting of two residential 33
units. Four onsite parking spaces would be provided for the 2 residential units. The parking spaces 34
would be provided in a garage located at grade with the below grade area to accommodate the car 35
stacker. The applicant has requested a variance to encroach into the required seven foot special setback 36
along Hamilton Avenue and to encroach onto the required six foot special setback along Ramona 37
Street. Staff is in support of the variance request as described in the staff report and confirmed in the 38
variance findings. 39
40
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
City of Palo Alto Page 2
As previously mentioned the applicant is providing four parking spaces for the residential portion of the 1
development. As discussed in the staff report the commercial portion of the project, which is 11,527 2
square feet is exempt from parking due to the use of TDR’s, one time exemptions, and replacement 3
square footage. Staff’s analysis of the parking requirement as originally described in the staff report 4
may be incorrect. My previous calculation as described on Page 4 and 5 of the staff report asserts that 5
7,000 square feet or twenty spaces was previously assessed for the downtown assessment. The 6
assessment rolls only show 5,000 square feet as assessed, which is consistent with twenty spaces. Staff 7
is currently working with the City Attorney’s Office to further analyze the situation in order to make a 8
determination. So we’ll be continuing that discussion after this meeting today with the City Attorney. 9
10
Finally, staff has provided at places light cut sheets. And with that the applicant Ken Hayes is here to 11
make a brief presentation. Thank you. 12
13
Chair Malone Prichard: Thanks. You have 10 minutes Ken. 14
15
Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: And I don’t think I’ve ever said this before, good afternoon 16
Members, it’s always been in the morning. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I’ll 17
be presenting the project on behalf of my client, Sal Giovannotto and Casa Real. Is this on? I’d like to 18
thank Jason for his help in bringing the application forward. It is a pretty complicated application and I 19
think we’ll be able to resolve the parking policy issue. 20
21
The site here is a corner site on Ramona. I think we’re all familiar with the old Radio Shack buildings; 22
the corner of Ramona and Hamilton. It’s a key parcel in that it’s one of the few one story buildings I 23
guess that face City Hall Plaza. The building is one story with a mezzanine inside. It will be 24
demolished. Here are some photographs of the existing building and then a streetscape photograph. 25
This is along Ramona Street, you can see the Cardinal Hotel here. Along Hamilton Avenue we have 26
the [Thoightes] building here, which are all tall, taller buildings and then the subject property is 27
indicated here. In terms of sort of a site analysis, this is the solar orientation here, which actually is 28
really favorable for being able to capitalize if you will on the City Hall Plaza canopy of magnolia trees, 29
which I find very exciting, but Hamilton Avenue, Ramona primary vehicle corridors. There is an alley 30
towards the rear of the block, but we are landlocked, separated from that alley. So we have no ability to 31
get services from the alley. So we are creating a service area most, proposed down at this end of the 32
building, which is where we’ll have trash, electrical room, and that’s where our parking will be as well 33
trying to preserve the corner. 34
35
Pedestrian flow again it’s pretty much on the grid. We see this corner as primary ground floor 36
commercial space, be ideal for a retailer or anyone that would want that. The blue areas indicate where 37
we have office entry. The main office entry however is on Ramona Street trying to preserve the 38
frontage on Hamilton as much as possible for exposure to Hamilton. And then the red arrows indicate 39
where we have entries for the ground floor commercial space. 40
41
This is a diagram that shows the buildings that are significant in terms of height along City Hall Plaza. 42
So we have 300 Hamilton, which is multi-story, easily over 50 feet. 285 Hamilton is five stories, 43
clearly over 50 feet. 261, which is the University Art building also over 50 feet. 235 Hamilton, which 44
is Cardinal Hotel, significantly taller than any of the other buildings around. So we feel like 240-248 45
Hamilton is an opportunity to kind of complete that, the definition of the City Hall Plaza and of course 46
there’s City Hall in the center. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Like I said what I find fascinating about this site other than being able to kind of complete this 1
enclosure at the edge of City Hall Plaza is the fact that we can look out across the canopy of trees and 2
the Plaza itself. So this diagram’s trying to show, we see that as a major opportunity for the building to 3
not only look across the Plaza with the trees, but also at the University Art building. And you’ll see 4
how the architecture responds to our desire to do that. This is a view from Google Earth; kind of the 5
site is obviously here, University Art building and then City Hall Plaza. I walked through there today. 6
The canopy is just enormous. I’m not sure when this picture was taken. 7
8
So the project statement, yes, I’m going to bore you again with project statements and read this to you. 9
Create a new modern 15,000 square foot office and residential condominium mixed-use building that 10
responds to the site and respects the context. We want to embrace sustainable design practices and 11
enhance the living and working experience in downtown Palo Alto. The goals are to increase the 12
height and mass at the corner to support the downtown Comp Plan of trying to get greater mass around 13
City Hall, create a clean, modern architectural statement that suits our time, minimize the visibility of 14
parking and trash and utilities and that sort of thing, and obviously create a vibrant ground floor 15
commercial frontage that enhances the pedestrian experience. 16
17
Some of the imagery we’re using, the side that faces Hamilton is sort of northwestern so we’d like to 18
employ some glass shading devices [unintelligible] similar to this here so we have translucent glass 19
shading devices that create a texture and also some sun shading along that façade, but as it wraps 20
around to Ramona Street it’s all structural, four sided structural glazed system. So very, a very kind of 21
a smooth and fleshy and clean. The block of the building itself is the office block and so we’ve kind of 22
elevated that block up similar to what you see here or perhaps here and then the roof terraces for the 23
residential units will just be wonderful I think up on top. So that’s the imagery that we’re using and the 24
ground floor plan shows you sort of the main circulation or I’m sorry, the retail/commercial area. 25
We’re putting the stair cores on the two sort of blank wall property lines. Obviously we’re landlocked 26
there so that’s a good place for that to happen. 27
28
We want to open up this entire corner. This is the seven foot special setback that Mr. Nortz talked 29
about and then the six foot special setback so that you can clearly see what that looks like. We’re 30
opening up the ground floor so there’s 15 feet of sidewalk here at the corner. That’s a very constrained 31
corner at the pedestrian level so we really want to open that up, but then as the building moves up in 32
height it will be more respective of the block face of the buildings that line both street frontages. 33
34
These are the commercial entries on Hamilton and then on Ramona we have a commercial entry there 35
as well as the main office entry and elevator here. This is office and residential entry to take you 36
above. What’s interesting about something that we’re employing is that although we have cars pulling 37
in forward here this is the garage they would come in. These are stackers that actually go down and up 38
so that you can, you don’t have to move another person’s car to get your car out. So very usable, but 39
when you back up you don’t back onto the street; we’re going to employ a turntable so you’ll back onto 40
the turntable, the turntable will turn the vehicle around so that you can drive out facing so it’s much 41
safer I think for pedestrians and the drivers. Trash enclosure, electrical room, ancillary emergency exit 42
all come out towards that end of the building. Long term bike parking for the residential and the 43
commercial is inside the garage. The commercial people will have access to that as well. 44
45
This is just a diagram that shows, it was in your packet back in the variance section, the special setback 46
as it applies to the whole block and this is our building here. You can see that nothing along the block, 47
even the [Thoightes] new building Reposado here the buildings further down they don’t respond to it. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 4
So we’re responding to it on the ground floor along Hamilton and about 50 percent of a response along 1
Ramona where we’re setting back three feet more on the ground floor. I think we have about an 11 foot 2
sidewalk now on Ramona and 15 like I said on Hamilton, but that kind of puts it in perspective. 3
4
I don’t know if I need to walk through this, but fairly open plans. This is the side of the building here 5
that would have the glass fins and so the glass is set back about two feet from the face of the building 6
block on both frontages, but on this frontage with the harsher sun exposure we have the glass finds and 7
then this is just nothing but structural glazed curtain wall there. The residential terrace here, our units 8
are here; two 2 bedroom units with ample exterior terrace space. 9
10
This is the block face along Hamilton and how we’re responding sort of with the cornice line of the 11
[Thoightes] building. I forget the address of that building, but this red line is to indicate how we’re 12
tying across there and then this is the Cardinal Hotel. In a similar fashion how we’re relating to that 13
and then the residential piece floats above. And just a more detailed view of that. This is the garage 14
door. 15
16
Section longitudinally through the building this is the commercial entry off of Hamilton, a nice 17
translucent glass canopy that would extend out over the property line over the sidewalk and then back 18
through the building. This is the garage it sort of displays how the stackers work for you there and then 19
the two levels of office space and the residential units above. And there’s a view of the building from 20
above. It shows the building block, the glass curtain wall as well as the frameless glass at the base of 21
the building. We’re trying to integrate the units, the housing with this metal panel that kind of comes 22
up and wraps down like that, which I think is a real interesting form. It sort of mimics the building 23
form, the block form in a subtle way and then a similar thing happening there. 24
25
This is all a void in the building so you come out of the elevator and you have an opportunity to have a 26
balcony at the commercial level, but then at the fourth floor residential level when you come out of the 27
elevator you’re outside essentially so you can look across the terrace. And the last picture of the 28
building here from eye level. And that’s my presentation. 29
30
Chair Malone Prichard: Well done. We have one member of the public to speak on this. Is Douglas 31
Smith still here? And you’ll have three minutes. Three. 32
33
Douglas Smith: Let’s see… how do I? Let’s see, whoops. I just got rid of my, can someone bring up 34
the desktop? 35
36
Good afternoon, I’m Douglas Smith a Palo Alto resident and a scholar of aesthetics. I wish to discuss 37
the aesthetic and heritage issue in this project. Let’s consider the context; the new building at 248 38
Hamilton will sit directly across the street from two of the most charming buildings in this City, the 39
Cardinal Hotel and the University Art building, both Birge Clark structures. Looking northwest up 40
Ramona the whole 500 block constitutes the Ramona Street Architectural District recognized as a 41
landmark by the City of Palo Alto. In the same 600 block of Ramona is the proposed design right 42
across the street here we find three more Birge Clark structures in Spanish or Colonial, California 43
Colonial styles each rated Category 2 a major building of local, regional significance. That is these 44
buildings. 45
46
In this context the proposed design, a mostly glass box with no particular stylistic character to my mind 47
is an alien, a dead, sterile design. I say dead for three reasons. First, it is entirely rectilinear. No 48
City of Palo Alto Page 5
oblique or curvilinear lines generate a sense of motion without which there is no life. The University 1
Art building in contrast, the gabled roof sweeps the eye up and down again. The top floor invites the 2
eye to sweep across the arcades and then back down to the ground floor where the awnings echo the 3
arches up above. The Cardinal Hotel features other classic principles which interest the eye including 4
[laurels] of detail. Let’s see… none of these lower levels of detail are found under the proposed design 5
which therefore is missing a critical element of aesthetic interest both at the street level and above 6
hence my description of “dead.” Thirdly, the walls of the new design constitute about 75 to 80 percent 7
glass, which is a colorless, brittle, artificial, extremely unappealing building material that has no life of 8
its own. 9
10
Now in the Palo Alto Municipal Code pages on architectural review I find that today’s review’s 11
purpose is partly to “promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic value, quality, and 12
variety and at the same time are considerate of each other. Further, in areas considered by the Board as 13
having a unified design character or historical character namely the Ramona area the design is 14
compatible with such character.” But I find this design totally incompatible with Ramona Street; 15
therefore, I am surprised to read the staff report for this review where I find no mention of the Ramona 16
Street Architectural District right across the street aside from mention of University Art and the 17
Cardinal Hotel nor of the three Spanish California Colonial Revival buildings in the 600 block. The 18
report finally concludes, at any rate I find the staff report does not meet my assessment of this building. 19
20
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. Alright, let’s start with Lee. 21
22
Mr. Smith: Let me figure out how to get the… do I hit escape? 23
24
Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much Ken for your presentation. First of all I want to say I think 25
your, the designing of this building is really wonderful. It’s really a different approach than you’ve 26
taken on other buildings and I like the openness of the building and the way it responds to the corner. I 27
think that it responds particularly well. I like the use of materials, how you’ve expressed that. In fact, 28
architecturally I think it completes that whole Hamilton Street block as well as responding directly 29
across the street to the Cardinal Hotel as well as the… well, it’s not the University Art Center building. 30
I think it’s called Plaza Ramona, no, it’s not part of Plaza Ramona, but it’s the Ramona Street building 31
across the street. 32
33
I think from a height and massing point of view it begins to do what a building of that, on that corner 34
needs to do. It’s a very constrained site and I appreciate that. I have no problem with you encroaching 35
into the setback and I like the way you’ve stepped back at the corner. The sidewalk is very tight there 36
right now and what you’ve proposed here begins to relieve some of that narrowness on the sidewalk 37
and I don’t think it needs to necessarily comply with the six foot setback or the seven foot setback. I 38
think what you’ve done here at the ground level in spirit does what that setback wants property owners 39
to do. 40
41
Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 42
43
Vice-Chair Lippert: With regard to Mr. Smith’s comments with regard to the austerity of the building I 44
appreciate that it doesn’t fit in with the other historic buildings in the neighborhood. If this was in fact 45
in the Ramona District I think it would be far more problematic, but in fact if you were to follow the 46
Secretary of the Interior’s standards the underlying rule there is thou shalt not create false history. And 47
so because of the nature of the architectural approach that you’ve taken here it actually contrasts the 48
City of Palo Alto Page 6
other historic structures and doesn’t impose itself on them from a false, thou shalt not create false 1
history, you’re not creating false historical structure by going with either a Mission or Spanish Revival 2
style building. So I think that it from the Secretary of the standards point of view you’ve done exactly 3
what it does, thou shalt not create false history. You’ve created something here that’s separate and 4
distinct and will never, ever be confused with a Birge Clark building. It’s a Ken Hayes building. 5
6
The only concerns that I have with the project and they are relatively minor is the Steve Jobs effect. 7
What do you do with the back side of the fence? You’ve done a great job of dealing with Hamilton 8
Street. You’ve done a great job dealing with Ramona Street, but then when I look at the backside of 9
the building what am I looking at? 10
11
Mr. Hayes: I think I have that slide in here so we can all look at it. 12
13
Vice-Chair Lippert: It’s actually, it’s in our packet. “City Elevations.” If you go to the exterior 14
(interrupted) 15
16
Mr. Hayes: On the Reposado side… Here you go. 17
18
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yep. 19
20
Mr. Hayes: So Reposado this is essentially the line of Reposado. 21
22
Vice-Chair Lippert: Correct. 23
24
Mr. Hayes: And so we are sort of respecting this idea of the block of stone and obviously we can’t have 25
openings on that side, but we are continuing the stone down that façade up to the railing line of, just so 26
it wraps around. This is the, this is where the roof screen for the, it’s a perforated metal that is set back 27
from that outside edge of the wall and that is where the mechanical condensing units are located. The 28
stair tower here and here is also set back so there’s relief from the face of the stone to the face of the 29
plaster stair tower and the same thing occurs there. So we’ve just taken that simple statement all the 30
way around it and so there’s, it’s probably 20 feet above the Reposado building and above the building 31
on Ramona, which is a two story building here. 32
33
Vice-Chair Lippert: You can have openings; they just can’t be on the property line. So you could in 34
fact create wells on that side of the building and incorporate windows. They’ve done it 200 Hamilton 35
building, which is directly across from (interrupted) 36
37
Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] yeah. 38
39
Vice-Chair Lippert: From Reposado. 40
41
Mr. Hayes: Five foot one back and then you can have protected openings. 42
43
Vice-Chair Lippert: Correct. And then also they’ve done that on University Avenue, the building 44
adjacent to the Union Bank also has wells… 45
46
Mr. Hayes: Yes. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Vice-Chair Lippert: In that area. Is there a way to incorporate some elements like that, not necessarily 1
on the second floor, but maybe on the third floor? 2
3
Mr. Hayes: Never, never even thought about studying that really just because the floor plate’s so small. 4
I don’t know if, it’s just a matter of give and take with the floor plate that we have. I think we were 5
trying to get the relief along the street frontages so the glass wall’s two feet back there from the face of 6
the building and we felt that continuation of the block was a pretty clean, clean statement. I don’t think 7
it will look oppressive certainly with a pattern of the stone on there it’ll have some relief in it, but to 8
answer your question, no we didn’t study windows because the floor plate’s so small and we were kind 9
of pushing it all the other way. 10
11
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah (interrupted) 12
13
Mr. Hayes: All the [view force]. 14
15
Vice-Chair Lippert: What I’m thinking of is if you look at your third floor plate the, maybe the area 16
that’s to the left of column line E, next to the staircase could in some way become some sort of outdoor 17
terrace area? You see the staircase there? Column line E to the left of that? 18
19
Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 20
21
Vice-Chair Lippert: Or perhaps if you look at the below the staircase along column line A between A 22
and B again on the backside of the building. 23
24
Mr. Hayes: Probably have more control if we were to do that more control over the gridline once at the 25
Reposado side because I believe that’s an historic building and so it’s more likely to be open space. If 26
you were to put something here that someone could enjoy as opposed to column line A, which don’t 27
know what could happen there with that. The building that’s there today could expand perhaps. 28
29
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right. 30
31
Mr. Hayes: So if, and that would be the long elevation. 32
33
Vice-Chair Lippert: And then the only other question I have is what would somebody use that area up 34
in the upper right hand corner of the building where it’s to the right of the staircase there’s sort of like a 35
little [unintelligible] it’s only about maybe nine feet wide. 36
37
Mr. Hayes: Right. The stair inside is, yeah, eight. So yeah it’s probably about the same size as the stair 38
so about eight feet wide this direction. So the gridline one is intended to be where the core is. At one 39
time we had layout of electrical rooms, toilet rooms and so on primarily between the two stairs and then 40
when you get up front there, I mean that would be most likely storage or something like that because 41
there’s no windows. 42
43
Vice-Chair Lippert: You know from an architectural point of view when I look at the façade of your 44
building I like the heaviness of the ends, but when I look at the plan of the building I want to put a 45
couple of, punctuate that with a couple of windows because it’s ideal to actually make those into maybe 46
a small, it could be a small office in there or it could be a break room, but if it was punctuated with 47
something it would be wind up to be usable. You have enough surface area along the back wall of the 48
City of Palo Alto Page 8
building that you could put those ancillary functions like supply rooms, closets, the telephone 1
(interrupted) 2
3
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, there’s certainly enough room between B and E, between the two stairs for that. I 4
think compositionally we have so much glass that it does need to have that mass kind of stopping it on 5
the sides. There’s always a need for rooms that don’t have lots of windows. This could be open office 6
and someone could have their sort of a this notion of caves and commons where you’ve got a place to 7
go kind of to get away from the big group and that could be one of those kinds of spots and then you’ve 8
got the windows out. So I can justify so how that space could be used depending upon who the tenant 9
is and the challenge with all these buildings is we don’t know who the tenant’s going to be so it makes 10
it particularly difficult sort of challenge for the architect to sort of impose a program on the building. 11
12
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well just to give you, thinking, again, I’m thinking out loud… it looks like that 13
ends of the building is punctuated by three, it’s a grid so it’s one, two, three at the ends of the building 14
there maybe it could be punctuated with a window in the middle? You know at the (interrupted) 15
16
Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] elevation? Right here? 17
18
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah. That middle row. Maybe punctuate it with (interrupted) 19
20
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, I think that’s certainly something that I could look at. 21
22
Vice-Chair Lippert: It just negates the usability of that space where it’s just a little bit bigger, it’s a little 23
too big to be a storage room and it’s a little too small to be… 24
25
Mr. Hayes: An office. 26
27
Vice-Chair Lippert: Neglected. 28
29
Mr. Hayes: A real office. 30
31
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah. But other than that I think you have a really handsome building. I like your 32
approach and other than what I’ve suggested with regard to wells I don’t have a problem with it. 33
34
Chair Malone Prichard: Naseem. 35
36
Board Member Alizadeh: Thanks. Thank you for this set. I will address as well the comments of the 37
public, Mr. Smith. I think in general the way that we’re taught in architecture school is that you don’t 38
want to create false history like Board Member Lippert said. And this also allows those authentic old 39
buildings to stand out and to really be seen and so not everything just gets kind of wash of an age. So 40
this is the approach that we’re taught and I respect that. In terms of your comment that it’s 41
characterless I can, I agree with you partially that there is a bit of a kind of lack of general interest I 42
think overall. I guess I would call it the corporate effect as opposed to characterless, but I still think 43
that this is the approach that we as architects are trained to take. 44
45
So in regard to the specifics the kind of capping thing, the [c channel] thing that you have it seems that 46
it’s as a result like Board Member Lippert was saying on the two back sides it’s very nice I like that 47
articulation, but it is creating problems where it needs to be bare it’s creating problems because it’s bare 48
City of Palo Alto Page 9
against open space. And so I think that might be problematic. So if you can do wells or something 1
which articulate a bit more of that opening and further your idea in that regard I think it would be well 2
worth pursuing. 3
4
At the same time I think it kind of ties into this issue of the setback. So that kind of two story element 5
because your ground floor, your stairwell is flush with it, it takes away from (interrupted) 6
7
Mr. Hayes: It’s not. 8
9
Board Member Alizadeh: It’s not flush? 10
11
Mr. Hayes: No, no. It’s setback plus it’s a different material on both ends. It changes to the dark grey 12
tile, porcelain tile. It gets (interrupted) 13
14
Board Member Alizadeh: So no and the, ok let’s say like (interrupted) 15
16
Mr. Hayes: You’re talking about that right there and that right there? 17
18
Board Member Alizadeh: I am talking about that right there, that right there. 19
20
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, that’s setback. 21
22
[Unidentified man at 32:27]: It’s not (interrupted) 23
24
Board Member Lew: Do we have the color board? 25
26
[Unidentified man at 32:27]: It’s setback on the ground level. 27
28
[Unidentified man at 32:27]: It’s setback (interrupted) 29
30
Vice-Chair Lippert: This is not setback, but this (interrupted) 31
32
Board Member Alizadeh: That’s what I’m saying. Yeah, I’m talking about the parts that aren’t setback. 33
There is a part that’s not setback, right? Which is where your core is, the solid bits. 34
35
Mr. Hayes: No, that’s supposed to be setback. It’s not just a stone to tile transition. 36
37
Board Member Alizadeh: How much is it setback? 38
39
[Unidentified man at 32:27]: I believe it’s six inches. 40
41
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. So alright. I would just suggest that I don’t think, ok… so it’s, I guess I 42
see six inches. It’s quite tight, but good, but also I think since you’re not really as Board Member 43
Lippert was saying, I’m not quite sure what that space is, what you’re gaining from there, so if, if you 44
could literally do the full setback to be flush with the glass or maybe six inches protruding from the 45
glass I think it would benefit your concept a bit more personally. 46
47
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Mr. Hayes: So let’s talk about that for a second, if I may? Ok. So if you were to take it all the way, 1
excuse me, all the way to the property line, if you, let’s say if you took that entire black, black, grey 2
box at the floor, at the first floor and pushed it back and eliminated it and extended the glass over to the 3
property line you would have to have a wall at the property line because what you’ve done is you’ve 4
essentially created an opening in the side of the building now because it’s cantilevering out and that’s 5
not allowed from a building code standpoint. So you’d have to have like a fin wall that would come 6
down at the end of the building that the glass would run into to prevent the overhang from being open 7
to the property line. 8
9
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. So you have to continue that in order to have your overhang above? In a 10
way. 11
12
Mr. Hayes: So we felt like we didn’t want a little fin wall there. 13
14
Board Member Alizadeh: Right. 15
16
Mr. Hayes: We wanted it to be (interrupted) 17
18
Board Member Alizadeh: Solid. Ok. 19
20
Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] yeah. And so we’ve done that at both ends. 21
22
Board Member Alizadeh: So it’s a six inch difference between that (interrupted) 23
24
Mr. Hayes: Street plane to street plane, yes. 25
26
Board Member Alizadeh: Six inches? 27
28
Mr. Hayes: Yes. 29
30
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. So basically on the entire ground floor I know that it’s a special setback 31
and it’s kind of a weird situation as to why this special setback exists, but so there’s no, at no point is it 32
being respected, is that right? Or is there points where it’s, at no point is it being respected? 33
34
Mr. Nortz: On the ground floor at no point is it being respected. 35
36
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. 37
38
Mr. Nortz: Basically the stairwell is what encroaches that 7 feet for about like 9 feet wide more or less 39
and the remainder of that wall 36 feet or so I believe is at 6 and a half feet roughly. 40
41
Board Member Alizadeh: But it corresponds to the neighboring buildings? 42
43
Mr. Hayes: Right, so we came back out to line with the block face. 44
45
Board Member Alizadeh: And so staff is ok with that as a kind of general policy to kind of? Ok. I just 46
want to make sure I got that, with a variance, of course. Ok. So then the other issue with, the kind of 47
last issue about this element here, which I think has positives and negatives is that there’s this 48
City of Palo Alto Page 11
suggestion that the neighboring, the immediate neighboring buildings in the future based on this design 1
will be, will go up. And I never have a problem with height, so I think height is fine, but in this case 2
there’s this feeling like the building where Reposado is and the other ones are eventually going to be 3
taken down and the height will match the rest of the block. So that is a bit, I don’t know if there’s a 4
way to kind of soften then that edge with those other buildings so that it doesn’t read so strongly to 5
have that kind of division between the two. You know what I mean, that kind of harsh edge where 6
Reposado is? Maybe it is some type of filtration along that back wall. 7
8
Mr. Hayes: Filtration meaning? 9
10
Board Member Alizadeh: Some type of wells or something which make it a bit more (interrupted) 11
12
Mr. Hayes: A different scale. 13
14
Board Member Alizadeh: Yeah, yeah. Exactly. 15
16
Mr. Hayes: So certainly that’s worth looking at. The height, the reason we stepped the whole fourth 17
floor back (interrupted) 18
19
Board Member Alizadeh: Sure. 20
21
Mr. Hayes: Because we don’t, we didn’t want to be that much higher than everything else. 22
23
Board Member Alizadeh: Sure. 24
25
Mr. Hayes: So I think when you look at the whole context it does make sense. Reposado is going to be 26
I think like that for a long, long time. 27
28
Board Member Alizadeh: Potentially, yeah. 29
30
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, because it is historic. As you go down Ramona don’t know what’s going to happen 31
there. 32
33
Board Member Alizadeh: So yeah, so then maybe addressing that fact I think would be important for 34
me because the capping is interesting so it’s just a question of maintaining the vocabulary but then also 35
dealing with the fact that on the back edges it needs some massaging potentially. 36
37
Other bits… I would like, oh, ok, so yeah, we talked about that. If you could explain your California 38
Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) measures please. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: So we will comply with Tier 2. 41
42
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. 43
44
Mr. Hayes: Essentially. We’re not going, we’re not pursuing a Leadership in Energy and 45
Environmental Design (LEED) or United States Green Building Council (USGBC) category, but we 46
will comply with LEED Tier 2. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Board Member Alizadeh: Can you discuss any in terms of materials or (interrupted) 1
2
Mr. Hayes: Well we’re using a lot, this is a concrete building number one, so certainly will have fly ash 3
and it’s a recyclable material. The glazing system is all high performance glazing systems. The 4
mechanical system, which obviously is very important is a VRV Mitsubishi system, which is a very 5
highly efficient system that we’re now using on all these little projects in the downtown because it can 6
get up 20 percent more efficient than Title 24 requirements. And so what it does is very small 7
compressors upon the roof like residential size kind of compressors and then a, goes through a, it’s 8
called a BC controller and so these compressors hook to the BC controller and then at each floor you 9
have one and these fan coils on each floor all hook, you can have like nine different zones per floor per 10
controller and what’s interesting is that if this zone over here is calling for heat and this one over here is 11
calling for cooling they can borrow energy or expel energy through this variable refrigerant volume 12
technology. That’s about as much as I can do. 13
14
Board Member Alizadeh: These windows aren’t operable, is that right? They’re not operable 15
(interrupted) 16
17
Mr. Hayes: No we’re actually [unintelligible] 18
19
Board Member Alizadeh: And there’s no landscaping, is also correct or is that going to be further down 20
the road? 21
22
Mr. Hayes: There’s no landscaping at the ground plane. I would imagine that the residential units 23
would probably have some landscaping. We are not proposing any at this point. 24
25
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. 26
27
Mr. Hayes: The residential units are operable windows. 28
29
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok. I saw the materials board just arrived so I will look at that and then let 30
the other ones comment. Thank you. 31
32
Mr. Hayes: You bet. 33
34
Chair Malone Prichard: Alex. 35
36
Board Member Lew: So thank you Ken. 37
38
Mr. Hayes: You’re welcome. 39
40
Board Member Lew: You know I’m actually of two minds on this project. One is when I look at the 41
rendering I really like what I see and at the same time I actually had the same concerns in the back of 42
my mind as Mr. Smith really because it’s on Ramona Street. It seems like Ramona has a very distinct 43
character to it and it is even though all of those Pedro de Lemos and the Birge Clark buildings there are 44
sort of a faux historic aesthetic and they have a certain scale and detail that I think is missing in your 45
building and I think could be improved in your building to make it more compatible with Ramona 46
Street. And I think that these are like minor, small details not any major massing changes or arches or 47
anything like that. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
The, but I did want to talk a little bit about how your building is compatible with the neighboring 2
buildings and I don’t think you really talked about it that much, but the I think it’s shown pretty clearly 3
in your conceptual street elevations. So on sheet A.2 on the Ramona Street elevation as your, you have 4
a very strong vertical rhythm of your second and third floor windows that pick up on the vertical 5
proportions of the Cardinal Hotel and you’re kind of creating like a, at the top of your third floor it’s 6
sort of aligning with the cornice height of the Cardinal Hotel so that you’re, the massing is trying to 7
match that even though your building is taller and I think that those are all very good things to do. And 8
I think that your, that the continuous retail the glass on the first floor is very important and right now 9
it’s actually not that great in terms of pedestrian activity and I think you’re actually improving, you’re 10
improving it by and you’re also that the sidewalks on Ramona are pretty narrow and you’re actually 11
enhancing the sidewalk and I think all of the buildings on, most of the buildings on Ramona have this 12
really nice arcades and stuff that has that depth to the façade and you’re actually adding it where it 13
doesn’t exist now. And so I think those are all very positive things on your project. 14
15
I’m a little worried about the glass. I was wondering if you could walk us through the material board. 16
My main concern with the glass is that it’s not too dark and I don’t really see the actual sample of your 17
main glass. 18
19
Mr. Hayes: So we typically use either PPG Solarban 60 or 70 and we haven’t run the envelope [calcs] 20
yet, but it will be one of those two and it essentially is about as clear as you can get and still have a high 21
performance glass so there’s no deliberate reflectivity. It’ll have a green sort of cast to it. We’re not 22
going to use a low iron glass so it’ll have some kind of a just a light green cast to it which we thought 23
would work well with the palate of materials. Would you like me to walk through these, the board? 24
25
Board Member Lew: Yeah, if you could and then especially with the, if you… I think like you haven’t 26
talked about at all the perforated metal and then you mentioned the fins a little bit. 27
28
Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 29
30
Board Member Lew: I think the pictures that you showed were kind of a greenish tint glass and this is a 31
very white tint and so if you (interrupted) 32
33
Mr. Hayes: So that piece there is intended to be the not only the vertical fins, so essentially if we look 34
at the model here, so from this corner to this edge over here there will be the vertical fins that go full 35
height and they will be in that translucent glass. 36
37
Board Member Lew: That’s this one, right? 38
39
Mr. Hayes: Correct. 40
41
Board Member Lew: Right. 42
43
Mr. Hayes: [Pause in audio at 44:13] Then down the Ramona side it will just be the surface of the glass 44
itself alright with the joints. The mullions will be behind the glass. So it’s a, it will have a mullion it’s 45
probably going to be an eight inch deep mullion because of the span of the curtain wall. So you’ll see 46
that through the glass, which will be interesting I think, but there’s no mullion outboard of the glass 47
pane itself or glass plane. The translucent glass is also used on the two canopies. So there’s a canopy 48
City of Palo Alto Page 14
that defines the office entry that extends out right there and there’s one that defines the Hamilton entry, 1
alright, into the ground floor commercial space. And so that will have the stainless steel frame and then 2
the probably some standoffs and then the glass, translucent glass horizontal cover. 3
4
Board Member Lew: And you have some railings, I’m sorry. You have some railings at the elevator 5
landings. 6
7
Mr. Hayes: Right. So those will be glass railings, clear glass railings with the stainless steel just an 8
edge cap, little rectangular edge cap on the top of it. And so that occurs yeah, here and here. The slab 9
edge will be wrapped in the metal panel. This is the stone obviously. The metal panel that is the silver, 10
the metal composite [rayobond] panel would be all of this detail that comes down and intersects and 11
then exposes itself and then this whole side here essentially and then it runs around this opening it sort 12
of repeats that C shape and then it descends again to there and so that will all be that [rayobond] 13
material. The porcelain tile we talked about, but just to reiterate it’s essentially the block here and the 14
block located there and then running along the top of the stone and you won’t see this from the ground, 15
but you’ll see it from other buildings I suppose is a metal railing to sort of cap the top off so it’s not just 16
stone, it has a little detail on top and that is the M3 color, which is the lower right hand corner and so 17
it’s supposed to kind of, I could also see that as an accent as well, but we decided to sort of give it a, 18
just a light color as opposed to a darker color. 19
20
And then the roof is the [a standing seam] metal roof. All of the sloped pitched roof up here and then 21
on the backside between the two stair towers is where you find the metal panel. I’m sorry, the 22
perforated metal panel and that is just to sort of provide the screening of the mechanical units but allow 23
sort of air to kind of pass through that zone. And then all the window frames that really are on the 24
inside will be a either a clear, probably a clear anodized because they’re on the inside. 25
26
Board Member Lew: Great, thank you Ken. 27
28
Mr. Hayes: Oh, I’m sorry I didn’t mention the western red cedar. 29
30
Board Member Lew: Yeah, the door. Right. 31
32
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, so that’s the door. So we thought that that would be really nice as you walk by you 33
have this very, very beautiful door that’ll fold up and there’s also a man door that will be built into the 34
panel. 35
36
Board Member Lew: Great, so thank you. So I guess my thought was on like to add a little bit more 37
filigree to the building was maybe instead of like the glass railings at the landings if it was… 38
39
Mr. Hayes: Metal or something. 40
41
Board Member Lew: Metal. Also maybe if the, maybe to enhance the awnings that you do have there, I 42
mean I think the ones you have are nice. They are very minimalist, but I was wondering if there was a 43
way to have more of them or have them more expressive or like at the Walgreens there’s like a wood 44
soffit on them or something. I was just looking, I mean it’s or like the bank opposite your project, I call 45
it Great Western, but it’s the [Calps] building, the one that used to be pink. What is that (interrupted) 46
47
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, yeah, yeah… Wells Fargo. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
Board Member Lew: No, no. Wells Fargo is on Waverly. 2
3
Mr. Hayes: Oh right. 4
5
Board Member Lew: Chase. 6
7
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, sorry. 8
9
Board Member Lew: Has the big planters. I’m looking for something for the people who don’t like 10
abstract I think that they should see something, I would hope they would see something else in your 11
building. 12
13
Mr. Hayes: Ok. 14
15
Board Member Lew: I think, you know, like [Chop] brought us a project on Hamilton and it has 16
awnings, it’s the corner building on High and Hamilton and he has awnings on both sides. He has 17
planters on both sides of the sidewalk. 18
19
Mr. Hayes: Maybe it might be nice to have some really beautiful modern moveable but permitted pots. 20
21
Board Member Lew: Yeah and I think those are all things that are in our urban design for downtown 22
guidelines and I think with just small elements like that would go a long way to giving this a little bit 23
more character without going in the direction of Spanish Revival or something like that. 24
25
Mr. Hayes: Great. Those are all good comments, thank you. 26
27
Board Member Lew: But I would say really my most, my main comment though is the glass color. 28
The, I think given the solar orientation of the building I’m really concerned that it’s going to look too 29
dark and my hunch is that it’s not going to look like how you have it rendered in this. I mean the 30
rendering’s beautiful, but I’m looking at how your illustrator has like depicted the lighting inside of the 31
building [in a reflectivity] and I’m not sure that you’re actually going to get that. I have a hunch that 32
it’s just going to look, that it may look darker, flatter, and less luminous than what you’re showing and 33
so it’s a concern of mine. But generally I like the [party]; I can support the variance, and I think 34
generally you’re making all the right moves. 35
36
If there is, I think the other Board Members expressed a concern on the property line conditions. We 37
do have, there are buildings downtown that have windows on the property line wall, special glazing, 38
special (interrupted) 39
40
Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] the glass, yeah, (interrupted) 41
42
Board Member Lew: Yeah, special mullions and everything like that. 43
44
Mr. Hayes: But I think it’s (interrupted) 45
46
Board Member Lew: It’s been done. So I don’t feel that strongly about that particular wall. I’m really 47
more concerned about the, your Ramona Street elevation. Thank you Ken. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 16
1
Mr. Hayes: Thank you Alex. 2
3
Chair Malone Prichard: This is a really handsome building. 4
5
Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 6
7
Chair Malone Prichard: As far as the way it fits into the context I think it does relate very well in a 8
massing standpoint to the hotel across the street and it also speaks in a little way to the City Hall with 9
the verticality that you’re creating here with the glazing system. So I don’t have a problem with a 10
building of this type in this location. 11
12
The blank back wall jumped out at me. I would like to see something done with that to articulate it 13
better. If you do that I think bring it forwards over Reposado is the way to go because that’s where 14
you’re going to see it when you’re coming down Hamilton. I think the further back you put it towards 15
the rear stair the less it’s going to have an impact. 16
17
The cedar siding is a beautiful material, but it seems like kind of an anomaly. It’s just here in that one 18
spot where the doors are. I’m wondering if there’s any other place you could work it in, be that soffits 19
or something, something at pedestrian scale or something on the upper floor for the residential units 20
perhaps. 21
22
And then you are in the pedestrian district so you’re supposed to do something to provide pedestrian 23
amenities. I understand you’ve pulled the building back, that’s great, you’ve got the wider sidewalk 24
and you do have awnings at your entrances. Are you looking at anything on the ground surface, any 25
special paving or treatment? 26
27
Mr. Hayes: I, it just, I think we’re just looking at the lamp black standard sidewalk, but… and we 28
probably would want it to read all as one and not like say this is the City sidewalk between the property 29
and the street. 30
31
Chair Malone Prichard: That would be wonderful, yeah. 32
33
Mr. Hayes: But we could look at the paving pattern. I like Alex’s idea of some, maybe some nice 34
planters that could really enhance that frontage provided they don’t block views into the retail or 35
commercial space, but yeah. 36
37
Chair Malone Prichard: Yeah, it just something you could do to provide some more amenities to 38
respect the pedestrian district. And that’s really all I’ve got. I think it’s a very handsome building. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: Great, thank you very much. 41
42
Board Member Alizadeh: Can I add one thing? I was going to say something similar to what Board 43
Member Prichard said about the cedar. Alone it looks really awkward here, but yet now it’s an 44
opportunity. I think if you add more of that it would really impact, it would add warmth to this 45
building. So alone as a garage door it’s not, I think it’s not working, but if there’s more of it somehow 46
at locations of your choosing I think it would really add something. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 1
2
Chair Malone Prichard: So who would like to craft a Motion on this one? 3
4
Vice-Chair Lippert: I think that I’m inclined to continue the project. I think that the back wall, the back 5
walls really need to be resolved before we can move forward with this and look at the entire building. I 6
think there have been enough comments from each of us and we each see it differently, but there needs 7
to be some reconciliation on it. So Ken, I hate to do this, but I’m inclined to continue the project and 8
that you take some of our comments back and think about them and try to incorporate them into the 9
project. I think you’re moving in the right direction (interrupted) 10
11
Mr. Hayes: They seemed like fairly minor comments, but… 12
13
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, but I don’t feel as though I can condition making you put windows on the 14
backside of the building and that needs to be addressed. 15
16
Mr. Hayes: Right. And this would be a consent? And so you pull it if there’s discussion or? 17
18
Vice-Chair Lippert: I think it’s a little more than consent. I think it needs to be continued to a either a 19
date certain or a date uncertain. And I just want to say I have one other thing, you know I was while 20
you were making your presentation I was looking at, on my smartphone a particular building, Rafael 21
Moneo, the Chace Center Rhode Island School of Design has done a really great job of dealing with 22
solid walls and punctuating them. Maybe you might want to take a look at that. Chace is spelled 23
Chace, but I’m sure there’s a lot of his projects that are similar and it might give you some inspiration 24
as to how to deal with the backside of the building. So I move to continue the project to a date certain. 25
26
Chair Malone Prichard: Well I guess (interrupted) 27
28
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: The 20th has already been flown, I think we’ve got a number of 29
items on that agenda, but yes, the 18th of July would be the meeting. It would give them plenty of time 30
to come up with something. 31
32
Vice-Chair Lippert: Is that agreeable for you? 33
34
Mr. Hayes: I think I’m here on the 18th of July already so. 35
36
MOTION 37
38
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok, so let’s move, I move that we continue the item to the 18th of July. 39
40
SECOND 41
42
Board Member Alizadeh: Ok, I’ll second that. 43
44
Vice-Chair Lippert: Great, thank you. 45
46
VOTE 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Chair Malone Prichard: Naseem. All in favor? Aye. And none opposed. 1
2
MOTION PASSED (4-0, Board Member Popp absent) 3
4
Chair Malone Prichard: Brief break while we get the computer set up. That was brief, ok. 5
6
PRELIMINARY REVIEWS: 7
8
1. 2209-2215 El Camino Real [12PLN- 00404]: Request by Karen Kim on behalf Tai Ning 9
Trading & Innovations Co. for Preliminary Architectural Review of a new three-story, 9,780 10
square foot mixed use building proposed to replace a 3,239 sq. ft., one-story commercial 11
building on a 5,392 square foot lot. The proposal would include a request for a Design 12
Enhancement Exception (DEE), to allow the building to encroach into the 20-foot required 13
setback at the rear alley way. Zone District: Community Commercial (CC (2)) 14
15
2. 2500 El Camino Real [13PLN-00161]: Request by Stanford Real Estate for Preliminary 16
Architectural Review of a new four-story, mixed use building with 70 below market rental 17
housing units (one, two and three bedroom units) and approximately 7,300 sq. ft. of commercial 18
space within a 100,000 sq. ft. building, proposed to replace a 38,416 sq. ft. commercial 19
building. Zone District: Commercial Service/Alternative Standards Overlay (CS (AS1)). This 20
item is continued to the regular meeting of June 20, 2013. 21
22
BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 23
24
3. Recap of retreat discussion on Colleagues Memo. 25
26
4. Formation of subcommittees – nomination of special topics. 27
28
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. 29
30
Subcommittee Members: Naseem Alizadeh and Randy Popp 31
SUBCOMMITTEE: 32
33
5. 2080 Channing Avenue [10PLN-00198]: Request by John Tze for review of proposed shade 34
screen structures for the public park and other related items at the Edgewood Plaza mixed use 35
project. Zone: Planned Community (PC-5150) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: An 36
Environmental Impact Report was certified for the project in accordance with the California 37
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 38
39
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 40
41
Project Description: Installation of two illuminated wall signs & two projecting wall (blade) signs 42
Applicant: Kevin Grant 43
Address: 278 University Avenue [13PLN-00164] 44
Approval Date: 5/17/13 45
Request for hearing deadline: 5/30/13 46
47
Project Description: New fencing and gate at an existing fire station 48
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Applicant: Cecil Lectura, PWD Facilities 1
Address: 2675 Hanover Street [13PLN-00195] 2
Approval Date: 5/20/13 3
Request for hearing deadline: 6/3/13 4
5
Project Description: Installation of one internally illuminated channel letter wall sign 6
Applicant: Unju Lee 7
Address: 3375 El Camino Real [13PLN-00108] 8
Approval Date: 5/22/13 9
Request for hearing deadline: 6/4/13 10
11
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to 12
access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance 13
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) 14
or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. 15
16
Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 17
54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 18
329-2571. 19
20
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after 21
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community 22
Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal 23
business hours. 24
25
26
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
2
Thursday July 18, 2013 3
REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM 4
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 5
250 Hamilton Avenue 6
Palo Alto, CA 94301 7
8
240 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00006]: Request by Ken Hayes of Hayes Group Architects on behalf 9
of Forest Casa Real LLC for Architectural Review of a new four-story, 50-foot, mixed-use 10
building with 15,000 sq. ft. of floor area, proposed to replace a 5,000 sq. ft., two-story 11
commercial building. Environmental Assessment: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative 12
Declaration have been prepared. Zone District: Downtown Community Commercial with 13
Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping combining districts (CD-C) (GF) (P). This item was 14
reviewed during a public hearing on June 6, 2013; the public hearing was continued to 15
July 18, 2013. 16
17
Chair Malone Prichard: Moving to our first item, 240 Hamilton Avenue. Request by Ken Hayes of 18
Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Forest Casa Real LLC for Architectural Review of a new four-19
story, 50 foot, mixed-use building with 15,000 square feet of floor area, proposed to replace a 5,000 20
square foot, two-story commercial building. Staff presentation please? 21
22
Jason Nortz, Senior Planner: Yes, thank you. Good morning Board Members (interrupted) 23
24
Chair Malone Prichard: Excuse me. 25
26
Board Member Popp: Sorry. Because of a prior working relationship with the applicant’s architect I’m 27
going to recuse myself from this item. 28
29
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. So hold a moment until he can clear the room. 30
31
Mr. Nortz: Thank you. The project that you previously mentioned was first reviewed by the 32
Architectural Review Board (ARB) at the June 6th ARB meeting. The ARB voted to continue the item. 33
The ARB’s recommendation included conditions that the following items return for additional ARB 34
review: Item Number 1) provide pedestrian friendly amenities at the ground floor level; 2) incorporate 35
more articulation on the back walls, specifically on the southwest elevation between floors two and 36
four; and 3) consider incorporating more cedar siding at another location on the building. As discussed 37
during the June 6th staff report the commercial portion of the project, which is 11,500 square feet is 38
exempt from parking due to the use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), one time exemptions 39
and replacement square footage. Staff’s analysis of the parking requirement as originally described in 40
the June 6th staff report has been revised and is provided as Attachment D to today’s staff report. The 41
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
VERBATIM MINUTES
City of Palo Alto Page 2
applicant Ken Hayes is here to give you a brief presentation and answer any questions that you have. 1
Thank you. 2
3
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. You’ll have 10 minutes. 4
5
Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Good morning Members of the Board, my name’s Ken Hayes 6
with Hayes Group. Hopefully I won’t need all 10. So we were here at the June 6th ARB hearing and at 7
that point the comments that we heard, the project was favorably received, I appreciated the comments 8
that you made. We were asked to come back and address some of these items that Mr. Nortz just 9
mentioned: consider some pedestrian amenities along the streetscape, what can happen sort of on that 10
façade that’s above Reposado, possibly a, I think Alex you had suggested maybe a metal rail on the 11
balcony or something that faced Ramona Street? Maybe add a window at G1, which is facing 12
Hamilton or perhaps some more cedar siding. I think that was suggested by Chair Prichard. 13
14
So we’ve looked at all of those and the first one I’d like to show you would be that, this is the site plan 15
originally proposed, there’s no change in the building footprint. We had been keeping the existing tree 16
wells locations and so when we learned that that could sort of be freed up we’ve proposed what you 17
have in your packet today. We would propose that the concrete be an integrally colored, sort of the 18
City standard lamp black so it kind of blends with the sidewalk on either side of the property, but we’ve 19
relocated the trees to make sense with a new scoring pattern as well as so the tree wells are located here 20
on both sides and then incorporated plant, potted plants that would be located in front of the building 21
here, here, and then down the side there. And the potted plants are something like that, it’s a two foot 22
tall self-watering pot that would be planted there or it would be located in those spots. So we felt like 23
that addressed kind of the concerns that were brought up there just to try to create a little more 24
pedestrian friendly amenity at the streetscape. Obviously it, there’s all this frameless glass back behind 25
here so there will be lots of views into the building itself. 26
27
This was the proposed elevation above Reposado at the time and a number of things were discussed in 28
the meeting on do windows make sense? And I think it sort of boiled down to really try to break up 29
that façade in a way that we felt still worked with the architecture and we really see the architecture as 30
this block that’s been carved out. And so we’ve taken, and this is the, ok I thought it was going to go 31
back. This is the profile of Reposado next door. So what we’ve done is we’ve kept the same 32
vocabulary that we’re, of that block as it wraps the whole corner in line with the stair here, which is this 33
is Hamilton over here, in line with the stair there and in line with the stair there we essentially carve out 34
an area that would have the same metal panels that we’re proposing that you see on the front, the front 35
of the building and in fact have the same detail that comes up the edge and then forms an eyebrow here 36
and then sort of descends back down the façade and then that entire opening right behind there is all the 37
mechanical equipment. So that entire opening would be filled with that perforated metal that you have 38
on your color board. 39
40
And so we’ve, this is a view of the front before the planters and this is the planter locations there and 41
there. So there’s not a whole lot of change to the front. Now this is superimposed on a photograph that 42
has the existing trees, but the new trees with have a different spacing there. We didn’t change the tree, 43
but you can see the planters there and then the view from above before and then afterwards with the 44
plant material, the planters down on the sidewalk there. Around the corner we didn’t have this view 45
before, but we provided it for you today so that you can get an idea. This is across the street. You can 46
see Reposado there and so we’ve kind of matched that same vocabulary of the main limestone block 47
City of Palo Alto Page 3
and then the metal panel you just start to see it sneaking up there. Then at the top we have the metal 1
comes up and then this is the perforated metal there. 2
3
We looked at possibly exploring the opportunity for new penetrations in this front. I think Lee had 4
suggested maybe we study that. We did. I just really felt like it was just a cleaner, simpler solution 5
without adding openings in that area. There’s an abundance of glass as it wraps the building so it’s 6
certainly not a daylighting issue and we felt like this was an appropriate solution. Just to give you an 7
idea of the detail at that so this would be the detail here between the transition there. So we would have 8
the limestone tile then it returns back, and then this is the metal panel so you’ve got some surface relief 9
at that location. So that’s my presentation. Thank you. 10
11
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. I have a couple of members of the public who would like to speak 12
about this. The first person will be Jeff Levinski followed by Elena Meyer and you’ll each have three 13
minutes. 14
15
Jeff Levinski: Thank you. Good morning Commissioners [Note—Means Board Members] and staff. 16
I’m part of the large neighborhood effort to work on our downtown parking crisis and in regards to this 17
project first I’d like to note the agenda has an error that it says that this project will be replacing a 5,000 18
square foot building whereas the staff report says it’s 7,000 square feet. It’s going to add four parking 19
spaces for its new residential units, however, that will be at the expense of the public because it’s going 20
to apparently remove two other parking spaces from the street. It also fails to provide 18 additional 21
parking spaces needed for the new offices. In total it creates a deficit of 20 spaces and it’s going to 22
force that many cars to park deeper into our residential neighborhoods worsening our parking, safety, 23
and traffic problems. 24
25
I understand that the project hopes to avoid providing those 20 spaces by using TDR’s, in lieu fees, and 26
a one-time exception, but none of those create a single parking space anywhere. In fact, the in lieu 27
program is a total fiscal scandal being virtually bankrupt while our downtown parking deficit exceeds 28
900 parking spaces. That shortage of parking creates misery every workday in the downtown and 29
Crescent Park neighborhoods and it’s getting worse all the time. 30
31
I’m asking you to do two things today. First, look at the Comprehensive Plan’s requirement that the 32
residential neighborhoods not be impacted by commercial activity. This project does not provide 33
adequate parking and thus will harm the nearby residential neighborhoods. The TDR’s and in lieu fees 34
don’t provide any parking either. Thus this project fails to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. That 35
in turn raises the question whether it merits any variance whatsoever. 36
37
Second, you can help turn around our City’s parking crisis by showing developers how to provide 38
onsite parking. The City’s own analysis for 135 Hamilton just down the street from this project showed 39
that each dedicated parking space increases rent and thus adds approximately $75,000 to $94,000 in 40
value to a building. That’s each spot. Yet they often cost less than that to build. In other words, 41
developers could actually win by providing the onsite parking as well as helping our neighborhoods. 42
And by the way at 135 Hamilton those extra parking spots were going to be across the street, down a 43
ways, and then on the fourth and fifth floors of the garage. For here the added parking would be just a 44
few floors away and thus potentially worth even more. 45
46
City of Palo Alto Page 4
So we’re asking you to take the lead and show new projects how to include onsite parking helping them 1
both earn more money and alleviate our parking crisis. Please address this and the Comprehensive Plan 2
issue today. Thank you. 3
4
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments and Elena Meyer is next. 5
6
Elena Meyer: Good morning Commissioners [Note—Board Members]. As you know the intrusion of 7
cars from the downtown workers into the residential area streets has reached an intolerable level. It’s 8
time for the ARB to take its responsibility to the community more seriously by not continuing to allow 9
the construction of buildings that do not park its own resident, its own people. It’s unfair to design a 10
building that does not have enough parking spaces for its inhabitants knowing that the people in the 11
buildings will further overwhelm the downtown neighborhoods with their cars. It’s unfair to exploit 12
every loophole to avoid fulfilling a project’s responsibility to park its own inhabitants. Not only 13
doesn’t this building park its own cars, it takes away two spaces from the public street. This is 14
unconscionable. 15
16
The project violates both the ARB Charter and the Comprehensive Plan. The ARB Charter says among 17
other things “enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas” 18
and as you know the Comp Plan says on Page 3, “The Plan encourages commercial enterprise, but not 19
at the expense of the City’s residential neighborhoods.” Please stop making things worse. Thank you. 20
21
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. So I have a question for staff since there seems 22
to be a lot of neighborhood interest in parking in the downtown can you clarify for the record what the 23
rules are and what ARB’s purview is regarding parking. 24
25
Mr. Nortz: As far as the rules go with the parking I definitely understand where the public is coming 26
from, but technically our code only requires the site to provide the parking for the new residential uses 27
at 1.5 spaces per unit, which would be three spaces and they are actually providing 4. The rest of the 28
existing square footage 7,000 is exempt per code and the remainder, which I believe is in the 29
neighborhood of 4,000 and something, is also exempt per the use of the TDR transfers. Now as a 30
couple of the public speakers have mentioned, I think the overall concern is with a lot of the new 31
development that is occurring downtown and parking as a whole and I know that our new Interim 32
Director Mr. Aknin and the rest of the long range Planning and Transportation Staff is currently 33
reviewing ways to look at that and improve that, but as far as providing any answers for you today as to 34
how we can address them I am unable to do so. 35
36
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. So if the neighbors would like to follow up then perhaps Mr. 37
Aknin is the next logical step? 38
39
Mr. Nortz: Well I would probably start with Jaime Rodriguez our Chief Transportation Official and 40
then he can work with Aaron to address their concerns. And I would be happy to follow up with both 41
of the residents after today’s meeting to get their contact info. 42
43
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. Ok we’ll move to Board Member questions and comments. Let’s 44
start with Alex. 45
46
Board Member Lew: So I would like to follow up on the parking issue. And so I did review the Comp 47
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance last night just to refresh my memory about the TDR program. And so 48
City of Palo Alto Page 5
the issue just in big picture is the issue is that there’s in the Comp Plan and the Zoning Ordinance there 1
are, there’s a provision for Transfer Development Rights when projects do a systemic upgrade and/or a 2
historic rehab of existing properties and that square footage doesn’t have to be parked as I see it in the 3
Zoning Ordinance, but when I looked at the Comp Plan it didn’t really mention that the parking had to 4
be exempt from the floor area transfer. So it seems to me that there’s some, some wiggle room in there 5
if the residents really want to discuss it with the Planning Department, but it is clearly, it seems to me 6
clear that the intent is to help restore and preserve downtown. And that’s like a very important goal. 7
Downtown’s really, is great and it shouldn’t, the changes really shouldn’t impact the neighborhoods 8
although it is and so I would be curious to see what the parking solutions are. I know I’ve been to some 9
of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meetings and you know that there’s been a lot 10
of review and discussion about how to improve efficiency of the parking, of the existing parking 11
program to help alleviate the issues and so I’d kind of let you, maybe we should have like an update on 12
that somewhere for the ARB in the future. 13
14
Mr. Nortz: I think that would be a good idea. 15
16
Board Member Lew: Because I mean I think the neighborhood, the neighbors are bringing it up on this 17
one project, but there are actually multiple projects where this same situation is happening. Ok, so on 18
the building design [unintelligible] I don’t want to repeat everything from the last meeting, but [I mean 19
you] generally support of the [party]. I was hoping for more filigree on the building, but I know you 20
Ken, you’re fairly minimalist. The only question I have here today then is really the, your limestone 21
cladding and so I note that the drawings are calling out for limestone. My recollection was that you 22
mentioned it was like porcelain tile from the last meeting. I could be wrong about that, but I wanted to 23
just make sure I understand the… 24
25
Mr. Hayes: Did we bring the color board? The materials board back? I have a photograph of it. 26
27
Board Member Lew: I mean I don’t think you’ve changed it. It was (interrupted) 28
29
Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] it is limestone above the, if you look on your screen in front of you. 30
31
Board Member Lew: So on the first floor there’s some porcelain. 32
33
Mr. Hayes: That’s right, yeah. A darker porcelain’s on that ground floor. 34
35
Board Member Lew: Ok. Ok, so I think in my mind that the, I was hoping for more filigree. My take 36
on it though is that the fact that you’re cladding it in real stone and not some like stucco or some sort of 37
synthetic thing actually will give you more subtlety and it doesn’t really show in the drawings like, I 38
know that some of the, we had some of the neighbors that are complaining that the building is too 39
minimal, is too stark. It seems like the rendering isn’t really capturing the subtlety of the natural stones 40
(interrupted) 41
42
Mr. Hayes: Sort of the patina that you’ll have or the variation. 43
44
Board Member Lew: right, yeah. 45
46
Mr. Hayes: No, it’s a beautiful stone. I’m confused here. 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Mr. Nortz: Apologies, I do have the color board up at my desk if you’d like (interrupted) 1
2
Board Member Lew: That’s fine, I think I, I mean I’ve seen enough limestone’s to, I think I understand. 3
I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t some sort of synthetic product. 4
5
Mr. Hayes: No. Jason, maybe Diana can run upstairs and grab it if it’s handy? 6
7
Board Member Lew: Ok and then I think, oh, and if I could go back [unintelligible] on the parking. So 8
I think Ms. Meyer mentioned or Mr. Levinski mentioned the street parking removal and I know that 9
the, we’ve had some discussions with Amy French, she’s not here today, the Planning Manager that 10
the, that on some projects they’re asking I think the Planning Department has been asking for a fee in 11
lieu for removal of street parking on some projects. So there is some mitigation for that. It’s not like 12
you can add a curb cut and just remove parking and then there’s no (interrupted) 13
14
Mr. Hayes: We are providing two in lieu. 15
16
Mr. Nortz: Right. We worked with Transportation staff and they were ok with that solution as far as 17
providing two in lieu payments and I also believe there’s been some additional discussion about how 18
and Ken can probably speak to this better, but possibly adding an additional off street spot where the 19
existing loading zone is. We had discussed that option and I know we’re still reviewing that with the 20
Transportation staff. So we might actually end up gaining a space at the end of the day, but we haven’t 21
figured that out yet. 22
23
Mr. Hayes: Yeah the loading zone comes around to about here and it’s really not, apparently not used 24
and so Jaime was willing to reduce that loading zone if we could pick up another space. I don’t think 25
we can pick that space up so it’s, the two, we’re, two spaces are going to be lost and then we’ll be 26
paying two in lieu spaces. 27
28
Board Member Lew: Ok. And thank you for adding the planters and I like the plan that you’ve picked, 29
which is called, what is it? Mother’s… Mother in Law’s Tongue. Somebody has a kind of a witty idea 30
for that plant. And but generally I support the project. It’s, I think the general, the massing is well 31
done to integrate it in with the neighboring buildings and yeah, and I really like the mixed-use 32
component of the building. And then on the improvements that you’ve made on the Reposado property 33
line side I think are fine. I didn’t really mind the other, your previous scheme on that mostly because 34
you’re cladding it in stone. 35
36
Mr. Hayes: We were cladding it in stone. 37
38
Board Member Lew: Right, I mean it seems like you were already making an upgrade. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: But we are, we’re doing this, we’re taking this same detail that rises here and around on 41
the… so that actually comes up and down here and then across the top. So it’ll be very consistent I 42
think. I like the change. 43
44
Board Member Lew: Ok, good. I don’t, I don’t object to it. And then on the, you mentioned the 45
window possibly the idea of having a window in the stair tower. Would you be open to having like a 46
skylight on the roof? 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Mr. Hayes: Oh absolutely. 1
2
Board Member Lew: Because I mean to me I like to do that on buildings. 3
4
Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 5
6
Board Member Lew: Basically those fire stair towers are usually pretty grim and like I think it’s better 7
for people to walk (interrupted) 8
9
Mr. Hayes: I have no problem with that (interrupted) 10
11
Board Member Lew: And having the skylight makes it so much more pleasant. I mean it’s like 12
dramatic change on something that doesn’t really affect the overall aesthetics with the building. And so 13
that’s all that I have. Thank you. 14
15
Mr. Hayes: Thank you Alex. 16
17
Chair Malone Prichard: Lee. 18
19
Vice-Chair Lippert: First of all I would like to address the parking issue. Within the ARB rules we’re 20
only looking at quality and character issues. We do not look at use and zoning and so when you run 21
into the parking for the building even though we review the parking when it’s surface parking we are 22
reviewing it for meeting the standards of quality and character, not the use. Is that correct? 23
24
Mr. Nortz: Yes. 25
26
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. So in this case the parking is internal to the building and it’s handled through 27
other provisions of the Municipal Code. Correct? 28
29
Mr. Nortz: Yes. 30
31
Vice-Chair Lippert: So we don’t have any authority over the parking. I appreciate the members of the 32
public raising this as an issue, but we in fact our following what the City’s rules are and if the rules 33
aren’t compatible with what the neighbors think is going on that’s something that they need to address 34
with the City Council and have changed. We can’t indiscriminately follow and change, change the 35
rules. Is that correct? 36
37
Mr. Nortz: Yes. 38
39
Vice-Chair Lippert: And with regard to the current parking moratorium does this fall into the parking 40
moratorium at all? 41
42
Mr. Nortz: That I am not aware of and I’d need to follow up with our Transportation staff to get you a 43
better answer on that. 44
45
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. So I sympathize with what the residents in the South of Forest Avenue 46
(SOFA) area and the area further south are dealing with, but frankly our job here is to review the 47
standards with regard to quality and character and seeing to that the building meets those standards. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 8
There is one thing that I do want to mention, which I think is a bit problematic, and again we don’t 1
have any authority over, which is that until the economy started picking up the parking ratio based on 2
square footage was really based on people having cubicles or offices. And today what we’re seeing a 3
lot of office is that they’re going to a different layout or configuration where they’re actually using 4
benches for people who are doing the work. And so what happens is that actually increases the density 5
or the number of bodies that are working in an office environment. Now that is a building code issue 6
because really what happens is that, that number is exceeding the number of bodies that would be 7
permitted and it’s actually going from a B occupancy, this is in the building code, to an A occupancy, 8
which is really an assembly. And it’s a very big difference in terms of the number of bodies. And so if 9
people are in fact doing this that would be a building code violation and the building could be red 10
tagged and shut down through a different vehicle, which is the Building Department or the Fire 11
Department depending on who wants to enforce it. 12
13
Other than that the standards here that we’re following are ones of, again, as I said quality and 14
character. So we’re looking at the envelope of the building. And so I’m going to talk about the 15
envelope of the building. Ken, first of all I want to thank you very much for taking our comments and 16
coming back to us. It’s really a handsome building. You listened to our feedback. The only concerns 17
that I have that are outstanding have to do with the I guess the southwest façade and the southeast 18
façade, which is the back of the building. Yeah, and a couple of things that I think the building could 19
improve on is that it’s still a little austere I think in terms of just being a blank wall. And so what I was 20
going to suggest and maybe my colleagues see it the same way, is that I like the little white element, the 21
little white box that’s on the top there. Yeah. I like the one that happens towards the back and if there 22
was some way to take that texture or that element and have it read vertically so what happens is that it 23
begins to create a little more complexity on that façade. I really like the use of the limestone and the 24
way it wraps around the building. I like the way it happens as a lintel above the metal panels. I think 25
that that’s really handsome, but as far as the module that you’ve got there I think that making it a little 26
bit more complex I think would help tremendously. 27
28
And then on the backside of the building the façade we don’t see that faces… 29
30
Mr. Hayes: Down Ramona. 31
32
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ramona. Can you talk a little bit about that? Because… 33
34
Mr. Hayes: It’s in the packet. 35
36
Vice-Chair Lippert: [Yeah, we know.] 37
38
Mr. Hayes: I have the old presentation here so it’s probably in here. 39
40
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well I’ve got it here. 41
42
Mr. Hayes: Oh. 43
44
Vice-Chair Lippert: It’s on page A3.1. It’s southeast elevation. And again my thought there is if you 45
were to take that little box element on the roof and just simply carry that down as well so that it read as 46
a plain, smooth finish that the module ties into I think that it’s going to achieve what needs to be 47
achieved in terms of some visual complexity to those views. 48
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
Mr. Hayes: As you can see in that front view right here, this is probably 25 feet back from across the 2
street. 3
4
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right. 5
6
Mr. Hayes: Right. So you start to lose the ability to see beyond that. The same would be true for the 7
other side where the building next door is even a little bit taller. So I’m not sure how much mileage we 8
could get out of that. Here’s the building on the other side right here. So there’s more exposure 9
obviously on the Reposado side than there is here although you could go further down the street on 10
that. I like the block of the limestone. I’m not sure how the, we actually did look at before we arrived 11
at where we are [pause in audio at 30:52] the first thing I did was I took that stairwell down to sort of a 12
base and looked at that and really [unintelligible] having the sort of cornice of the limestone wrap the 13
building was a little bit stronger, but… 14
15
Board Member Lippert: We’ll see how my colleagues feel about it. 16
17
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, ok. But thank you for your comments. Did you get the finish board? You did? Ok, 18
because I found my photograph it was on the floor back here. 19
20
Chair Malone Prichard: We did. Yeah, we’ve got it. Thank you. So thank you for bringing this back. 21
I’m in support of all the changes that you’ve made; much happier about the view over the top of 22
Reposado now and glad to see the planters coming in for more pedestrian amenities. My comment on 23
the cedar siding wasn’t so much that I wanted more of it on the building, but I thought it was odd that it 24
showed up in one spot. 25
26
Mr. Hayes: Right. 27
28
Chair Malone Prichard: And so I’m thinking that maybe it should either show up in more spots or 29
maybe it shouldn’t be there. So I’m interested in hearing why you’ve got cedar there. 30
31
Mr. Hayes: So the cedar is essentially as you know located in the recess here, which if I go back to the 32
plan… one more. So it spans essentially this entire opening from sidewalk to soffit and felt like that 33
was a nice warm material, one that had a lot of texture to it, but felt like it could, just a beautiful door in 34
that one opening and it starts to connote a little bit of familiarity of material and also of residential use. 35
And that was the prime motivation there. When I think of it as a metal door or something like that I 36
hear it clanging and it just felt like a softer, warmer approach that worked well with the porcelain tile 37
and the materials. Didn’t see it anywhere else though, but that was our thinking. 38
39
Chair Malone Prichard: Ok. I respect that. It’s not my building to design. So then just a little bit of 40
housecleaning here on the findings; Findings 13 and 14 need to be modified because now we do have 41
planting material. So I believe the planting proposed does meet both of those findings. And then there 42
had been some correspondence from neighbors who did not, who weren’t able to make it to the meeting 43
regarding the character of the building and I read back through Finding Number 4. Finding Number 4 44
is specific to areas that are considered to have a unified design character and I would pose that this area 45
does not have a unified design character. It actually is very diverse; you have historic buildings, you 46
have modern buildings right up next to each other. This isn’t the only modern building, there’s another 47
one a couple of doors down and there’s City Hall across the street. So I would suggest that that finding 48
City of Palo Alto Page 10
be “not applicable” because it is not a unified design character or you could say the design character is 1
eclectic and this fits into the eclectic. 2
3
Mr. Nortz: I’m sorry, that was Finding Number 4? 4
5
Chair Malone Prichard: Number 4. So that’s all I’ve got. I’m in support of the project as presented. I 6
heard a couple of comments from my colleagues that they would like to have modified. Should we 7
discuss those? So you had the, a follow up. Ok. 8
9
Vice-Chair Lippert: I have one follow up. You know I appreciate Chair Malone Prichard’s comment 10
with regards to the wood siding. Is there any way to maybe carry that around to another ground floor 11
element? I’m thinking of maybe the base of a stair tower over on Hamilton? What do you think? 12
13
Mr. Hayes: Probably not a, and I know it doesn’t have to come to the ground, but probably maybe not 14
be as durable sort of in that exposure. We actually entertained the idea of making the ground floor 15
doors with that, with that same wood. We could do a door that has the same kind of grill pattern and it 16
would be like, are you looking at your screen? 17
18
Vice-Chair Lippert: I am. 19
20
Mr. Hayes: That door there. This door here and perhaps this door here so that at least you see that 21
again and it’s always on a door. It wouldn’t work for the retail door. So we did think about it there and 22
that probably would be something that we’d be open to. 23
24
Board Member Lew: Can I ask a question, follow up question about that? Is the garage door like 25
spaced cedar boards or just a solid, solid panel? 26
27
Mr. Hayes: No, no, no. it’ll be horizontal boards, probably an eighth inch between them and the whole 28
panel that you see there is not operable, so it’ll be sort of hidden, hidden doors. So you’ll have vertical 29
lines. 30
31
Vice-Chair Lippert: You know I’m not that convinced that wood can’t be a durable material. It’s, 32
there’s no automobile traffic there, it’s all pedestrian and it would require a little bit of maintenance, but 33
it’s not a high traffic area. 34
35
Mr. Hayes: Just people leaning against the building, putting their feet on it. I don’t know. I see it as an 36
infill Lee and not as two blocks that support this limestone building above. And so the porcelain seems 37
to have that sense of permanence and durability in mass that the wood would not, which is why I see it 38
as an infill. 39
40
Vice-Chair Lippert: What about using the wood, a one… a 6 inch by 24 tile that, they have tiles that 41
emulate or look like wood. They’re striped; they have some grain running up. 42
43
Mr. Hayes: I can’t believe that the Board is saying that. 44
45
Vice-Chair Lippert: Well it’s not wood. It’s not meant to replicate wood. 46
47
Mr. Hayes: You’re saying from a color standpoint then? 48
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, I’m talking about a material and the ceramic would be highly durable and it 2
would have the same warmth that (interrupted) 3
4
Mr. Hayes: We could certainly look at the porcelain tile and see if we can get it in a, in a finer banding 5
so that instead of being 12 inches it relates to, pardon me, the horizontal striping of the wood siding so 6
that you even get sort of more compression on porcelain tile, but it has a subtle relationship as opposed 7
to trying to be the cedar. 8
9
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, I think that that if you looked at that as opposed to the cedar I would feel a 10
lot more comfortable and it begins to approximate what Chair Malone Prichard was sort of looking for. 11
Do you have any thoughts about that? 12
13
Chair Malone Prichard: I think that’s a good approach because I am in agreement that at the ground 14
floor level there really aren’t any other good locations to put wood. So that would be a good way to get 15
a durable material that relates back to the wood, but certainly not something that tries to emulate wood, 16
but just relates to it in its banding and color tone. 17
18
Mr. Hayes: So I’m proposing that we maintain the porcelain tile we have, but we do a finer horizontal 19
band that relates to the wood in its banding. 20
21
Chair Malone Prichard: That would work for me. 22
23
Vice-Chair Lippert: I would certainly have that return to the subcommittee, to look at that material. 24
25
Chair Malone Prichard: That seems reasonable. And there was discussion of skylight at the stairs. Is 26
that something you feel should be a requirement or just a recommendation? 27
28
Board Member Lew: I think it’s just a suggestion. 29
30
Chair Malone Prichard: Ok and you had some comments about the southwest and southeast elevations? 31
32
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, if my colleagues feel the same way I would get that, the white stucco boxes 33
to read more vertically down the southwest and southeast façade of the building instead of the 34
limestone and that would create a look, it would help break up those two blank sides a little bit better I 35
think. 36
37
Board Member Lew: You know I don’t think that I have a preference. I don’t object to what Ken is 38
showing on the drawings. I’m not sure I quite understand like which view, so if you’re, I understand 39
what you want, what you’re asking for, but I don’t understand like what does that, like was does that 40
achieve? Like from what viewpoint, like who, who would see this, that corner, that back corner view? 41
42
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok, well… 43
44
Board Member Lew: You’re looking in the alley or something? 45
46
Vice-Chair Lippert: If you’re looking on Hamilton and you’re standing over near I guess it’s just past 47
the Cardinal Hotel 48
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
Mr. Hayes: That’s where this view is. 2
3
Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. If you looked at the Cardinal Hotel this is the view from the Cardinal Hotel. 4
The idea is that the white box would just, it would just, the white would continue vertically down and 5
die into Reposado so it would read as a vertical element like it was a tower or it might be mechanical or 6
elevator shaft type element. And then the one that’s towards the rear that would also read the same 7
way. We would still keep the lintel above the metal panels, but then when you go, when you’re 8
walking up Ramona Street you would also see that white element on that southeast view of the 9
building. And the idea is to just simply figure out a way so that the building reads a little more, that 10
blank wall reads a little more complex. 11
12
Board Member Lew: Ok, I think I understand. I think I don’t, I don’t feel that strongly about it, but I 13
think when I look at the perspectives I think Ken’s idea of breaking the material at that line, where the 14
stucco and the stone meet is to bring this building down to scale to match the Cardinal Hotel and the, 15
because he’s trying to match like the cornice line of the Cardinal Hotel and the what is it? 200, 200 16
Hamilton? I forgot the name of it, the… 17
18
Mr. Nortz: The University Art Center. 19
20
Board Member Lew: No, no, no. The, (interrupted) 21
22
Mr. Hayes: Yeah, the AG for RE. Right, right here. 23
24
Board Member Lew: Yeah. 25
26
Vice-Chair Lippert: It doesn’t negate that. It, that still exists on the façade of the building and wrapped 27
around the corner of the building that’s not an issue. I think that that works great. It just, I’m talking 28
about when you go back, how many feet would that be? That would be about… 29
30
Mr. Hayes: 25, 30. Oh no, I’m sorry, no that’s the back (interrupted) 31
32
Vice-Chair Lippert: It’s just past Building Line F so… 33
34
Mr. Hayes: 15 feet. 35
36
Vice-Chair Lippert: And it would just become white cement plaster at that point and then would pick 37
up at Building Line E. You’d still have that stone lintel above where the panelized area is and then just 38
beyond Building Line B. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: So Lee’s suggesting that this edge here come down like that. 41
42
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right. 43
44
Mr. Hayes: And then this edge here come down, so this all would be one. 45
46
MOTION 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Chair Malone Prichard: So I’m going to jump in here. Looking at the uses on the upper floor I’m 1
actually more in support of what Ken is proposing. I understand what you’re trying to do to dress up 2
that façade, but the way the, that box frame works it’s really it’s surrounding the habitable area and this 3
white element here is around a mechanical area and the same thing on the other side. So I think it 4
makes more sense to have the box where it’s sitting and not to bring it out to the front and to draw more 5
attention to the mechanical area. So I’m actually, I was starting to agree with you until I started 6
looking at the uses of the building and I tend to think that the way Ken’s got it arranged is the way to 7
do it. 8
9
So I will try to craft a Motion that we would recommend approval of the project including the Findings 10
as modified, that would be Findings 4, 13, and 14 modified, that the banding of the porcelain tile be 11
modified to relate better to the wood siding pattern, and that that modification of the banding should 12
come back to subcommittee for review. 13
14
SECOND 15
16
Board Member Lew: I will second. 17
18
Chair Malone Prichard: All in favor? Aye. None opposed. 19
20
MOTION PASSED (3-0-1-1, Board Member Popp recused, Board Member Alizadeh absent) 21
22
Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 23
24
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. 25
26
Mr. Hayes: Have a great day. 27
28
NEW BUSINESS: 29
30
Major Items 31
32
2. 1875 Embarcadero Road [13PLN-00103]: Request by the City of Palo Alto Public Works 33
Department on behalf of the City of Palo Alto Community Services Division for Site and 34
Design Review of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course reconfiguration project. The meeting 35
will serve as a public hearing for the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 36
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration and Baylands Athletic Center Expansion 37
Project. Zone District: PF(D). 38
39
3. 537 Hamilton Ave [13PLN-00087]: Request by Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects, on behalf of 40
Smith Equities III LLC, for Architectural Review of revised plans addressing conditions of 41
approval for a previously approved project to allow a new 14,557 square foot two-story 42
commercial office building. Zone: CD-C(P). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the 43
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 44
15332. 45
46
PRELIMINARY REVIEWS: 47
48
City of Palo Alto Page 14
4. 1601 California Avenue [13PLN-00234]: Request by Chris Wuthman of Stanford Real Estate 1
on behalf of the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. University for preliminary 2
architectural review board review for the demolition of approximately 290,000 square feet of 3
existing R&D/office space to be replaced with 180 housing units which includes 68 detached 4
single family homes and 112 multi-family units as part of the 2005 Mayfield Development 5
Agreement. Zone: RP(AS2). 6
7
5. 1730 Embarcadero Road [13PLN-00245]: Request by Alan Cross on behalf of Carrera PRB 8
Company for Preliminary Architectural Review of additions to and renovation of the existing 9
Audi car dealership, including a new 7,380 sf showroom, 3,139 sf drop-off area, and a 1,036 sf 10
addition to the service area, along with associated site improvements and landscaping changes. 11
Zone District: Planned Community (PC-4846). 12
13
BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 14
15
6. Recap of retreat discussion on Colleagues Memo. 16
17
7. Formation of subcommittees – nomination of special topics. 18
19
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. 20
21
ADJOURNMENT OF FULL BOARD MEETING. 22
23
SUBCOMMITTEE (Currently ARB members Naseem Alizadeh and Randy Popp): 24
25
8. 2080 Channing Avenue [10PLN-00198]: Request by John Tze for review of proposed wood 26
fence and trash enclosure at the Edgewood Plaza mixed use project. Zone: Planned 27
Community (PC-5150) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact 28
Report was certified for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality 29
Act (CEQA). 30
31
9. 3445 Alma Street [12PLN-00249: Request for feedback on proposed signs on commercial 32
building at Alma Village. Zone District Planned Community (PC-4956). Environmental 33
Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA, 15301 (Existing Facilities). 34
35
10. California Avenue Streetscape Improvements [13PLN-00211]: Request by the City of Palo 36
Alto Transportation Division for Architectural Review of streetscape improvements on 37
California Avenue, between El Camino Real and the CalTrain Station, including traffic calming 38
treatments, landscape elements with new street trees, street furniture, new street lighting, 39
parking enhancements, and a reduction from four vehicle travel lanes to two lanes. 40
Environmental Review: A Negative Declaration was adopted on November 28, 2011 for the 41
project. 42
43
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 44
45
Project Description: Landscape & parking modifications 46
Applicant: Richard Ying 47
Address: 200 San Antonio Avenue [13PLN-00067] 48
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Approval Date: 6/14/13 1
Request for hearing deadline: 6/27/13 2
3
Project Description: Removal of one regulated 30 inch to 40 inch diameter Redwood tree located 4
between the buildings 5
Applicant: Katie Krebs 6
Address: 2100-2400 Geng Road [13PLN-00183] 7
Approval Date: 6/17/13 8
Request for hearing deadline: 7/1/13 9
10
Project Description: Construction of new 2,753 square foot addition to the two story existing building 11
Applicant: John Suppes 12
Address: 412 Olive Avenue [13PLN-00134] 13
Approval Date: 6/20/13 14
Request for hearing deadline: 7/3/13 15
16
17
Project Description: Two new non-illuminated brushed aluminum signs to be installed on the non-18
historic fence posts located at the front of the property 19
Applicant: Dan Kitzmiller 20
Address: 421 Kipling Street [13PLN-00189] 21
Approval Date: 6/20/13 22
Request for hearing deadline: 7/3/13 23
24
Project Description: Replacement signage at the existing financial services business, Wells Fargo 25
Applicant: David Ford 26
Address: 400 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00209] 27
Approval Date: 6/24/13 28
Request for hearing deadline: 7/8/13 29
30
Project Description: The scope of the work includes only changing the existing sign color, all lettering 31
and numbering will remain the same 32
Applicant: Thomas Cacioppo 33
Address: 1601 S. California Avenue [13PLN-00241] 34
Approval Date: 6/24/13 35
Request for hearing deadline: 7/8/13 36
37
Project Description: Replacement of the existing deck surround with a code-compliant deck and railing 38
for an existing building at 1610 Sand Hill Road 39
Applicant: Janet Drake 40
Address: 1618 Sand Hill Road [13PLN-00244] 41
Approval Date: 6/26/13 42
Request for hearing deadline: 7/9/13 43
44
Project Description: Removal of five Monterey pine trees and the replacement of an existing six foot 45
high wood fence with a new high six foot concrete 46
Applicant: Paul J. Reed 47
Address: 535 Arastradero Road [13PLN-00180] 48
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Approval Date: 6/27/13 1
Request for hearing deadline: 7/10/13 2
3
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
Project Description: Two wall signs, new planters, and outdoor dining area for an existing building 2
Applicant: John Adams 3
Address: 401 Lytton Avenue [13PLN-0086] 4
Approval Date: 6/28/13 5
Request for hearing deadline: 7/11/13 6
7
Project Description: 8
Applicant: 9
Address: 10
Approval Date: 11
Request for hearing deadline: 12
13
Project Description: 14
Applicant: 15
Address: 16
Approval Date: 17
Request for hearing deadline: 18
19
20
21
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to 22
access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance 23
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) 24
or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. 25
26
Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 27
54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 28
329-2571. 29
30
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after 31
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community 32
Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal 33
business hours. 34
35
36
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
June 6, 2013
Architectural Review Board
Jason M. Nortz, Senior Planner
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
240-248 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00006]: Request by Ken Hayes of
Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Forest Casa Real LLC. for Major
Architectural Review Board review for the demolition of an existing 7,000
square foot, two-story comn1ercial building and the construction of a four-
story, 50 foot, mixed-use building with a new floor area of 15,000 square
feet on a site located at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue. Environmental
Assessment: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
prepared. Zone District: Downtown Community Commercial (CD-
C)(P)(GF) with Pedestrian Shopping and Ground Floor combining districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) consider the project and findings
for Architectural Review approval and recommend approval of the proposed project to the
Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director), based upon the findings in
Attachment A and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment B.
BACKGROUND
Site Information
The proj ect site is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District and close to the
southen1 edge of the Commercial Downtown zone district as shown on the attached map
(Attachment C). The site is 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep and is located at the southern corner of
the Hamilton Avenue/Ramona Street intersection. Surrounding land uses include office,
restaurants and retail. Directly east of the project site on the eastern side of Ramona Street is the
eight-story Palo Alto City Hall. Directly adjacent to the project site along the western side of
Ramona Street is a two-story office building. On the southwestern side of Hamilton Avenue near
the subject property is a two-story building housing the restaurant, Reposado. Across the street on
the northern side of Hamilton Avenue is the Cardinal Hotel, a three-story commercial building
with ground floor uses that include ground floor retail, a restaurant and a hotel lobby. The hotel
occupies the remaining two floors. A four-story commercial building with ground floor retail
(University Art) and office uses on the uppers floors is located "kitty corner" to the project site.
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 1 of 8
The site is zoned Downtown Commercial with a GroWld Floor and "Pedestrian" combining
district CD-C (GF)(p). The CO-C (GF)(p) zone district is intended 10 be a comprehensive zoning
district for the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving
citywide and regional business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and
neighborhood service needs. The Pedestrian combining district is designed to help foster the
continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid monotonous pedestrian environment
in order to establish and maintain economic viability for a healthy retail district. The Ground
Floor combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the CD district and sub districts
to allow only retail. eating and drinking and other service-oriented commercial development uses
on the ground floor.
The mixed use project includes pemitted uses: ground floor retail use with two floors of offices
and one floor of residential.
Project Description
The project is the demolition of an existing 7,000 square foot, two-story commercial building and
the construction of a four-story, 50-foot tall, mixed-use building with a floor area of 15,000 square
feet, via "bonus" floor area including the use of Transferrable Development Rights (TDRs). The
ground floor would be retail with office space occupying floors two and three. The fourth floor
would be entirely residential consisting of two residential W1its. Four on-site parking spaces would
be provided for the two residential units. The parking spaces would be provided in a garage
located one level below grade.
The total floor area in the completed project would be 15,000 sq. ft. This includes t 1,527 sq. ft.
for conunercial uses on the first, second and third floors and 3,473 sq. ft. within two residential
units on the fowth floor. The total floor area breakdown for the project site is as follows:
Office Retail Residential
First Floor: 400 sf 2,337 sf 201 sf
Second Floor: 4,395 sf 134 sf
Third Floor: 4,395 sf t34 sf
FOW1b Floor: 3,004 sf
Total: 9,190 sf 2,337 sf 3,473 sf
Building Total: 15,000 sf
The building would have a one story retail base set bock from the second nnd third floors by
approximately seven feet along Hamilton Avenue and three feet along Ramona Street. The ground
iloor would provide a rhytlun of clear storefront glass, recesses and awnings to reinforce the
pedestrian experience. The second and third floors would function as the "architectural block"
that defmes the commercial office portion of the building. The fourth floor, would be
predominantly clad in windows and would be smaller and set back from the second and third
floors. to reduce the apparent height and mass of the building.
13P LN-OOOOO-00006 Page 2 ors
The applicant has requested a variance to encroach into the required seven foot special setback
along Hamilton Avenue, and to encroach into the required six foot special setback along Ramona
Street. Further discussion on the variance request is provided below.
Additional project details are included in the applicant's project description included as
Attachment G and H.
Sustainable Design
The proj ect would incorporate a variety of sustainable design and transportation friendly concepts
that would help the development achieve both Cal Green Tier II requirements for the commercial
portion of the project and meet Build it Green, Green Point Rated requirements for the residential
portion of the project. In addition, in an effort to reduce overall energy consumption all spaces
will be designed around maximizing daylight through the use of various transparent elements.
DISCUSSION
Floor Area Ratio/Transferred Developnlent Rights
The project includes a request to utilize floor area bonuses in the form of "Transferable
Development Rights" (TDRs), to be transferred from an off-site historical rehabilitation project.
A total of 5,000 square feet ofTDRs would be purchased and transferred to the site, from 230-232
Homer Avenue, where the TDRs were acquired through both a seismic and historic rehabilitation
of the building. The proposal would also utilize a one-time, 200 square foot bonus, as provided in
PAMC Section 18.18.070. The bonus floor area is considered "exempt" from having to provide
the parking spaces otherwise associated with an expansion of conmlercial floor area. The parking
provisions for the project are discussed later in this report section.
Setback Variance
The zoning map shows a seven foot special setback and a six foot special setback along certain
streets in the core of the Downtown, as imposed by the special setback map. A seven foot special
setback is applied along the Hamilton Avenue side of the subject property, and a six foot special
setback is applied along the Ranl0na Street side of the project site. The seven foot special setback
exists on both sides of Hamilton Avenue, extending from Waverley Street to Alma Street. The six
foot special setback only exists at two locations in the core of Downtown; 1) along eastern edge of
Bryant Street between Hamilton and Channing Avenues, and 2) along Ramona Street between
Hamilton and Forest Avenues. Furthermore, there are only two corners in all of Downtown where
both a seven foot and six foot special setback are applied; 1) at the northeastenl comer of
Hamilton A venue and Bryant Street (Washington Mutual building), and 2) at the northwestern
corner of Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street (project site). The applicant has requested a
Variance for: 1) a three foot encroachment into the required six foot special setback along
Ramona Street, and 2) a seven foot encroachment into the required seven foot special setback
along Hamilton Avenue. It should be noted that only nine feet of the 45 foot wide building wall
along Hamilton Avenue would encroach seven feet into the special setback (for the purposes of
accommodating an enclosed stairwell). The remaining 36 feet of building wall would encroach
approximately five inches into the special setback. The current sidewalk between the existing
building and Ramona Street is six feet wide, which is consistent with the sidewalk adjacent to
existing buildings on Ramona Street between Forest and Hanlilton A venues. The current sidewalk
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 3 of 8
width between the existing building and Hanlilton Avenue is eight feet, which is consistent with
the width of sidewalk adjacent to existing buildings on Hamilton Avenue between Ranl0na and
Enlerson Streets.
F or purposes of determining the setback, the measurement is taken at the property line and not the
face of curb. As it is currently situated, the existing building is on the property line on both the
Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue sides of the project. If the special setbacks were applied to
the development, the result would be a 15 foot wide sidewalk along Hamilton Avenue and a 12
foot wide sidewalk along Ramona Street, both of which would result in significantly increased
sidewalk widths that would be inconsistent with the sidewalks imnlediately adjacent to the project
site.
The requested Variance would allow the project to provide a sidewalk width of approximately 11
feet along Hamilton Avenue, and 10 feet along Ranl0na Street, both of which meet or exceed the
sidewalk width requirements in the Downtown. The wider sidewalk and more importantly, the
shift of the building mass, would improve the pedestrian experience and enhance the opportunity
for retail activity along Hamilton Avenue.
Approval and implementation of the Variance request would result in the new building not being
as deeply set back from the adjacent buildings on the same side of the block. This would help
maintain the existing continuity. The applicant has requested the special setback encroachments to
reduce the loss of valuable ground floor retail square footage and to reduce the gap between the
other commercial buildings on Hamilton A venue and Bryant Street.
Parking/Circulation
As noted, the site is within the Downtown Assessment District. Currently, the project site
provides no on-site parking spaces. There are six off-site parking spaces directly adjacent to the
site. Three of the six spaces are located along Hamilton Avenue. The renlaining three spaces are
located along Ramona Street. There will be a net deficiency in the nurnber of off-site parking
spaces directly adjacent to the site, due to the proposed curb cut along Ramona Street for the
purpose of creating a new driveway for the underground parking lot. The loss of two curbside
parking spaces may incrementally add to parking concerns in the downtown and surrounding
neighborhoods. Those impacts, however, will not cause significant increases in congestion or
deterioration in air quality. The loss of the two off-site parking spaces will be offset by the
applicant's provision of in-lieu payments for two parking spaces. Staff is currently working with
the applicant to further study the possibility of reducing the size of the loading zone in front of the
project site along Ramona Street for the purpose of providing one additional off-site parking
space.
The proposed project is only required to provide three parking spaces for the two residential units
located on the fourth floor. The project is providing four spaces. The renlaining three floors of
non-residential floor area, consisting of 11,527 square feet of floor area, is not associated with a
requirement for provision of off-site parking spaces for the following reasons:
1. The existing 7,000 square feet of commercial floor area is grandfathered in the Downtown
Assessment District (assessed previously for 20 parking spaces. See Attachment H,
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 4 of 8
Exhibit 2) and as such is not required to provide parking spaces on site for the existing
amount of floor area;
2. 4,327 square feet of commercial floor area would be transferred to the site, via a Transfer
of Development Rights (TDR) from a valid sender site to an eligible receiver site. These
are valid, recorded Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The first 5,000 square feet
of floor area transferred to a receiver site is exempt from the otherwise applicable on-site
parking requirements for new floor area.
3. The remaining 200 square feet of commercial floor area (7,000 sf + 4,327 sf + 200 sf =
11,527st) is exempt from parking due to a one time allowable 200 square foot bonus, per
PAMC 18.18.070.
Due to limited space, the four residential parking spaces would be two, tandem "stacking" parking
spaces. The proposed parking configuration would also eliminate the need for shared or attendant
parking between the two units. The stacking systenl would have a below grade space as well as
two above grade spaces so that there are three locations for two vehicles. This nleans a single
operator can raise or lower a car out of the way of his or her vehicle thereby eliminating the need
for an attendant or for coordination between roommates. Rather than entering the covered garage
parking spaces facing into the building and then backing onto Ramona Street and crossing the
sidewalk in reverse and with dangerous, unclear vision, drivers would enjoy a vehicle rotating
turntable (Attachment I Sheet A2.1). The turntable would allow any car exiting the project site to
be spun around so that it exits facing onto Ramona Street, therefore providing better visibility of
the Ramona Street sidewalk and pedestrians.
Downtown Floor Area Cap
An annual monitoring report on the Comnlercial Downtown zoning area is mandated by the
Conlprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 that require reporting of non-residential development
activity and trends within the CD zone district. These reports are also required as a result of final
action on the Downtown Study adopted by the City Council in 1986. The Downtown Study
incorporated a growth limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area over the total floor area
existing in 1986, and provided for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development
reaches 235,000 square feet.
Since 1986, a total of 223 ,210 square feet of non-residential floor area has been added in the
Downtown CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2009-2011, approximately
34,650 square feet of net new commercial floor area was added with a few major contributing
projects such as 524 Hamilton Avenue and 265 Lytton Avenue. In this current cycle, 2011-2012,
approximately 49,860 square feet of net new commercial floor area has been added through one
major project, 335-355 Alnla st. (aka; 101 Lytton Ave.). Based on this recent nlonitoring, an
additional 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development remains for development before
the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached.
The existing building consists of 7,000 square feet of non-residential floor area. The proposed
project would add an additional 4,527 square feet of non-residential floor area, which would
minimally contribute towards the limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area.
Context Based Design Criteria
The proposed building design appears to be consistent with many of the requirements of the
Context-Based Design Criteria as outlined in Section 18.18.110 of the Zoning Code. In summary,
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 5 of 8
the project would provide pedestrian walk-ability, a bicycle-friendly environment, connectivity
through design elements, and street facades having a strong relationship with the sidewalks and
the street to support and encourage pedestrian activity. Bicycle storage is to be provided in the
below grade parking garage as well as at grade along both Hanlilton Avenue and Ramona Street.
The ground floor design is intended to be an attractive streetscape design with a cOITlbination of
clear frameless glass, porcelain tile and stainless steel canopies above each entrance along
Ramona and Hamilton. Separate entrances would also be provided for each use along the first
floor including the main lobby area.
The building would minimize massing with increased setbacks at the first floor in addition to
other design elements, such as a recessed entry and canopies that would be located above the
prinlary entry points. The first floor design employs different materials and colors, including
porcelain tile, clear frameless glass and cedar cladded garage door. Floors two through three are
designed to function as the "architectural block" that distinguishes the commercial office portion
of the building from the rest of the building. This area would primarily consist of a structural
glazed curtain wall with a combination of clear dual glazed glass and translucent lanlinate glass.
The area would be outlined by a cream colored limestone wall. The residential units on the fourth
floor would be set back from the block face below. The units would be capped with a hip roof
composed of nletal and outlined by a composite metal panel. The elevator shaft and stairwells
would be white cement plaster.
The parking design is consistent with the design criteria in that the parking spaces would be
located below grade and is concealed from public view by a recessed garage door.
Downtown Urban Design Guide
The Downtown Urban Design Guide is meant to advise the applicant, staff and the ARB regarding
development and design in the downtown area. The Downtown Urban Design Guide divides the
dowiltown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design characteristics. The site is
located within the Hamilton Avenue District according to the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
The Hanlilton Avenue District is a nlixed office/commercial/retail district with sonle residential
uses. The prinlary goal of the Hamilton Avenue District is to promote Hanlilton Avenue as an
active mixed use district with a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian experience. The development of
three or more story buildings surrounding Civic Center Plaza are encouraged to help create a
stronger urban edge within this area.
The proposed project is consistent with the recommendations for this district. Staff finds that this
project, with its extensive use of storefront glazing, first floor recesses and canopies, and
pedestrian friendly amenities such as sunshades, street trees and anlple sidewalk widths, would
contribute significantly to the goal of creating an exciting pedestrian environment. The guidelines
also encourage additional height for buildings at comers. The proposed building of 50 feet is
consistent with both the Zoning Code and the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
Trees/Landscape Plan
The existing project site is a completely built out site that contains no open space or any
significant landscaping. There are six regulated street trees located around the perimeter of the
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 6 of 8
subject property. Two Flowering Pear trees are located in the public right-of-way along Hamilton
Avenue. The remaining four trees are located along Ramona Street and include· three Japanese
Pagoda trees and two London Plane trees. The City Arborist has recommended removal of all six
trees. The existing trees would be replaced with five new street trees. The City Arborist is
currently working with the applicant to determine the appropriate species type and location.
Open space for the developn1ent would be provided as a combination of six terraces and ground
floor recessed areas. On the fourth floor, four terraces (two for each residential unit) totaling 1,114
square feet would be provided, where the minimum requirement is 200 square feet of usable open
space for each residential unit. There would also be two identically sized terraces on each of the
second and third floors, totaling 71 square feet each. Additional open space is provided along the
ground floor in the forn1 of recessed areas beyond the 10 feet of sidewalk along both Hamilton
A venue and Ramona Street. Additional information pertaining to open space requirements can be
found in the zoning comparison table provided as Attachn1ent D.
Signage
Signs are not included in this ARB application. The proposal for signage would be a separate
architectural review application and depending on the level of detail, would be reviewed by the
ARB or staff on behalf of the ARB. The applicant has been requested to indicate potential
locations on the building for signage. Currently, blade signs are not allowed unless they are
placed underneath a canopy or a Sign Exception is requested and approved for such signage.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
have been prepared and circulated, with a required 20-day public review and comment period
beginning on May 10, 2013 and ending on May 30, 2013. Mitigation measures are proposed to
address biological resources, seismicity and noise. To date, no comments have been received on
the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project would not have an impact on fish or
wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The use is appropriate for the
site and the development would not result in an adverse visual impact.
ATTACHMENTS
A. ARBN ariance Findings
B. Conditions of Approval
C. Location Map
D. Zoning Compliance Table
E. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Policies
F. Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
G. Applicant's Project Description
H. Applicant's Submittal Packet (Board Members only)
I. Plan Set received January 7, 2013 (Board Members only)
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 7 of 8
COURTESY COPIES
Sal Giovanotto, Owner
Ken Hayes, ArchitectJ Applicant ... h
Prepared By: Jason M. Nortz, Senior Pianntr I
Manager Review: Amy French, ChiefPianning OffiCi~
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND VARIANCE
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
240-248 Hamilton Ave. / File No. 13PLN-00000-00006
The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings
for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76.
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project
incorporates quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the
area as described in the Comprehensive Plan and reinforces its pedestrian character. The
proposed project for a new mixed use building is consistent with the land use
designation. The project is also consistent with The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive Plan encourages
owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial
areas are more competitive and better serve the conununity. The commercial properties
could be redesigned to be more attractive and inviting for pedestrians;
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can
be made in the affirmative in that the project is located at a prominent comer of the
commercial downtown in an environment with other large retail/office buildings. The
project is designed as a four-story, 50 foot building that is adjacent to similarly sized
buildings. The building has been designed to encourage pedestrian activity;
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project. This finding c'an be made in the
affirmative in that the design would accommodate the proposed retail, office and
residential uses. The proposed building would have ample storefront glass, recesses, and
awnings to create an inviting retail and pedestrian environment. The design is also
consistent with the requirements and recommendations of both the Context Based
Design Criteria and the Downtown Urban Design Guide;
(4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that the overall design is consistent with the Downtown Urban Design
Guide guidelines in the following ways:
a. The project creates enhanced vehicular and pedestrian entries;
b. The project provides varied building mass and height;
c. The project maintains Hamilton Ave. as pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian
environment with complimentary outdoor amenities.
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
different designated land uses. This finding is not applicable in that this project is not
, situated in a transition area between different designated land uses;
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 1
(6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This
finding can be made in the affirmative in that the new building is compatible with the
existing context of the retail/commercial downtown environment;
(7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an
internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and
the general community. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building
location is shifted three feet away from the Ramona St. curb and four feet away from
Hamilton Ave. to provide wider sidewalks to encourage pedestrian activity ,down
Hamilton Ave;
(8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the
function of the structures. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
building has provided an adequate amount or recesses to the zoning requirements of the
"P" overlay and the intent to add interest at the ground floor for pedestrians.
Additionally, the project provides sufficient open space for the residential component in
the form of four rooftop terraces;
(9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project
. and the same are compatible with the project's design concept. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that project includes sufficient automobile and. bicycle
parking, and common open space areas. The project includes widening the walkable
area for the sidewalks on both Ramona St. and Hamilton A ve. to enhance vehicular and
pedestrian safety;
(10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicles. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has
been designed to encourage pedestrian activity with its greater setback on Ramona St.
and Hamilton Ave. The project also creates an effective and safe automobile
ingress/egress point for the residential occupants;
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This
finding can be made in the affirmative in that the existing city street trees adjacent to the
proposed building will be removed and replaced with new street trees that are consistent
with other street trees in the direct vicinity;
(12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are
appropriate expression to the design and function. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the proposed colors and materials are will add detail and interest and
are compatible with the commercial retail environment.
(13) The landscape design conceptfor the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses,
open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and
functional environment. This finding is not applicable in that there is no proposed
landscaping.
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 2
)
'1
!i
3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the purposes of this title (Zoning).
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Policies, Programs and Goals)
as outlined in Attachment E of the Staff Report.
4. The granting of the application will not be injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or
convenience.
The proposed setbacks of three feet along Ramona S1. and no setback to 6.5 feet along
Hamilton Ave. will improve the existing sidewalk width by adding four additional feet in
width to the sidewalk to Ramona S1. and three feet additional sidewalk width to Hamilton
Ave. The increased sidewalk widths will provide for a better overall pedestrian friendly
experience with the Hamilton Ave. District of Downtown. The requested encroachments
into the special setback would not result in a detrimental impact as it is an improvement
over the existing situation which is a zero setback in this location.
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 5
Planning
Attachment B
Conditions of Approval
240-248 Hamilton Avenue/ 13PLN-00006
1. The cover sheet lists the assessor's parcel as 139-96-797. Our records indicate the assessor's
parcel number is 120-27-010.
2. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents
received January 7, 2013 except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
3. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building
permits related to this project.
5. The current project is approved to use the one-time 200 square foot FAR bonus, as permitted per
PAMC 18.18.070(a)(1), and cannot utilize this bonus again for any future development.
6. New construction and alterations in the CD-C zoning district shall be required to design ground
floor space to accommodate retail use and shall comply with the provisions of the Pedestrian (P)
combining district.
7. The proposed project requires 5,000 square feet of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Prior
to building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide sufficient information so that the
Director of PI am ling and Comnlunity Environment can issue written confirmation of the transfer,
which identifies both the sender and receiver sites and the anlount of TDRs which have been
transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder prior to the
issuance of building permits and shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner( s)
of the TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the applicant
8. Development Impact Fees, estimated at $262,671.82 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the
project's building permit.
9. F or anyon-street parking spaces that are renl0ved to accommodate the project's driveway curb-
cut, the applicant shall be required to pay parking in-lieu fees for the nurrlber of spaces lost. This
fee shall be due to the City prior to the issuance of the project's building permit.
10. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review.
11. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In
the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit
240 Hamilton Ave Page 1
specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application
for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration.
12. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to protest the fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the
protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within
ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the
project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees,
dedications, reservations and exactions are set fOlih in Government Code Section 66020. IF
YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DA Y PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW
THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020,
YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE V ALIDITY OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND
EXACTIONS.
13. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by
which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
14. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold hamlless 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 attorney's 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.
Transportation
1. Car stacker system should provide enough width and depth for full size SUV. Provide
details, etc. of the system for further review.
2. Long term bike parking for office use is not apparent. Please identify. Long ternl bike
parking for office cannot be shared with residential unless separate lockers.
3. Parking reductions assumed. Significant credits/reductions assumed could be opposed.
Consider providing underground parking, possibly with a vehicle elevator (instead of ranlp)
to achieve additional parking.
4. Include loss of on-street parking due to new garage.
Public Works Urban Forestry
1. Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of public trees # 1-6.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 2
2. Six publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-way along the Han1ilton and Ramona
streets. Parking garage ramp and other in-ground elements that will limit new tree growth
potential shall be identified. As mitigation to offset the net loss for years of public resource
investments and minimize the future years to parity with infrastructure benefits (Co2
reduction, extended asphalt life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by the trees, the new
frontage should be provided maximum streets cape design and n1aterials to include the
following elements:
• Consistency with the Public Works Departn1ent Tree Management Program.
Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume
resources.
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such
as permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, and
services due to being situated within the public right-of-way.
Public Works Engineering
1. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those
portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters, curb ramps or driveway approaches in the
public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked,
displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpem1itted pavement in the planter strip.
Contact 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.
2. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street
trees in the public right-of-way along the property's frontage(s). Call the Public Works'
arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can detem1ine what street tree work, if
any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan
set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species,
size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works'
arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do
street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public
Right-oi-Way from Public Works' arborist (650-496-5953).
3. SUBDIVISION: A parcel/condo map will be required if there are any units that are proposed
"for sale". The developer will be required to provide a preliminary parcel map and a parcel
map for city review and approval. The Grading/Excavation and Building permits will not be
issued until the parcel map is recorded.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 3
4. STEET RESURFACING: The developer will be required to resurface the entire frontage of
each street adjacent to the property out to the centerline of the street upon completion of
onsite construction. The resurfacing will consist of a slurry seal or grinding 2" of the existing
asphalt and overlaying 2" asphalt pavement per Public Works' standards. Public Works will
make the determination between slurry seal and grind/overlay by inspecting the condition of
the road and estimating the construction impacts. Thermoplastic striping of the street(s) will
be required after resurfacing.
The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at the building permit phase. You
can obtain various plan set details, forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City's
Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works' website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms~ermits.
Include in plans submitted for a building permit:
5. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public
Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage
systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A
drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as
lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow
preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from
the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into
the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that
could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-
level spaces are at least 7-3/4" below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the
potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant
be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the
basement.
6. GARAGEIBASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including
tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without
having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an
encroachment permit from Public Works.
7. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public
Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater
dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed fronl April through October due to
inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list
the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the
soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to
excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest
excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater
is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be
240 Hamilton Ave Page 4
used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit
groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well
system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested for
contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is
required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for
the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works.
8. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The
applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain
approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be
required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must
include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a
sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center
and on our website.
9. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan
prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and propos~d spot elevations and
drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope
away from the structure a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks 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 on site as much as feasible by directing
runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site.
10. GRADING & EXCA V ATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit
must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit if the total cubic
yardage of dirt being cut for the garage lift and elevator pit is more than 100 cubic yards. The
application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 5
and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from
Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than
the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway n1ust be replaced
with a thickened (6" thick instead of the standard 4" thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts
and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter
and planter strip.
14. 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 for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the
Development Center or on our website.
15. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan 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. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007
California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or
less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around
construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must
obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to
provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk."
16. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works
Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City's right-of-way,
including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material
deliveries, contractor's parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust
control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor's contact, noticing of affected
businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit.
Public Works Environmental Services
Please note the following issues must be addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this
department:
General Comments:
• Consider providing separate service for residential and commercial units
• Trash rooms located in garage will require bins to be placed curbside on collection day or
pull-out service at an additional charge.
1. P AMC 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
(A) Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior
enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable n1aterials in appropriate containers, and that
trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably
240 Hamilton Ave Page 6
possible. (B) Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all
residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to
encourage and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be
screened from public view by masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be
enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible. Chain
link enclosures are strongly discouraged. (iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be
architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v) The design, construction and
accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural
review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the
city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
2. P AMC 5.20.120 Recycling storage design requirements
The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded building or other facility shall
provide for proper storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid waste
and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which will allow for the efficient and safe
collection. The design shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 18.22.100,
18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080, 18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080,,18.49.140,
18.55.080,18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code.
All Services:
a) Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and
street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space
must be provided for vehicle access.
b) Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads,
driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable
pavement is used.
c) Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply.
d) Carts and bins nlust be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas
"no jumping curbs"
3. Garbage, Recycling, and Yard Waste/Compostables cartlbin location and sizing
Office Building
The proposed commercial development must follow the requirements for recycling
container spacel . Project plans must show the placement of recycling containers, for
example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space should be
provided for built-in recycling containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the
placement of recycling containers.
• Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams-
1 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles I and 2
240 Hamilton Ave Page 7
garbage, recycling, and compostables.
• Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a
minimum of77" of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push
services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the
property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible·
location for collection.
• All service areas must have a clearance height of 20' for bin service.
• New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce ware and tear on walls.
For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact
Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894.
4. PAMC 5.24.030 Construction and Demolition Debris (eDD)
. Covered projects shall comply with construction and demolition debris diversion rates and
other requirements established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code). In
I. addition, all debris generated bya covered project must Qaul1 00 percent of the debris not
salvaged for reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter.
Contact the City of Palo Alto's Green Building Coordinator for assistance on how to
recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on
where to conveniently recycle the material.
Utilities Electrical Engineering
1. The Utilities will require space on the private property for installing a pad mounted
transformer to serve the proposed building at the above location.
2. Pad mounted transformer location must be shown on the plans. Utilities will require a
minimum clearance of 8' in the front and 3' around the transformer.
3. Public Utility Easements shall be granted as required by the City.
4. Any extension of the power distribution lines/relocation of existing utilities or offsite
modification that needs to be done for providing electric service to the building will be at
applicant's expense. Any non-standard installation requested by the applicant shall be
treated as a "Special Facilities" and in that case special facility charges will become
applicable.
5. Applicant shall provide preliminary electric load calculations for sizing the transformer.
Transformer procurement lead time is 6-8 months.
6. Utilities will provide detailed comments and cost estimates when plans are submitted to
240 Hamilton Ave Page 8
the Building Department for review and approval
Utilities Water Gas Wastewater
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
1. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit
loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity
fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may
not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures.
2. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters
including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within
10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the
building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected
and removed.
FOR BUILDING PERMIT
3. 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
information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in
b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing
(prior) loads, the new loads, and the combinedltotalloads (the new loads plus any
existing loads to remain).
4. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must
show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the
public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements,
sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities.
5. 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). The
applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains
andlor services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes
all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the
utility mains andlor services.
6. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study
showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will
provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the
development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing
may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 9
Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is
required to perform, at hislher expense, a flow n10nitoring study of the existing sewer
main to determine the remaining capacity. The report nlust include existing peak flows or
depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of thirty continuous days or as
determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and
the approval of the WOW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing
sewer main will be permitted.
7. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall
submit to the WOW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the
installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance
with the utilities departnlent design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-
way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a
registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work,
method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for
approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor wIll not be
allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been
approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is
complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of
the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto
Utilities record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the contractor shall
install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City
clean out for wastewater laterals.
8. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPP A backflow preventer device) is
required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply
with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the
water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA's for domestic service shall be lead
free. Show the location of the RPP A on the plans.
9. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water
connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative
code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be
allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU's approval). reduced pressure
detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property
line, within 5' of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector
assembly on the plans.
10. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WO W engineering division.
Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe
between the meter and the assembly. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector
is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 10
11. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at
the applicant's expense.
12. Existing water services that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the
applicant's expense.
13. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility
service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services,
meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity
requesting the relocation.
14. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans.
Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection
shown on the plans .
. 15. A separate water meter and packflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved
landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall
be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the
account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading
or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards.
16. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service
connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and
install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required
control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of
the new water service and meter on the plans.
17. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location
of the new water service and meter on the plans.
18. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required if existing service is
not nleeting current standards. Show the location of the new water service on the plans.
The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire
system including all fire department's requirements.
19. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas nleter location on the
plans. The gas meter lo.cation must conform with utilities standard details.
20. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer
lateral on the plans
21. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private
240 Hamilton Ave Page 11
property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa
Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities
easement across the adj acent parcels as is necessary to serve the development.
22. Where public mains are installed in private streetslPlTEs for condominium and town
home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement~ "Public Utility
Easements: If the City's reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown
as P. UE on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the
responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of
the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of
the City". All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be
abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures.
23. lTtility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be
placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain l' 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/vaultslbases 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.
24. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer
cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be
videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional
boring.
25. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards
for water, gas & wastewater.
26. For contractor installed water and wastewater n1ains or services, the applicant shall
prepare and subn1it to the WGW engineering section of the lTtilities Department as-built
drawings at the completion of construction of the installation of water and wastewater
utilities to be owned and maintained by the City in accordance with:
1. Two sets of as-built drawings (hard copies).
2. As-built drawings in 2008 or 2010 AutoCAD fonnat.
3. As-built drawings in .tiff fonnat.
4. Survey points in .csv fonnat for all new utility features.
Note: All survey data shall be collected by a California Licensed Land Surveyor. The
surveyor is responsible to setup all control points needed to perfonn the survey work.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 12
The accuracy for all survey data shall be +/ -1 cm.
Survey data to be collected (what's applicable):
1. Collect horizontal and vertical data for:
1. Sanitary sewer manholes (rinl and invert elevations and depth)
2. Storm drain manholes and catch basins (rim and invert elevations and depth)
3. Water valves (cove~ and stem elevations)
Fire Department
1. Provide a Fire Apparatus Access Plan. Show elevations and how P AFD Ladder Truck
will be utilized.
2. Provide an egress plan.
Public Work Water Quality
We have reviewed the site floor plans for this project. Please note the following issues
must be addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this department:
1. PAMe 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water
pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require
gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the
water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or
federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm
drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits
contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09 .040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of
the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs
it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
2. P AMC 16.09.180(b )(9) Covered Parking
Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be comlected to an oil/water separator
with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system
3. PAMe 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities
New buildings and residential developnlents providing centralized soiid waste collection,
except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster.
The area shall be adequately sized for all waste strean1s and designed with grading or a berm
system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area.
4. PAMe 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down
240 Hamilton Ave Page 13
spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any
residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper
flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this
prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt,
provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes
of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as
Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and
Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system.
6. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a
treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-
329-2421.
7. PAMC 16.09.180(b )(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines,
connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and
short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The
plans nlust specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater pluITlbing.
8. PAMC 16.09.220(c)(1) Dental Facilities That Remove or Place Amalgam Fillings
An ISO 11143 certified anlalgam separator device shall be installed for each dental vacuum
suction system. The installed device must be ISO 11143 certified as capable of removing a
minimum of95 percent of amalgam. The amalgam separator system shall be certified at flow
rates comparable to the flow rate of the actual vacuum suction system operation. Neither the
separator device nor the related plumbing shall include an automatic flow bypass. For
facilities that require an amalgam separator that exceeds the practical capacity of ISO 11143
test methodology, a non-certified separator will be accepted, provided that smaller units from
the same manufacturer and of the same technology are ISO-certified.
9. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a
treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-
329-2598.
10. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
11. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat
Exchangers
240 Hamilton Ave Page 14
It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers
and heat exchangers to the storm drain system.
12. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Stornl Drain Labeling
Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping -Flows to Bay," or
equivalent.
Undesignated Retail Space:
13. PAMC 16.09
Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated
tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable
during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service
. facility the following requirements must be met:
Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project:
A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited
Bldg/Plumbing Codes
1. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of all
proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2)
2. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code.
3. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500 gallons.
4. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation
example below.
5. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the
plans.
6. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation
and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers
GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or
manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents.
GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the
entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5)
7. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow
visibility of each inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping.
The plans shall clearly indicate the nunlber of proposed manholes on the GCD. The
Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department nlay authorize
variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to manufacture
available options or adequate visibility.
8. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs.
9. All GCDs shall be fitted with reliefvent(s). (CPC 1002.2 & 1004)
1. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 15
ExampleGCD
Sizing Calculation:
Note:
Quantity
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
Drainage Fixture & Item Number
Pre-rinse sink, Item 1
3 compartment sink, Item 2
Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4
Mop sink, Item 5
Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item
7
Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle,
Item 8
Floor sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item 9
Floor drains
1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized
DFUs Total
4 4
3 3
3 6
3 3
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 8
Total: 30
• All resubmitted plans to Building Department which include FSE projects shall be
resubmitted to Water Quality.
• It is frequently to the FSE's advantage to install the next size larger GeD to allow for
more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between
cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes,
sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal)
.• The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer
and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer
Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements
for GCDs, GeD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 18
The City of
Palo Alto
ATIACHMENT C
Location Map
240-248 Hamilton Ave.
This map is a pnxluct of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-.
~'
ATTACHMENT D
ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE
240-248 Hamilton Avenue / File No. 13PLN-00006
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PROPOSED
FOR CD-C(GF)(P) ZONE DISTRICT DISTRICT PROJECT
STANDARD
Site coverage (building footprint) None required 5,000 sq.ft
Floor area (gross floor area) 1.0:1 15,000 sq. ft.
3: 1w/ allowed
floor area
bonuses for
mixed use=
15,000 sq.ft.
Building setback
Front (Hamilton Ave.) 7' 0' -6.5'
Special setback requirement special setback
Rear 0' -commercial 0'
10' -residential 10'
Interior Side 0' 0' i
Street side (Ramon St.) 6' 3'
Special setback requirement special setback
Building height
50' 50'
Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% or 1,000 sf 35% or 1,789
Usable Open Space 200 sf/unit or 1,114 sf
400 sf
CONFORMANCE
N/A
conforms
Variance requested
for 7 foot to 5 inch
encroachment
conforms
conforms
Variance requested
for 3 foot special
setback
encroachment
conforms
conforms
conforms
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PROPOSED CONFORMANCE
FOR CD-C(GF)(P) ZONE DISTRICT DISTRICT PROJECT
I STANDARD
Parking:
Commercial 11250 sf N one required -conforms
a) additional
floor area
fron1 TDR
(5,000 sf)
and seismic
bonus are
exempt from
parking
requirements
b) 7,000 sf of
existing floor
area that is
not parked is
grandfathered
In
Residential 1.5 spaces/unit
or 3 spaces 4 spaces conforms
Bicycle 2 long term 2 long term conforms
3 short term 4 short term
ATTACHMENT E
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE
240-248 Hamilton Avenue / File No. 13PLN-00000-00006
Program L-19: Support implementation of
the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The
Downtown Urban Design Guide is not
mandatory but provides useful ideas and
direction for private developn1ent and public
improvement in the Downtown area.
Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the
University A venuelDowntown area as the
central business district of the City, with a
mIX of commercial, civic, cultural,
recreational and residential uses. Promote
quality design that recognizes the regional
and historical importance· of the area and
reinforces its pedestrian character.
Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative
design and site planning that is compatible
with surrounding development and . public
spaces.
The project incorporates many of the goals of
the Downtown Urban Design Guide including:
(1) Promote Hamilton A ve. as an active
mixed use district which comfortably
accommodates larger scale commercial
office, civic, and institutional buildings.
(2) Maintain Hamilton Ave. as a pleasing,
tree-lined pedestrian environment.
The project incorporates several design
considerations contained In the Downtown
Urban Design Guide in that the project design
would: (1) complement the design of
surrounding buildings In scale, proportion,
materials (2) maintains a human scale to its
street fayade, 3) provides pedestrian friendly
amenities such as recessed entries, canopies, and
new street trees.
The design of the new building fits well with the
retail pedestrian environment of the downtown
commercial district.
Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize The project is consistent with this policy in that
streets and public spaces and to enhance a the proposed building would incorporate a
sense of community and personal safety. rhythm of clear glass windows, recessed
Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, entryway, and metal canopIes on both the
windows, bays and balconies along public Hamilton Avenue and the Ramona Street
ways where it IS consistent with frontages.
neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid
walls at street level; and include human-scale
details and massing.
Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as The proposed mixed use project provides two
a means of increasing the housing supply housing units.
while promoting diversity and neighborhood
vitality.
ATIACHMENT F
240-248 Hamilton Avenue,
240-248 Hamilton Avenue
Initial Study
Prepared by
City of Palo Alto
May 10, 2013
Page 1 Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request by Ken Hayes of Hayes Group Architects on behalf of
Forest Casa Real LLC. for Major Architectural Review Board review for the demolition of an existing
5,000 square foot, two -story cornnlercial building and the construction of a four-story, 50 foot, mixed-
use building with a new floor area of 15,000 square feet on a site located at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue.
Environmental Assessment: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared.
Zone District: Downtown Community Commercial (CD-C)(P)(GF) with Pedestrian Shopping and
Ground Floor combining districts.
1. PROJECT TITLE
240-248 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Jason Nortz, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-617-3137
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
Ken Hayes
2657 Spring StreetRedwood City, CA 94063
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
13PLN-00006
6. PROJECT LOCATION
240-248 Hamilton Avenue
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 2 Negative Declaration
Palo Alto
Parcel Numbers: 120-27-010
The project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa
Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real), as shown on
Figure 1, Regional Map. The parcel is contained within the city block bounded by Hamilton Avenue to
the northwest Ramona Street the northeast, Emerson Street to the southwest and Forest Avenue to the
southeast, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
240-248 Hamilton Avenue is designated as Regional Community Commercial in the Palo Alto 1998 -
2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes office, retail, and residential land uses.
Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village, and University
A venuelDowntown district.
8. ZONING
The site is zoned Downtown Commercial with a Ground Floor and "Pedestrian" combining district CD-C
(GF)(P). The CD-C (GF)(P) zone district is intended to be a comprehensive zoning district for the
downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving citywide and regional
business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and neighborhood service needs.
The Pedestrian combining district is designed to help foster the continuity of retail stores and display
windows and to avoid monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain economic
viability for a healthy retail district.
The Ground Floor combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the CD district and
subdistricts to allow only retail, eating and drinking and other service-oriented commercial development
uses on the ground floor.
The mixed use project is a permitted use in this zone district in that it proposes to provide a ground floor
retail use with two floors of office and one floor of residential.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of an application for Major Architectural Review Board review for the demolition of
an existing 7,000 square foot, two -story commercial building and the construction of a four-story, 50
foot, mixed-use, building with a floor area of 15,000 square feet. The ground floor would be retail with
office space occupying floors two and three. The fourth floor would be entirely residential consisting of
two residential units. Four on-site parking spaces would be provided for the two residential units. The
parking would be provided in a one level below grade parking garage. The project proposes to utilize
floor area bonuses in the form of "Transferable Development Rights" (TDRs) from an off-site historical
rehabilitation project. A total of 5,000 square feet ofTDR would be purchased and transferred from 230-
232 Homer Avenue where the TDR was acquired through both a seismic and historic rehabilitation of the
building. The proposal would also utilize the one-time 200 square feet bonus as provided in P AMC
Section 18.18.070. The total 1100r area in the completed project would be 15,000 sq. ft. This includes
11,527 sq. ft. for commercial uses on the first, second and third floors and 3,473 sq" ft within two
residential units on the fourth floor.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 3 Negative Declaration
A variance is requested to encroach into the required seven foot special setback along Hamilton
Avenue and to encroach into the required six foot special setback along Ramona Street.
10. SURROlTNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
240-248 Hamilton Avenue is located close to the southern edge of the Commercial Downtown zone
district (see Figure 2, Vicinity Map). The site is 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep and is located at the
southern comer of the Hamilton A venuelRamona Street intersection. Surrounding land uses include
office, restaurants, and retail. Directly east of the project site on the eastern side of Ramona St. is the eight
story Palo Alto City Hall building. Directly adjacent to the project site along the western side of Ramona
st. is a two-story office building. Also directly adjacent to the project site along the southwestern side of
Hamilton Ave. is a two-story restaurant. Across the street on the northern side of Hamilton Ave. is three-
story commercial building occupied by ground floor retail, a restaurant and a hotel lobby. The hotel
occupies the remaining two floors. A four-story commercial building with ground floor retail and office
uses on the uppers floors in located kitty comer to the project site.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
• County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the infonnation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has detennined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the detennination is made,
an EIR is required.
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 4 Negative Declaration
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue
...
® N""" Felr O.1ks
.......... -.~ ~ @)
s I EBS! Polo/ilia
-""" Athf"rton
Me:110 Par1(
--""". ,
•
PaloAllo 1
of"
l ,~
losAJlo~
HJls
"
Figure One: Regional Map
Page 6 Negative Declaration
.. '" ' .. " .... ."
a
'._ '''k c_.~ .. ~),?,. . . ...
• ...... 1:.-
•
240·248 Hamilton Avenue
c_ , .. " •
" ..... :-.1,"" "'s, -....... .
,-" ~D
."1"'11. --,
, ~ .
/
Figure Two: Vicinity Map
Page 7
" -• •.
.' . ,", "
/
" r'
_·u
Negative Declaration
-. H::.....r ~_
.'
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues UnJess Impact
Wou1d the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual X
character or quality of the site and its 1,6
surroundings?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
public view or view corridor? 1,2,6 X
MapL4
c) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock X
outcroppings, and historic buildings within 1,2,5
a state scenic highway? MapL4
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,6
policies regarding visual resources? X
e) Create a new source of substantial light or X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1, 6
f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,6 X
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ?
DISCUSSION:
The subject site is located one block over from a view corridor (University Avenue) as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan 1998 -2010. The project is not large enough or close enough to impede the view
through the corridor. The project is subject to final review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB),
which will ensure a design that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its surroundings. The
project has been designed to be compatible with the scale of the surrounding development in the
downtown area and is compatible with zoning requirements for height and daylight plane
Mitigation Measures: None
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 8 Negative Declaration
Significance after Mitigation: NA
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOlTRCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1 Monitoring Program of the California X Resources AKency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2,
use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9, X
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of 1 X Farm]ana. to ... ,.. ... .1 _1 use? I
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area,
as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency_ The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentia lIy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation X
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected air 1
I quality violation indicated by the following: I
i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1 I
I X
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air I
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 9 Negative Declaration
I
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources PotentiaHy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PMIO);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1, 10 X
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more )?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an X applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which 1
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors )?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
e)
f)
of toxic air contaminants? 1 X
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1 X
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)
exceeds 10 in one million
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-1 X
carcinogenic T ACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEl
Create objectionable odors affecting a X
substantial number of people? 1
Not implement all applicable construction 1 X
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area A ir Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The subject site is in an area of mixed uses including commercial retail, office and residential uses in
Downtown Palo Alto. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the property is not located in an area that
contains uses or activities that are major pollutant emitters. The project is not expected to result in a
significant impact on air quality.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 10 Negative Declaration
The project will result in temporary dust emISSIons during demolition, grading and construction
activities. The impacts are expected to be greatest during demolition. Therefore, the following
conditions of approval will be incorporated as part of an approved demolition and construction
management plan secured before building permit issuance.
• Demolition activities shall be conducted in such a manner that will minimize dust and another
airborne particulate matter. The contractor or builder shall water debris during demolition and before
transport to an off-site facility.
• Areas of exposed earth surfaces during demolition, grading and construction shall be watered in the
early morning and early evening.
• Avoid overloading of trucks so· that potential spillage in the public right-of-way is minimized. The
contractor shall be required to clean up all spillage in the public right of-way.
• Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a
demolition permit.
The standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOlTRCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional 1,2, plans, policies, or regulations, or by the MapN1 X California Department of Fish and Game or u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, 1,2, X policies, regulations, including federally MapN1 protected wetlands as defmed by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or 1,2 X
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use MapN1 of native wildlife nursery sites?
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 11 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2, 5,13
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.1 O)?
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1, 2, 13 X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
There are six regulated street trees located around the perimeter of the subj ect property. Two Flowering
Pear trees are located in the public right-of-way along Hamilton Avenue. The remaining four trees are
located along Ramona Street and include: three Japanese Pagoda trees and two London Plane trees. The
City Arborist has recommended removal of all six trees. The existing trees would be replaced with five
new street trees.
The trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the Planning Division and Public Works Department
Arborists, based upon the requiren1ents of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual. Any damage
to the trees would be treated in accordance with the Tree Technical Manual.
Mitigation Measures: Bl: provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of public trees #1-6.
Six publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-way along the Hamilton and Ramona streets.
Parking garage ran1p and other in-ground elements that willlin1it new tree growth potential shall be
identified. As mitigation to offset the net loss for years of public resource investments and minimize the
future years to parity with infrastructure benefits (Co2 reduction, extended asphalt life, water mgmt.,
etc.) currently provided by the trees, the new frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design
and materials to include the following elements:
• Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree Management Program. Provide
adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources.
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such as
permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, and services due
to being situated within the public right-of-way along El Camino Real and Monroe Drive.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the loss of public trees impacts to a less than
significant level.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
E. CLTL TLTRAL RESOURCES
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 12 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural X
resource that is recognized by City Council 1,2,6
resolution? L7
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource 1,2 X
pursuant to 15064.5? MapLS
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique 1,2 X
geologic feature? MapLS
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2
interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapLS X
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or X
eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register~ or listed on the City's 1,2,6
Historic Inventory? MapL7
f) Eliminate important examples of major periods 1,6 X
of California history or prehistory?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located in an area of moderate to high sensitivity in terms of archaeological resource
areas, as indicated in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010.Based on existing
conditions and the extent of the proposed project, no significant impacts are expected. If approved, the
project would contain conditions in the fonn of instructions in the case of the discovery of any cultural
resources during demolition or construction. The standard conditions would result in impacts that are
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially PotentiaJly Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the See
risk of loss; injury, or death involving: below
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X
as delineated on the most recent
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 13 Negative Declaration
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on 7
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2,
MapN10 X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? 2 X
MapN5
iv) Landslides? 2 X
MapN5
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss X
of topsoil? 1, 6
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,6 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
. a result of the project, and potentially ·X
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral 2,
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or MapN5
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Unifonn Building X
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to MapN5
life or property? n f) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
altemativewaste water disposal systems 1
where sewers are not available for the X
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major 4 X
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site located in a strong seismic risk
area, subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the
project site; therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. The site is
located in an area of expansive soils. All new construction will be subject to the provisions of the most
current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and
preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
The City'S required standard conditions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will
not be significant. Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading and
drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and
building permits.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 14 Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures: F-l: Prior to final approval of any development plan and prior to building permit
issuance the applicant will be required to retain a geotechnical engineer to 1) perfonn a final
geotechnical investigation once site development plans are complete, 2) review the final construction
plans and specifications, and 3) observe the earthwork and foundation installation
Significance after Mitigation: NA
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 1,5,7 X
directly or indirectly, that may have a I
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or 1,5,7 X
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
DISCUSSION:
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for
state and national ozone standards and national particulate matter ambient air quality standards.
SFBAAB's non attainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and
future development projects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis.
By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to,
by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project's individual
emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project's
contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality would be
considered significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of
Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project
would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce
statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate
GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a
cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.
The Thresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
• For land use developnlent projects, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction
Strategy; or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of C02e; or 4.6 MT
C02e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial,
industrial, and public land uses and facilities.
• For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of C02e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit
GHG enlissions· and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual enlissions of operational-
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 15 Negative Declaration
related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution of GHG enlissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change.
The BAAQMD has established project level screening criteria to assist in the evaluation of impacts. If a
project meets the screening criteria and is consistent with the methodology used to develop the screening
criteria, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered less than, significant. For a "General
Office building" land use, the facility would need to be 53,000 square feet or larger to have a significant
impact for Green House Gases (BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, 06/2010; Table 3-1,
Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes). For a "Single-family"
dwelling unit would need to exceed 56 dwelling units to have a significant impact for Green House
Gases. The proposed project does not exceed the significance thresholds established by the BAAQMD;
the proposed project is 15,000 square feet, of which 11,527 square feet is commercial space and two,
residential dwelling units totaling 3,473 square feet.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the
primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,6,12
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the X
release of hazardous materials into the 1,6,12 environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or X
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 1,6, 12
proposed school?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject X
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,2,6 X result, would it create a significant hazard to MapN9 the public or the environment?
t) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or X
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 16 Negative Declaration
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in 1
the project area?
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the 1 X project area?
h) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response 1, 2, 12 X
plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN7
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to X urbanized areas or where residences are 2 intermixed with wildlands? MapN7
j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1 X
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed '"
for the site?
DISCUSSION:
No known conditions exist on the site regarding existing materials that may be deemed harmful or
.hazardous. The site is not located near any known hazardous materials facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 1, X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or X
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production 2 rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to MapN2 . a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 17 Negative Declaration
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial X erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,6
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,6, 10 X in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide X substantial additional sources of polluted 1, 10 runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,5, X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? 1,6,2 X
MapN6
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect 2 X flood flows? MapN6
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as ares ult of the failure of a 2, 7
levee or dam or being located within a 100-year MapN6 X flood hazard area? N8
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2, 7 X
MapN6
N8
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,6 X
DISCUSSION:
The site is in Flood Zone X, which is not a special flood hazard zone. During demolition, grading and
construction, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the project site flows to the San Francisco
Bay without treatment. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependant on the
waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Therefore, conditions of approval,
incorporated as part of an approved demolition and construction management plan (secured before
building permit issuance) would include the following:
• Before submittal of plans for a building permit, the applicant shall subn1it a drainage plan which
includes drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties.
• The Applicant shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be incorporated into a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP shall include both
temporary BMP's to be implemented during demolition and construction.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 18 Negative Declaration
The standard conditions would result in inlpacts that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,6 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not X
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 1, 3, 6 environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community 1,2 X conservation plan? MapN1
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1, 2, 3, 6 X
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1, 6 X
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
f) Conflict with established residential, 1, 6 X
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1 X
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The site is designated for Regional/Community Commercial use in the City of Palo Alto's
Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. This land use provides a variety and depth of goods, services and uses
usually not available in the neighborhood shopping areas. The replacement of an office/retail building
with a mixed use building with ground floor retail is consistent with this land use and the surrounding
area. The site is located within the Hamilton A venue District according to the Downtown Urban Design
Guide. The Hamilton Avenue District is a mixed office/commercial/retail district with some residential
uses. The primary goal of the Hamilton Avenue District is to promote Hamilton Avenue as an active
mixed use district with a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian experience. The development of three or more
story buildings surrounding Civic Center Plaza are encouraged to help create a stronger urban edge
within this area. The proposed project is consistent with the recomnlendations for this district. The
project is subject to final review by the Architectural Review Board, which will ensure a design that is
aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its surroundings.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 19 Negative Declaration
A variance is requested to encroach into the required seven foot special setback along Hamilton A venue
and to encroach into the required six foot special setback along Ramona Street. The exception is being
requested in order to maintain the existing streetscape and setbacks that the other properties adjacent to
the subject site follow. Findings for Variance requests will need to be reviewed and approved by the
Director of Planning as part of the overall project approval
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? 1, X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1, X or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION:
The project will not impact known mineral or locally important mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
L. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources PotentialJy Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or 1,2,6
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,2,6
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1, 5,9 X
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 20 . Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? 1
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? 1
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to 1
excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 6 X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 6 X· ..
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 6 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 6,9 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 6,9 X
1)
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
Generate construction noise exceeding the 6 X
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
DISCUSSION:
The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level ranging between 65-70dBA. This noise
level is typical for commercial districts and residential areas located in close proximity to commercial
districts. Sources of environmental noise at the site include sirens from fire trucks associated with the
Alma Fire Station, vehicles on local roadways, nearby CalTrain station and associated noise from
adjacent eating and drinking establishments.
Noise from the proposed mixed use would primarily be generated by roof top mechanical equipment.
This will consist of HVAC equipment on top of the fourth floor only. All mechanical equipment is
required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10).
Grading and construction activities will result in tenlporary increases in local ambient noise levels.
Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, grading and
construction, which will be short term in duration. Standard approval conditions would require the
project to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 21 Negative Declaration
overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the
Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant.
Demolition and Construction Activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels.
In addition, there may be increases in ground-borne vibrations resulting from demolition and
construction. Therefore, conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved demolition and
construction management plan (secured before building permit issuance) would include the following:
• Require implementation of and compliance with the City of Palo Alto's Noise Ordinance (P AMC
9.10). In addition, construction hours shall be established as per the construction management plan
to minimize disturbance to surrounding residents, visitors, and businesses.
Mitigation Measures N-l: In order to meet the indoor noise level criteria, sound rated exterior facades and
windows shall be required. The windows and facades shall meet the STC rated recommendations as provided in
. the Noise Assessment by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc.
Mitigation Measures N-2: In order to mitigate noise impacts associated with outdoor mechanical equipment
mitigation .. measures will be ·required. These may include a combination of selecting quiet units; maintain,
minimum distances to property lines, and physical barriers and/or enclosures. The applicant shall work with staff
during the design phase to determine to specific requirements.
Significance after Mitigation: NA
M. POPITLATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potential1y Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for 1,6 example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure) ?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? 1
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? 1
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1 X
employed residents and jobs?
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1 X
population projections?
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 22 Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The project is for a new four-story mixed use building. The fourth floor would consist of two, two-
bedroom residential units.
Population in Palo Alto's sphere of influence in 1996, according to Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was
58,000 people. This is projected by the City's Comprehensive Plan to increase to 62,880 by 2010. The
project, by adding to the housing stock by 2 units, would cumulatively contribute to population in the
area. The average household size in Palo Alto is 2.24 persons, which would mean the project could
generate a total of 4.5 people. The projects cumulative impacts for the purposes of CEQA are also
considered to be less than significant, as the impact from the project alone is not "considerable", and is
di minimus, as environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the project is
implemented (as per CEQA Guidelines §15355 and §15064). This incremental increase in population
generated by the proposed project would not be considered a significant impact. City development
standards, development fees (including impact fees) and standard conditions of project approval reduce
potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
N. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
I Incorporated
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered govel1llhental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 12 X
Police protection? X 1
Schools? X 1
Parks? X 1
Other public facilities? X 1
DISCUSSION:
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 23 Negative Declaration
There would not be any substantial change in required services, including Fire, Police, Schools, Parks
and other public facilities as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
o. RECREATION
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the 1,5 facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the 1, 5 environment?
DISCUSSION:
The development project would be subject to paynlent of impact fees for parks, libraries and community
facilities. The project in total would therefore not have any significant impact on existing parks, nor
include or require construction of recreational facilities. No mitigation is required.
There would not be a significant change to the demand of recreation services as a result of the proposed
project. The development project includes a proposal for separate common areas for both the residential
and the commercial portions of the project.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., 1, 11
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 24 Negative Declaration
result in a substantial increase in either the X
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections )?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for 1, 11 X
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in 1
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible 1,6
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,11 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1, 11
X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or X
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & 1,
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1, 11 X
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V /C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1, 11 X
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1, 11 X
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1, 11 X
or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of
segment capacity to a freeway segment I
already operating at LOS F?
1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1, 11 X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1, 11 X
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available que~e storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at proj ect
access locations; queues at tum lanes at
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 25 Negative Declaration
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
n) Impede the development or function of 1, 11 X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1, 11 X
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1, 11 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is anticipated to generate less than 50 net new peak hour vehicle trips, which is
below the City's threshold for requiring a focused traffic analysis, and less that than the local congestion
management agency's (CMA) threshold for a detailed traffic impact analysis (100 trips). Based on the
relatively low traffic generation estimates, the project is not anticipated to result in significant peak hour
or daily traffic impacts.
Parking in and of itself is not· considered an environmental impact, but rather the related vehicle
emissions that are generated by the project's patrons, who have to drive around looking for parking. The
proposed project is only required to provide three parking spaces for the two residential units located on
the fourth floor. The project is however providing four spaces. The remaining three floors of non-
residential floor area consisting of 11,527 square feet of floor area is not required to provide parking for
the following reasons:
1. The existing 7,000 square feet of conunercial floor area is grandfathered in and as such is not
required to provide parking;
2. 4,327 square feet of commercial floor area has been transferred via a Transfer of Development
Rights from a valid sender site to an eligible receiver site from a valid, recorded Transferable
Development Right( (TDR). The first 5,000 square feet of floor area transferred to a receiver site
is exempt from the otherwise applicable on-site parking requirements.
3. The remaining 200 square feet of commercial floor area (7,000 sf+4,327 sf+200 sf= 11,527st) is
exempt from parking due to a one time allowable 200 square foot bonus.
There will, however, be a net deficiency in the amount of off-site parking spaces directly adjacent to the
site due to a new curb cut along Ramona Street for the purposes of creating a new driveway for the
underground parking lot. The loss of those parking spaces may incrementally add to parking concerns
in the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Those impacts, however, will not cause significant
increases in congestion or deterioration in air quality. The loss of the two off-site parking spaces will be
offset by providing an in-lieu payment for two parking spaces.
An annual monitoring report on the Commercial Downtown zoning area is mandated by the
Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 that require reporting of non-residential developn1ent
activity and trends within the CD zone district. These reports are also required as a result of final action
on the Downtown Study adopted by the City Council in 1986. The Downtown Study incorporated a
growth limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area over the total floor area existing in 1986, and
provided for are-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development reaches 235,000 square feet.
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 26 Negative Declaration
Since 1986, a total of 223,21 0 square feet of non-residential floor area has been added in the Downtown
CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2009-2011, approximately 34,650 square feet
of net new comnlercial floor area was added with a few major contributing projects such as 524
Hamilton Avenue and 265 Lytton Avenue. In this current cycle, 2011-2012, approximately 49,860
square feet of net new commercial floor area has been added through one major project, 335-355 Alma
Street. Based on this recent monitoring, an additional 11,790 square feet of new non-residential
development remains for development before the re-evaluation limit of235,000 square feet growth limit
is reached.
The existing building consists of 7,000 square feet of floor area. The proposed project would add an
additional 4,527 square feet of non-residential floor area which would minimally contribute towards the
limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area.
Temporary impacts to transportation, traffic and pedestrian circulation will result from demolition and
construction activities. Therefore, conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved
demolition and construction management plan (secured before building permit issuance) would include
the following:
• Traffic control measures during demolition and construction
• Removal of demolition debris
• Delivery of construction materials
• Retention of parking spaces for construction workers and on.:.site staff.
Mitigation: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
Q. lTTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incor)!orated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality X
Control Board? 1,6,114
b) Require or result in the construction of new X
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant 1,6,14
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new X
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental 1,6,14
effects?
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 27 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources PotentialJy PotentiaHy Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to X
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded 1,6,14
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater X
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing 1,6,14
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? 1
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes X
I and regulations related to solid waste? 1
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1 X
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the proiect?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service
systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. As standard conditions of ARB approval,
the applicant shall be required to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-
site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and
adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling facilities are proposed in the project
to accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams that would be generated by the expected uses
within the building. The development project would be subject to all conditions of approval that would
be provided by all applicable city departments including but not limited to Utilities Electrical
Engineering and Utilities Water, Gas, Wastewater,.
Mitigation Measures: None
Significance after Mitigation: NA
R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
240-248 Hamilton Avenue Page 28 Negative Declaration
I
I
Sources - -c:---Potentiall y Less Than ! Issues and Supporting Information Resources Poten tlally No Impaci
Significant Significant Significant
I
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Miligation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality ofthe environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self~sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range ora rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major 1,2
periods of Cali fomi a history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limjted, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects 0 f a X
project are considerable when viewed in
cOnQoction with the effects of past projects, 1,2
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project bave environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects X
on human beings, either directly or 1.2
indirect I y? I
DISCUSSION:
The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self~sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal. The proposed project would not eliminate and important example of
California history.
The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cwnulatively considerable nor does
it have substantial environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings
either directly or indirectly. The project is located within the City's commercial downtown area where
there are other projects that are under review and planned for the future. These projects are
redevelopment projects where existing hui ldings are either rehabilitated or demolished and replaced.
This infill development does not result in considerable effects to the environment.
240w248 Hamilton Avenue Page 29 Negative Declaration
I
I
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the X
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. . ,
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adeq uately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Project Planner
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
240-248 Hamilton Avenue
Date
Date
Page 31 Negative Declaration
ATTACHMENT G
',.1" ..
-..
CIT Y O F
AL
ALTO
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
July 18, 2013
Architectural Review Board
Jason Nortz, Sr. Planner
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
240-248 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-000061: Request by Ken Hayes of Hayes
Group Architects on behalf of Forest Casa Real LLC. for Major Architectural
Review Boatd review for the demoUtion of an existing 7,000 square foot, two-
story commercial building and the construction of a four-story, SO foot,
mixed-use building with a new floor area of 15,000 square feet On a site
located at 240-248 Hamilton A venUe. Environmental Assessment: an Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. Zone District:
Downtown Community Commercial (CD-C)(P)(GF) willi Pedestrian
Shopping and Ground Floor combining districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) consider the project and findings for
Architectural Review approval and recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of
Planning and Conununity Environment (Director), based upon the findings in Attachment A and
subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment B.
BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2013 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the application referenced
above and as described further below, and voted to continue the item to a date certain. The ARB's
recommendation included conditions that the foHowing items return for additional ARB review:
1. Provide pedestrian friendly amenities at the ground floor level;
2. More articulation is needed on the back walls, specificallY, on the southwest elevation
between floors two and four;
3. Consider incorporating more cedar siding at another location on the building.
Additional background infonnation :is provided in the June 6, 2013 staff report, provided as
Attachment C. A revised zoning code compliance table is provided as Attachment D.
1
DISCUSSION
Pedestrian Amenities
The site is zoned Downtown Commercial with a Ground Floor and "Pedestrian" combining district
CD-C (GF)(p). The Pedestrian combining district is designed to help foster the continuity of retail
stores and display windows and to avoid monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and
maintain economic viability for a healthy retail district. To help compliment the retail component, five
large planter boxes have been provided along the Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue sides of the
building. Additionally, closer sidewalk paving score lines have been added to help support smaller
tree wells and better tree spacing.
Building Elevations
The southwestern building elevation facing Reposado has been revised to include a recessed metal
panel at floors two and three. The metal panel extends approximately 60 feet between column
lines B and E. Banding similar to the banding along the Hamilton A venue and Ramona Street
frontages rises above the stone body of the building and helps define the roof screen. The infill
material at the roof screen remains the same perforated metal sheet.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the requirements of the Califon1ia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared
and circulated, with a required 20-day public review and comment period beginning on May 10,2013
and ending on May 30, 2013. Mitigation measures are proposed to address biological resources,
seismicity and noise. No comments have been received on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or
historic resources. The use is appropriate for the site and the development would not result in an
adverse visual impact.
ATTACHMENTS
A. ARBN ariance Findings
B. Conditions of Approval
C. ARB Staff Report-June 6, 2013
D. Revised Zoning Code Compliance Table
E. Proj ect Plans *
* Submitted by applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Sal Giovanotto, Owner
Ken Hayes, Architect! Applicant
Prepared By: Jason Nortz, Senior Planner
Reviewed By: Amy French, Chief Planning
13PLN-00006 Page 2
ATTACHMENT A
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND VARIANCE
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
240-248 Hamilton Ave. / File No. 13PLN-00000-00006
The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings
for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. This fmding can be made in the affirmative in that the project
incorporates quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the
area as described in the Comprehensive Plan and reinforces its pedestrian character. The
proposed proj ect for a new mixed use building is consistent with the land use
designation. The project is also consistent with The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive Plan encourages
owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial
areas are more competitive and better serve the community. The commercial properties
could be redesigned to be more attractive and inviting for pedestrians;
The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can
be made in the affrrmative in that the project is located at a prominent comer of the
commercial downtown in an environment with other large retail/office buildings. The
project is designed as a four-story, 50 foot building that is adjacent to similarly sized
buildings. The building has been designed to encourage pedestrian activity;
The design is appropriate to the function of the project. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the design would accommodate the proposed retail, office and
residential uses. The proposed building would have ample storefront glass, recesses, and
awnings to create an inviting retail and pedestrian environment. The design is also
consistent with the requirements and reconunendations of both the Context Based
Design Criteria and the Downtown Urban Design Guide;
In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that the overall design is consistent with the Downtown Urban Design
Guide guidelines in the following ways:
a. The project creates enhanced vehicular and pedestrian entries;
b. The project provides varied building mass and height;
c. The project maintains Hamilton Ave. as pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian
environment with complimentary outdoor amenities.
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
different designated land uses. This finding is not applicable in that this project is not
situated in a transition area between different designated land uses;
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 1
(6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This
finding can be made in the affirmative in that the new building is compatible with the
existing context of the retail/commercial downtown environment;
(7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an
internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and
the general community. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building
location is shifted three feet away from the Ramona S1. curb and four feet away from
Hamilton Ave. to provide wider sidewalks to encourage pedestrian activity down
Hamilton Ave;
(8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the
function of the structures. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the
building has provided an adequate amount or recesses to the zoning requirements of the
"P" overlay and the intent to add interest at the ground floor for pedestrians.
Additionally, the project provides sufficient open space for the residential component in
the form of four rooftop terraces;
(9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project
and the same are compatible with the project's design concept. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that project includes sufficient automobile and bicycle
parking, and common open space areas. The project includes widening the walkable
area for the sidewalks on both Ramona S1. and Hamilton Ave. to enhance vehicular and
pedestrian safety;
(10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicles. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has
been designed to encourage pedestrian activity with its greater setback on Ramona St.
and Hamilton Ave. The project also creates an effective and safe automobile
ingress/egress point for the residential occupants;
(11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This
finding can be made in the affirmative in that the existing city street trees adjacent to the
proposed building will be removed and replaced with new street trees that are consistent
with other street trees in the direct vicinity;
(12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are
appropriate expression to the design and function. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the proposed colors and materials are will add detail and interest and
are compatible with the commercial retail environment.
(13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship ofplant masses,
open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and
functional environment. This finding is not applicable in that there is no proposed
landscaping.
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 2
(14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly
maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to
reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. This finding is not
applicable in that there is no landscaping proposed.
(15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient,
water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled
content mat.erials. The following considerations should be included in site and bUilding
design:
• Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural
ventilation;
• Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island
effects;
• Designfor easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;
• Maximize on site storm water management through landscaping and permeable
paving;
• Use sustainable building materials;
• Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use;
• Create healthy indoor environments; and
• Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments.
Green building features will be incorporated to achieve Cal Green Tier 2 standards for
the commercial portion and Green Point Rated standards for the residential portion.
(16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set
forth in subsection 18. 76. 020 (a). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the-
project design promotes visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and
variety.
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 3
VARIANCE FINDINGS
Variance approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMe Section 18.76.030 (C)
Variance Request: Three foot encroachment into the six foot special setback along
Ramona St. and seven foot encroachment into the seven foot
special setback along Hamilton Ave.
1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not
limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the
requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property
of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as
the subject property.
Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A) The
personal circumstances of the property owner, and (B) Any changes in the size or shape
of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while
the property was subject to the same zoning designation.
The existing building is built to the property line as are many buildings within the
commercial downtown district. The special setback of six and seven feet respectively,
imposed upon this property, only occurs in one other location within the downtown.
Most properties within the commercial downtown have no setback requirement This
comer parcel, at only 50 feet wide, is narrower than the other parcels at this comer. The
other parcels range from 75 feet to 100 feet wide.
2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the
regulations or constitute a grant .of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
placed upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject
property.
The granting of the exception would result in a three foot encroachment into the required
6 foot special setback along Ramona St. and a seven foot encroachment into the required
seven foot special setback along Hamilton Ave. It should be noted that only nine feet of
the 45 foot wide building wall along Hamilton Ave. would encroach seven feet into the
special setback (for the purposes of accommodating an enclosed stairwell). The
remaining 36 feet of building wall would encroach approximately five inches into the
special setback resulting in setback of 6.5 feet. Even with the granting of the Variance
the project would still provide a sidewalk width of approximately 11 feet along Hamilton
Ave. and 10 feet along Ramona St. both of which meet or exceed the sidewalk width
requirements in the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The wider sidewalk and more
importantly the shift of the building mass would improve the pedestrian experience and
enhance the opportunity for retail activity along Hamilton Ave.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 4
3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the purposes of this title (Zoning).
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Policies, Programs and Goals)
as outlined in Attachment E of the Staff Report.
4. The granting of the application will not be injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfar.e, or
convenience.
The proposed setbacks of three feet along Ramona S1. and no setback to 6.5 feet along
Hamilton Ave. will improve the existing sidewalk width by adding four additional feet in
width to the sidewalk to Ramona S1. and three feet additional sidewalk width to Hamilton
Ave. The increased sidewalk widths will provide for a better overall pedestrian friendly
experience with the Hamilton Ave. District of Downtown. The requested encroachments
into the special setback would not result in a detrimental impact as it is an improvement
over the existing situation which is a zero setback in this location.
240 Hamilton Ave 13PLN-00006 Page 5
Planning
Attachment B
Conditions of Approval
240-248 Hamilton Avenue/ 13PLN-00006
1. The cover sheet lists the assessor's parcel as 139-96-797. Our records indicate the assessor's
parcel number is 120-27-01 O.
2. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents
recei ved January 7, 20 13 ~xcept as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
3. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building
permits related to this project.
5. The current project is approved to use the one-time 200 square foot FARbontis, as permitted per
PAMC 18.18.070(a)(1), and cannot utilize this bonus again for any future development.
6. New construction and alterations in the CD-C zoning district shall be required to design ground
floor space to accommodate retail use and shall comply with the provisions of the Pedestrian (P)
combining district.
7. The proposed project requires 5,000 square feet of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Prior
to building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide sufficient infonnation so that the
Director of Planning and Community Environment can issue written confirmation of the transfer,
which identifies both the sender and receiver sites and the anlount of TDRs which have been
transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder prior to the
issuance ofbuilding permits and shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner(s)
of the TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the applicant
8. Development Impact Fees, estimated at $262,671.82 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the
project's building permit. These fees are adjusted annually in August. Fees shall be calculated at
the rate in effect at the time of permit issuance.
9. For anyon-street parking spaces that are removed to accommodate the project's driveway curb-
cut, the applicant shall be required to pay parking in-lieu fees for the number of spaces lost. This
fee shall be due to the City prior to the issuance' of the project's building permit. .
10. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review.
11. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In
240 Hamilton Ave Page 1
specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application
for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration.
12. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to protest the fees,
dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development proj ect must initiate the
protest at the time the development proj ect is approved or conditionally approved or within
ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the
project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees,
dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF
YOU FAIL TO !NITIA TE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DA Y PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW
THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020,
YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGIN.G THE VALIDITY OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND
EXACTIONS.
13. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by
which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
14. 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 attorney's 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.
Transportation
1. Car stacker system should provide enough width and depth for full size SUV. Provide
details, etc. of the system for further review.
2. Long term bike parking for office use is not apparent. Please identify. Long term bike
parking for office cannot be shared with residential unless separate lockers.
3. Parking reductions assumed. Significant credits/reductions assumed could be opposed.
Consider providing underground parking, possibly with a vehicle elevator (instead of ramp)
to achieve additional parking.
4. Include loss of on-street parking due to new garage.
Public Works Urban Forestry
1. Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of public trees #1-6.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 2
2. Six publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-way along the Hamilton and Ramona
streets. Parking garage ramp and other in-ground elements that will limit new tree growth
potential shall be identified. As mitigation to offset the net loss for years of public resource
investments and minimize the future years to parity with infrastructure benefits (Co2
reduction, extended asphalt life, water mgmt., etc.) currently provided by the trees, the new
frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design and materials to include the
following elements :
• Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree Management Program.
Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume
resources.
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such
as permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, and
services due to being situated within the public right-of-way.
Public Works Engineering
1. SIDEWALK, ClTRB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those
portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters, curb ramps or driveway approaches in the
public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked,
displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip.
Contact 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.
2. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing andlor add new street
trees in the public right-of-way along the property's frontage(s). Call the Public Works'
arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if
any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan
set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species,
size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works'
arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do
street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public
Right-ol-Way from Public Works' arborist (650-496-5953).
3. SUBDIVISION: A parcel/condo map will be required if there are any units that are proposed
"for sale". The developer will be required to provide a preliminary parcel map and a parcel
map for city review and approval. The GradinglExcavation and Building permits will not be
issued until the parcel map is recorded.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 3
4. STEET RESURFACING: The developer will be required to resurface the entire frontage of
each street adjacent to the property out to the centerline of the street upon completion of
on site construction. The resurfacing will consist of a slurry seal or grinding 2" of the existing
asphalt and overlaying 2" asphalt pavement per Public Works' standards. Public Works will
make the determination between slurry seal and grind/overlay by inspecting the condition of
the road and estimating the construction impacts. Thermoplastic striping of the street(s) will
be required after resurfacing.
The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at the building permit phase. You
can obtain various plan set details, forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City's
Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works' website:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms--'permits.
Include in plans submitted for a building permit:
5. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public
Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage
systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A
drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as'
lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow
preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from
the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into
the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that
could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-
level spaces are at least 7-3/4" below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the
potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant
be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the
basement.
6. GARAGEIBASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including
tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without
having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an
encroachment permit from Public Works.
7 . DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public
Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater
dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to
inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list
the highest anticipated groundwater level.W e recommend a piezometer to be installed in the
soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to
excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest
excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater
is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering systen1 must be
240 Hamilton Ave Page 4
used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit
groundwater, but ifhe does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well
system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested for
contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is
required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for
the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works.
8. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The
applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain
approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be
required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must
include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a
sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center
and on our website.
9. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must incll.lde a grading & drainage plan
prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and propo$ed spot elevations and
drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope
away from the structure a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks 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.
10. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit
must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit if the total cubic
yardage of dirt being cut for the garage lift and elevator pit is more than 100 cubic yards. The
application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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
240 Hamilton Ave Page 5
and that the contractor performing this work.must first obtain a Street Work Permit from
Public Works at the Development Center. If -a new driveway is in a different location than
the existing driveway, then the sidewaJk associated with the new driveway must be replaced
with a thickened (6" thick instead of the standard 4" thick) section. Additionally, c1ITb cuts
and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be repJaced with new curb, gutter
and planter strip.
14. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet
or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shaJl provide calculations of the
existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The
Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments fonn and instructions are available at the
Development Center or on our website.
IS. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan 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. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007
California Building Code Chapter 33 reqUirements. If the height of construction is,8 feet 01"
less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around
construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must
obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to
provide a banier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk."
16. LOGIST[CS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works
Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City'S right-of-way,
including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material
deliveries, contractor's parking, concrete pours, crane ljfts, work hours, noise control, dust
control, stonn water pollution prevention, contractor's contact, noticing of affected
businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit.
Public Works Environmentsl Services
Please oote the following issues must be addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this
department:
General Comments:
• Consider providing separate service for residential and commercial units
• Trash rooms located in garage will require bins to be placed curbside on collection day or
pull-out service at an additional charge.
1. P AMC 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling
(A) Assure that development _provides adequate and accessible interior areas or e:<terior
enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that
trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably
240 Hamilton Ave Page 6
possible. (B) Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all
residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to
encourage and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be
screened from public view by masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be
enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible. Chain
link enclosures are strongly discouraged. (iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be
architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v) The design, construction and
accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural
review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the
city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020.
2. PAMe 5.20.120 Recycling storage design requirements
The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded building or other facility shall
provide for proper storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid waste
and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which will allow for the efficient and safe
collection. The design shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 18.22.100,
18.24.100, 18.26.1 00, 18.32.080, 18.37.080, 1.8.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.Q80, 18.49.140.
18.55.080, 18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code.
All Services:
a) Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and
street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space
must be provided for vehicle access.
b) Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads,
driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 1bs. nus includes areas where permeable
pavement is used.
c) Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply.
d) Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas
"no jumping curbs"
3. Garbage, Recycling, and Yard WastelCompostablcs cartlbin location and sizing
Office Building
The proposed commercial development must follow the requirements for recycling
container space1. Project plans must show the placement of recycling containers, for
example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space should be
provided for built~in recycling containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the
placement ofrecycling containers.
• Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams-
J In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2
240 Hamilton Ave Page 7
garbage, recycling, and compostables.
• Collection crumot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a
minimum of77" of vertical clearance. 'Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push
services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the
property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible
location for collection.
• All service areas must have a clearance height of 20' for bin service.
• New enclosures should consider ITLbber bumpers to reduce ware and tear on walls.
For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact
Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894.
4. PAMC 5.24.030 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD)
Covered projects shall comply with construction and demolition debris diversion rates and
other requirements established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code). In
addition, all debris generated bya covered project must haul.IOO percent of the debris not
salvaged for reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter.
Contact the City of Palo Alto's Green Building Coordinator for assistance on how to
recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on
where to conveniently recycle the material.
Utilities Electrical Engineering
1. The Utilities will require space on the private property for installing a pad mounted
transformer to serve the proposed building at the above location.
2. Pad mounted transfonner location must be shown on the plans. Utilities will require a
nlinimum clearance of 8' in the front and 3' around the transfonner.
3. Public Utility Easements shall be granted as required by the City.
4. Any extension of the power distribution lines/relocation of existing utilities or offsite
modification that needs to be done for providing electric service to the building will be at
applicant's expense. Any non-standard installation requested by the applicant shall be
treated as a "Special Facilities" and in that case special facility charges will become
applicable.
5. Applicant shall provide preliminary electric load calculations for sizing the transformer.
Transfonner procurement lead time is 6-8 months.
6. Utilities will provide detailed comments and cost estimates when plans are submitted to
240 Hamilton Ave Page 8
the Building Department for review and approval
Utilities Water Gas Wastewater
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
1. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing .water/wastewater fixture unit
loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity
fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may
not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures.
2. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters
. including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within
10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the
building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected
and removed.
FOR BUILDING PERMIT
3. 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
information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in
b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing
(prior) loads, the new loads, and the cOlubined/totalloads (the new loads plus any
existing loads to remain).
4. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must
show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the
public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements,
sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities.
5. 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). The
applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains
and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes
all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the
utility mains and/or services.
6. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study
showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will
provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the
development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing
may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 9
Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is
required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer
main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or
depth of flow based on a mininlum monitoring period of thirty continuous days or as
determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and
the approval of the wow engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing
sewer main will be permitted.
7. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall
submit to the WOW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the
installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance
with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-
way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a
registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work,
method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for
approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be
allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been ,
approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is
complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of
the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto
Utilities record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the contractor shall
install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City
clean out for wastewater laterals.
8. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is
required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply
with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the
water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA's for domestic service shall be lead
free. Show the location of the RPP A on the plans.
9. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water
connection for the fire system to comply with requirenlents ofCalifomia administrative
code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector asselnbly may be
allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CP AU' s appro~al). reduced pressure
detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property
line, within 5' of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector
assembly on the plans.
10. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WOW eng~neering division.
Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe·
between the meter and the assembly. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector
is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 10
11. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at
the applicant's expense.
12. Existing water services that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the
applicant's expense.
13. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility
service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services,
meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity
requesting the relocation.
14. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans.
Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection
shown on the plans.
15. A separate water meter and bacJdlow pre venter is required to irrigate the approved .
landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall
be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the
account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading
or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards.
16. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service
connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and
install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required
control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of
the new water service and meter on the plans.
17. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location
of the new water service and meter on the plans.
18. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required if existing service is
not meeting current standards. Show the location of the new water service on the plans.
The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire
system including all fire department's requirements.
19. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the
plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details.
20. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer
lateral on the plans
21. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private
240 Hamilton Ave Page 11·
property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa
Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities
easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development.
22. Where public mains are installed in private streetslPUEs for condominium and town
home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement..;. ttpublic Utility,
Easements: If the City's reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown
as P. U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the
responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of
the Common Area. This Section may not be amended with(Jut the prior written consent of
the City". All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be
abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures.
23. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be
placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain l' 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/vaultslbases 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 nleters. 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
servi ces/mains/meters.
24. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer
cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be
videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional
boring.·
25. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards
for water, gas & wastewater.
26. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall
prepare and submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department as-built
drawings at the completion of construction of the installation of water and wastewater
utilities to be owned and maintained by the City in accordance with:
1. Two sets of as-built drawings (hard copies).
2. As-built drawings in 2008 or 2010 AutoCAD format.
3. As-built drawings in .tiff format.
4. Survey points in .csv format for all new utility features.
Note: All survey data shall be collected by a California Licensed Land Surveyor. The
surveyor is responsible to setup all control points needed to perform the survey work.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 12
The accuracy for all survey data shall be +/-1cm.
Survey data to be collected (what's applicable):
I. Collect horizontal and vertical data for:
1. Sanitary sewer manholes (rim and invert elevations and depth)
2. Storm drain manholes and catch basins (rim and invert elevations and depth)
3. Water valves (cover and stem elevations)
Fire Department
1. Provide a Fire Apparatus Access Plan. Show elevations and how P AFD Ladder Truck
will be utilized.
2. Provide an egress plan.
Public Work Wat.er Quality
We have reviewed the site floor plans for this project. Please note the following issues
must be addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this department:
1. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater
Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water
pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require
gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the
water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or
federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm
drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits
contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of
the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs
it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
2. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking
Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator
with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system
. 3. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities
New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection,
except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster.
The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a benn
system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area.
4. PAMC 16.09.180(b )(14) Architectural Copper
On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down
240 Hamilton Ave Page 13
spouts, and copper granule containing asp hal t shingles shall not be permitted for use on any
residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper
flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this
prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt,
provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes
of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as
Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and
Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC
Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storin drain system.
6. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a
treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-
329-2421.
7. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping
Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not b~ used in sewer lines,
connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and
short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The
plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing.
8. PAMC 16.09.220(c)(1) Dental Facilities That Remove or Place Amalgam Fillings
An ISO 11143 certified amalgam separator device shall be installed for each dental vacuum
suction system. The installed device must be ISO 11143 certified as capable of removing a
minimum of95 percent of amalgam. The amalgam separator system shall be certified at flow
rates comparable to the flow rate of the actual vacuum suction system operation. Neither the
separator device nor the related plumbing shall include an automatic flow bypass. For
facilities that require an amalgam separator that exceeds the practical capacity of ISO 11143
test methodology, a non-certified separator will be accepted, provided that smaller units from
the same manufacturer and of the same technology are ISO-certified.
9. 16.09.215 Silver Processing
Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a
treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-
329-2598.
10. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches
Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
11. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat
Exchangers
240 Hamilton Ave Page 14
It shall be unlawful to discharge water fron1 cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers
and heat exchangers to the storm drain system.
12. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling
Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping -Flows to Bay," or
equivalent.
Un designated Retail Space:
13. PAMC 16.09
Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with lmdesignated
tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable
during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service
facility the following requirements must be met:
Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project:
A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited
BldgIPlumbing Codes
1. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of all
proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2)
2. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code.
3. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of500 gallons.
4. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation
example below.
5. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the
plans.
6. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (1 00 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation
and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers
GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or
manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents.
GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the
entrance of surface and stormwater.(CPC 1009.5)
7. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow
visibility of each inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping.
The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GeD. The
Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may authorize
variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to manufacture
available options or adequate visibility.
8. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs.
9. All GCDs shall be fitted with reliefvent(s). (CPC 1002.2 & 1004)
1. GCD( s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 15
B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited BldgIPlumbing Codes
2. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the correct drain lines, each
drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their
discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the
plans.
3. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the
plans. This can be incorporated into the sizing calculation.
4. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a GCD. These include but
are not limited to:
a. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks
b. Three compartment sinks (pot sinks)
c. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers shall connect
to a GCD
d. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small
drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking
sinks
e. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens
f. Prep sinks
g. Mop (janitor) sinks
h. Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be covered and any
drains contained therein shall connect to a GCD.
1. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures
J . Wok stoves, rotisserie ovenslbroilers or other grease generating cooking
equipment with drip lines
k. Kettles and tiltlbraising pans and associated floor drains/sinks
5. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating
drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a
GCD:
a. Dishwashers
b. Steamers
c. Pasta cookers
d. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens
e. Hand sinks
f. Ice machine drip lines
g. Soda machine drip lines
h. Drainage lines in bar areas
6. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in aFSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)).
7. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage
areas.
8. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and
vented. (CPC 1014.5)
C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas P AMC, 16.09.075( q)(2)
240 Hamilton Ave Page 16
9. Newly constructed and remodeled FSEs shall include a covered area for all
dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food
scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow.
10. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area
and runoff from the area.
11. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters
. and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be
connected to aGeD.
12. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a
tallow bin shall be included in the covered area.
13. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that
the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement.
D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B)
14. FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large
enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers,
carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical
mop/janitor sink are more useful.
E. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC)
Sizing Criteria:
Drain Fixtures
(gallons)
Pre-rinse sink
3 compartment sink
2 compartment sink
Prep sink
Mop/Janitorial sink
Floor drain
Floor sink
240 Hamilton Ave
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
DFUs
GCD Sizing:
TotalDFUs GCD Volume
8 500
21 750
35 1,000
90 1,250
172 1,500
216 2,000
Page 17
ExampleGCD
Sizing Calculation:
Note:
Quantity
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
Drainage Fixture & Item Number
Pre-rinse sink, Item 1
3 compartment sink, Item 2
Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4
Mop sink, Item 5
Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item
7
Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle,
Item 8
Floor sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item 9
Floor drains
1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized
DFUs Total
4 4
3 3
3 6
3 3
2 2
2 '2
2 2
2 8
Total: 30
• All resubmitted plans to Building Department which include FSE projects shall be
. resubmitted to Water Quality.
• It is frequently to the FSE's advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for
more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between
cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes,
sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal)
• The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer
andstonn drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer
Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements
for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects.
240 Hamilton Ave Page 18
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
June 6,2013
Architectural Review Board
Jason M. Nortz, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT C
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Deparlment: Planning and
Community Environment
240-248 Hamilton Avenue [13PLN-00006): Request by Ken Hayes of
Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Forest Casa Real LLC. for Maj or
Architectural Review Board review for the demolition of an existing 7,000
square foot, two-story commercial building and the construction of a four-
story, 50 foot, mixed-use building with a new floor area of 15,000 square
feet on a site located at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue. Environmental
Assessment: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negstlve Declaration have been
prepared. Zone District: Downtown Community Commercial (CD-
C)(P)(GF) with Pedestrian Shopping and Ground Floor combining districts.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) consider the project and findings
for Architectural Review approval and recommend approval of the proposed. project to the
Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director), based upon the fmdings in
Attachment A and subject to the conctitions of approval in Attachment B.
BACKGROUND
Site Information
The project site is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District and close to the
southern edge of the Commercial Downtown zone district as shown on the attached map
(Attachment C). The site is 50 feet wide by" 1 00 feet deep and is located at the southern corner of
the Hamilton AvenueiRamona Street intersection. Surrounding land uses include office,
restaurants and retail. Directly east of the project site on the eastern side of Rarnona Street is the
eight-story Palo Alto City Hall. Directly adjacent to the project site along the western side of
Ramona Street is a two-story office building. On the southwestern side of Hamilton Avenue near
the subjeCt property is a two-story building housing the restaurant, Reposado. Across the street on
the northern side of Hamilton Avenue is the Cardinal Hotel, a three-story commercial building
with ground floor uses that include ground floor retail, a restaurant and a hotel lobby. The hotel
13PLN-OOOOO-OO006 Page 1 ofB
occupies the remaining two floors. A four-story commercial building with ground floor retail
(University Art) and office uses on the uppers floors is located "kitty corner" to the project site.
The site is zoned Downtown Commercial with a Ground Floor and "Pedestrian" combining
district CD-C (GF)(P). The CD-C (GF)(P) zone district is intended to be a comprehensive zoning
district for the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving
citywide and regional business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and
neighborhood service needs. The Pedestrian combining district is designed to help foster the
continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid monotonous pedestrian environment
in order to establish and maintain economic viability for a healthy retail district. The Ground
Floor combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the CD district and sub districts
to allow only retail, eating and drinking and other service-oriented commercial development uses
on the ground floor.
The mixed use project includes permitted uses: ground floor retail use with two floors of offices
and one floor of residential.
Proj ect Description
The project is the demolition of an existing 7,000 square foot, two-story commercial building and
the construction of a four-story, 50-foot tall, mixed-use building with a floor area of 15,000 square
feet, via "bonus" floor area including the use of Transferrable Development Rights (TDRs). The
ground floor would be retail with office space occupying floors two and three. The fourth floor
would be entirely residential consisting of two residential units. Four on-site parking spaces would
be provided for the two residential units. The parking spaces would be provided in a garage
located one level below grade.
The total floor area in the completed project would be 15,000 sq. ft. This includes 11,527 sq. ft.
for commercial uses on the first, second and third floors and 3,473 sq. ft. within two residential
units on the fourth floor. The total floor area breakdown for the project site is as follows:
Office
First Floor: 400 sf
Second Floor: 4,395 sf
Third Floor: 4,395 sf
Fourth Floor:
Total: 9,190 sf
Building Total: 15,000 sf
Retail
2,337 sf
2,337 sf
Residential
201 sf
134 sf
134 sf
3,004 sf
3,473 sf
The building would have a one story retail base set back from the second and third floors by
approximately seven feet along Hamilton Avenue and three feet along Ramona Street. The ground
floor would provide a rhythm of clear storefront glass, recesses and awnings to reinforce the
pedestrian experience. The second and third floors would function as the "architectural block"
that defines the commercial office portion of the building. The fourth floor, would be
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 2 of 8
predominantly clad in windows and would be smaller and set back from the second and third
floors, to reduce the apparent height and mass of the building.
The applicant has requested a variance to encroach into the required seven foot special setback
along Hamilton Avenue, and to encroach into the required six foot special setback along Ramona
Street. Further discussion on the variance request is provided below.
Additional project details are included in the applicant's proj ect description included as
Attachment G and H.
Sustainable Design
The project would incorporate a variety of sustai~able design and transportation friendly concepts
that would help the development achieve both Cal Green Tier II requirements for the commercial
portion of the project and meet Build it Green, Green Point Rated requirements for the residential
portion of the project. In addition, in an effort to reduce overall energy consumption all spaces
will be designed around maximizing daylight through the use of various transparent elements.
DISCUSSION
Floor Area Ratio/Transferred Development Rights
The project includes a request to utilize floor area bonuses in the form of "Transferable
Development Rights" (TDRs), to be transferred from an off-site historical rehabilitation project.
A total of 5,000 square feet of TDRs would be purchased and transferred to the site, from 230-232
Homer Avenue, where the TDRs were acquired through both a seismic and historic rehabilitation
of the building. The proposal would also utilize a one-time, 200 square foot bonus, as provided in
P AMC Section 18.18.070. The bonus ±loor area is considered "exempt" from having to provide
the parking spaces otherwise associated with an expansion of commercial floor area. The parking
provisions for the project are discussed later in this report section.
Setback Variance
The zoning map shows a seven foot special setback and a six foot special setback along certain
streets in the core of the Downtown, as imposed by the speciaL setback map. A seven foot special
setback is applied along the Hamilton Avenue side of the subj ect property, and a six foot special
setback is applied along the Ramona Street side of the project site. The seven foot special setback
exists on both sides of Hamilton Avenue, extending from Waverley Street to Alma Street. The six
foot special setback only exists at two locations in the core of Downtown; 1) along eastern edge of
Bryant Street between Hamilton and Channing Avenues, and 2) along Ramona Street between
Hamilton and Forest Avenues. Furthermore, there are only two comers in all of Downtown where
both a seven foot and six foot special setback are applied; 1) at the northeastern comer of
Hamilton Avenue and Bryant Street (Washington Mutual building), and 2) at the northwestern
comer of Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street (project site). The applicant has requested a
Variance for: 1) a three foot encroachment into the required six foot special setback along
Ramona Street, and 2) a seven foot encroachment into the required seven foot special setback
along Hamilton Avenue. It should be noted that only nine feet of the 45 foot wide building wall
along Hamilton Avenue would encroach seven feet into the special setback (for the purposes of
accommodating an enclosed stairwell). The remaining 36 feet of building wall would encroach
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 3 of 8
approximately five inches into the special setback. The current sidewalk between the existing
building and Ramona Street is six feet wide, which is consistent with the sidewalk adj acent to
existing buildings on Ramona Street between Forest and Hamilton Avenues. The current sidewalk
width between the existing building and Hamilton Avenue is eight feet, which is consistent with
the width of sidewalk adjacent to existing buildings on Hamilton Avenue between Ramona and
Emerson Streets.
For purposes of determining the setback, the measurement is taken at the property line and not the
face of curb. As it is currently situated, the existing building is on the property line on both the
Ramona Street and Hamilton Avenue sides of the project. If the special setbacks were applied to
the development, the result would be a 15 foot wide sidewalk along Hamilton Avenue and a 12
foot wide sidewalk along Ramona Street, both of which would result in significantly increased
sidewalk widths that would be inconsistent with the sidewalks immediately adjacent to the project
site.
The requested Variance would allow the project to provide a sidewalk width of approximately 11
fe~t along Hamilton Avenue, and 10 feet along Ramona Street, both of which meet or exceed the
sidewalk width requirements in the Downtown. The wider sidewalk and more importantly, the
shift of the building mass, would improve the pedestrian experience and enhance the opportunity
for retail activity along Hamilton Avenue.
Approval and implementation of the Variance request would result in the new building not being
as deeply set back from the adjacent buildings on the same side of the block. This would help
maintain the existing continuity. The applicant has requested the special setback encroachments to
reduce the loss of valuable ground floor retail square footage and to reduce the gap between the
other commercial buildings on Hamilton Avenue and Bryant Street.
Parking/Circulation
As noted, the site is within the Downtown Assessment District. Currently, the project site
provides no on-site parking spaces. There are six off-site parking spaces directly adjacent to the
site. Three of the six spaces are located along Hamilton Avenue. The remaining three spaces are
located along Ramona Street. There will be a net deficiency in the number of off-site parking
spaces directly adjacent to the site, due to the proposed curb cut along Ramona Street for the
purpose'of creating a new driveway for the underground parking lot. The loss of two curbside
parking spaces may incrementally add to parking concerns in the downtown and surrounding
neighborhoods. Those impacts, however, will not cause significant increases in congestionor
deterioration in air quality. The loss of the two off-site parking spaces will be offset by the
applicant's provision of in-lieu payments for two parking spaces. Staff is currently working with
the applicant to further study the possibility of reducing the size of the loading zone in front of the
proj ect site along Ramona Street for the purpose of providing one additional off-site parking
space.
The proposed project is only required to provide three parking spaces for the two residential units
located on the fourth floor. The project is providing four spaces. The remaining three floors of
non-residential floor area, consisting of 11,527 square feet of floor area, is not associated with a
requirement for provision of off-site parking spaces for the following reasons:
13 PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 4 of 8
1. The existing 7,000 square feet of commercial floor area is grandfathered in the Downtown
Assessment District (assessed previously for 20 parking spaces! See Attachment H,
Exhibit 2) and as such is not required to provide parking' spaces on site for the existing
amount of floor area;
2. 4,327 square feet of commercial floor area would be transferred to the site, via a Transfer
of Development Rights (TDR) from a valid sender site to an eligible receiver site. These
are valid, recorded Transferable Development Rights (TDR). The first 5,000 square feet
of floor area transferred to a receiver site is ~xempt from the otherwise applicable on-site
parking requirements for new floor area.
3. The remaining 200 square feet of commercial floor area (7,000 sf + 4,327 sf + 200 sf =
11,527sf) is exempt from parking due to a one time allowable 200 square foot bonus, per
P AMC 18.18.070.
Due to limited space, the four residential parking spaces would be two, tandem "stacking" parking
spaces. The proposed parking configuration would also eliminate the need for shared or attendant
parking between the two units. The stacking system would have a below grade space as well as
two above grade spaces so that there are three locations for two vehicles. This means a single
operator can raise or lower a car out of the way of his or her vehicle thereby eliminating the need
for an attendant or for coordination between roommates. Rather than entering the covered garage
parking spaces facing into the building and then backing onto Ramona Street and crossing the
sidewalk in reverse and with dangerous, unclear vision, drivers would enjoy a vehicle rotating
turntable (Attachment I Sheet A2.1). The turntable would allow any car exiting the project site to
be spun around so that it exits facing onto Ramona Street, therefore providing better visibility of
the Ramona Street sidewalk and pedestrians.
Downtown Floor Area Cap
An annual monitoring report on the Commercial Downtown zoning area is mandated by the
Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 that require reporting of non-residential development
activity and trends within the CD zone district. These reports are also required as a result of final
action on the Downtown Study adopted by the City Council in 1986. The Downtowri Study
incorporated a growth limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area over the total floor area
existing in 1986, and provided for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development
reaches 235,000 square feet.
Since 1986, a total of 223,210 square feet of non-residential floor area has been added in the
Downtown CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2009-2011, approximately
34,650 square feet of net new commercial floor area was added with a few major contributing
projects such as 524 Hamilton Avenue and 265 Lytton Avenue. In this current cycle, 2011-2012,
approximately 49,860 square feet of net new commercial floor area has been added through one
major project, 335-355 Alma St. (aka; 101 Lytton Ave.). Based on this recent monitoring, an .
additional 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development remains for development before
the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached.
The existing building consists of 7,000 square feet of non-residential floor area. The proposed
project would add an additional 4,527 square feet of non-residential floor area, which would
minimally contribute towards the limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area.
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 5 of8
Context Based Design Criteria
The proposed building design appears to be consistent with many of the requirements of the
Context-Based Design Criteria as outlined in Section 18.18.110 of the Zoning Code. In summary,
the project would provide pedestrian walk-ability, a bicycle-friendly environment, connectivity
through design elements, and street facades having a strong relationship with the sidewalks and
the street to support and encourage pedestrian activity. Bicycle storage is to be provided in the
below grade parking garage as well as at grade along both Hamilton A venue and Ramona Street.
The ground floor design is intended to be an attractive streetscape design with a combination of
clear frameless glass, porcelain tile and stainless steel canopies above each entrance along
Ramona and Hamilton. Separate entrances would also be provided for each use along the first
floor including the main lobby area.
The building would minimize massing with increased setbacks at the first floor in addition to
other design elements, such as a recessed entry and canopies that would be located above the
primary entry points. The first floor design employs different materials and colors, including
porcelain tile, clear frameless glass and cedar cladded garage door. Floors two through three are
designed to function as the "architectural block" that distinguishes the commercial office portion
of the building from the rest of the building. This' area would primarily consist of a structural
glazed curtain wall with a combination of clear dual glazed glass and translucent lanlinate glass.
The area would be outlined by a cream colored limestone wall. The residential units on the fourth
floor would be set back from the block face below. The units would be capped with a hip roof
composed of metal and outlined by a composite metal panel. The elevator shaft and stairwells
would be white cement plaster.
The parking design is consistent with the design criteria in that the parking spaces would be
located below grade and is concealed from public view by a recessed garage door.
Downtown Urban Design Guide
The Downtown Urban Design Guide is meant to advise the applicant, staff and the ARB regarding
development and design in the downtown area. The Downtown Urban Design Guide divides the
downtown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design characteristics. The site is
located within the Hamilton A venue District according to the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
The Hamilton Avenue District is a mixed office/commercial/retail district with some residential
uses. The primary goal of the Hamilton Avenue District is to promote Hamilton Avenue as an
active mixed use district with a pleasing, tree .. lined pedestrian experience. The development of
three or more story buildings surrounding Civic Center Plaza are encouraged to help create a
stronger urban edge within this area.
The proposed project is consistent with the recommendations for this district. Staff finds that this
project, with its extensive use of storefront glazing, first floor recesses and canopies, and
pedestrian friendly amenities such as sunshades, street trees and ample sidewalk widths, would
contribute significantly to the goal of creating an exciting pedestrian environment. The guidelines
also encourage additional height for buildings at comers. The proposed building of 50 feet is
consistent with both the Zoning Code and the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
13P LN-OOOOO-00006 Page 6 of 8
Trees/Landscape Plan
The existing project site is a completely built out site that contains no open space or any
significant landscaping. There are six regulated street trees located around the perimeter of the
subject property. Two Flowering Pear trees are located in the public right-of-way along Hamilton
Avenue. The renlaining four trees are located along Ramona Street and include· three Japanese
Pagoda trees and two London Plane trees. The City Arborist has recommended removal of all six
trees. The· existing trees would be replaced with five new street trees. The City Arborist is
currently working with the applicant to determine the appropriate species type and location.
Open space for the development would be provided as a combination of six terraces and ground
floor recessed areas. On the fourth floor, four terraces (two for each residential unit) totaling 1,114
square feet would be provided, where the minimum requirement is 200 square feet of usable open
space for each residential unit. There would also be two identically sized terraces on each of the
second and third floors, totaling 71 square feet each. Additional open space is provided along the
ground floor in the form of recessed areas beyond the 10 feet of sidewalk along both Hamil ton
A venue and Ramona Street. Additional information pertaining to open space requirements can be
found in the zoning comparison table provided as Attachment D.
Signage
Signs are not included in this ARB application. The proposal for signage would· be a separate
architectural review application and depending on the level of detail, would be reviewed by the
ARB or staff on behalf of the ARB. The applicant has been requested to indicate potential
locations on the· building for signage. Currently, blade signs are not allowed unless they are
placed underneath a canopy or a Sign Exception is requested and approved for such signage.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environnlental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
have been prepared and circulated, with a required 20-day public review and comment period
beginning on May 10, 2013 and ending on May 30, 2013. Mitigation measures are proposed to
address biological resources, seismicity and noise. To date, no comments have been received on
the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project would not have an impact on fish or
wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources. The use is appropriate for the
site and the development would not result in an adverse visual impact.
ATTACHMENTS
A. ARBN ariance Findings
B. Conditions of Approval
C. Location Map
D. Zoning Compliance Table
E. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Policies
F. Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
G. Applicant's Project Description
H. Applicant's Submittal Packet (Board Members only)
1. . Plan Set received January 7, 2013 (Board Members only)
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 7 of 8
COURTESY COPIES
Sal Giovanotto, Owner
Ken Hayes, Architect/Applicant
Prepared By: Jason M. Nortz, Senior Planner
Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
13PLN-OOOOO-00006 Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT D
ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE
240-248 Hamilton Avenue / File No. 13PLN-00006
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PROPOSED
FOR CD-C(GF)(P) ZONE DISTRICT DISTRICT PROJECT
STANDARD
Site coverage (building footprint) N one required 5,000 sq.ft
Floor area (gross floor area) 1.0:1 15,000 sq. ft.
3: 1 wi allowed
floor area
bonuses for
mixed use=
15,000 sq.ft.
Building setback
Front (Hamilton Ave.) 7' 0' -6.5'
Special setback requirement special setback
Rear 0' -commercial 0'
10' -residential 10'
Interior Side 0' 0'
Street side (Ramon St.) 6' 3'
Special setback requirement special setback
Building height
50' 50'
Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% or 1,000 sf 35% or 1,789
Usable Open Space 200 sf/unit or 1,114 sf
400 sf
CONFORMANCE
N/A
conforms
Variance requested
for 7 foot to 5 inch
encroachment
conforms
conforms
Variance requested
for3 foot special
setback
encroachment
confonns
confonns
confonns
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ZONE PROPOSED CONFORMANCE
FOR CD-C(GF)(P) ZONE DISTRICT DISTRICT PROJECT
STANDARD
Parking:
Commercial 11250 sf N one required -conforms
a) additional
floor area
from TDR
(5,000 sf)
and seisnlic
bonus are
exempt from
parking
requirements
b) 7,000 sf of *Conforms per
existing PAMC section
floor area 18.52.070(E)(3)
that is not
parked is
grandfather
Residential 1.5 spaces/unit ed in
or 3 spaces
4 spaces
Bicycle 2 long term conforms
3 short term 2 long term
4 short term conforms
* 18.52.070(a) on site parking: Any new development, any addition or enlargement of existing development, or
any use of any floor area that has never been assessed under any Bond Plan G fmancing pursuant to Title 13, shall
provide one parking space for each two hundred fifty gross square feet offloor area, with the following exceptions:
(3) No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the development or replacement
of the amount offloor area used for nonresidential use equal to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site
shown on the engineer's report for fiscal year 1986-87 for the latest Bond Plan G fmancing for parking acquisition or
improvements in that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking assessment
district, entitled Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off-Street Parking Project #75-63 Assessment District,
City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk.
However, square footage which was developed for nonresidential purposes or which has been used for
nonresidential purposes but which is not used for such purposes due to vacancy at the time of the engineer's
report shall be included in the amount of floor area qualifying for this exemption. No exemption parking
requirements shall be available where a residential use changes to a nonresidential use, except pursuant to
subdivision (l)(C) of this subsection.
Spotwood, Alicia
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: Objection to Proposal to develop 240-248 Hamilton
RE -Proposal for 240 Hamilton.pdf
-----Forwarded· Message -----
From: DOUGLAS SM ITH <sm ithwriter1 @sbcglobal.net>
To: "amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org" <amy.french@Cityofpaloalto.org>; "aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org"
<aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1 :08 PM
Subject: Objection to Proposal to develop 240-248 Hamilton
Dear Ms. French,
I attach a letter of objection to the proposal on 240-248 Hamilton that is currently before the Architectural
Review Board (at the July 18 meeting). The review process has been inadequate. I explain in detail how the
design does not comply with the Municipal Code nor the Comprehensive Plan, and must be rejected.
I currently have the support of two other local citizens concerned about the aesthetics issue, who have approved
·and co-signed the letter. There will be muth more support should we have to appeal an ARB approval of this
project.
Please distribute this letter to parties whom you consider need to be aware 6fthis objection. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Douglas Smith
Forest Avenue resident
1
RE: Proposal by Ken Hayes and Forest Casa Real· LLC
to develop the site at 240-248 Hamilton Avenue
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Aaron Aknin, Acting Director of Planning
Palo Alto City Hall
Dear Ms. French, Planning Staff, and ARB members,
Introduction
If the Architectural Review Board should approve this design, the Board would be violating its own
ordinance and the ARB standards of review. The pertinent passages are as follows (my italics):
PAMC Section 18.76.020, Architectural Review
(a) "The purpose of architectural review is to: ... (5) Promote visual environments which are of
high aesthetic quality and variety and which, atthe same time, are considerate of each other."
"d) Findings: Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review
approval, unless it is found that: (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the
site; ... and (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical
character, the design is compatible with such character; ... "
The applicable passages of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan are:
"Program L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces ....
"Program L-49: In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new
development to maintain and support the existing character."
The proposed Ken Hayes design is absolutely incompatible with the most valued, historic buildings in the
immediate environment. The proposed design is neither high quality nor considerate of its surroundings.
It is a modernist glass box which would be entirely out of place at Ramona and Hamilton, surrounded on
three sides by heritage structures. Inexplicably, even the Staff Report on this project fails altogether to
consider the aesthetic aspects and must be considered null concerning the aesthetics issue.
Context
The site lies next door to Reposado Restaurant (a building eligible for the California Register of Historical
Resources). Across Hamilton it faces obliquely the old classically-inspired former Post Office at 205
Hamilton, and directly faces the Cardinal Hotel. Both use pilasters, among other features, as a decorative
motif. The proposed design merely substitutes a few cylindrical posts, a poor, abstract imitation of
columns.
The 240 ... 248 comer also lies directly across Hamilton from the 500 block of Ramona, a designated
district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the opposite direction, along the same block
of Ramona as the proposed structure, lie three more heritage buildings, numbers 668 (Pacific Art League,
building eligible for the National Register), 642 (now Coconuts Restaurant), and 630, a Birge Clark
design). Number 630's design is sufficiently exemplary that it is depicted in the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, between paragraphs L-48 and L-49 which mandate high-quality design and support of historic
character.
In short, the immediate area within one block is saturated with a dozen historic structures that exemplify
harmonious style and are officially recognized as deserving preservation and compatibility. There are
more historic buildings than newer ones around this site.
Staff Report is Incomplete
Therefore it is a great surprise to find no mention in the project's Staff Report on this proposal that any of
these buildings has heritage character, nor is the Ramona Street Historic District cited, nor are the three
above-mentioned heritage buildings in the 600 block of Ramona mentioned at all. On page 6 of the
report, the staff planner points out that the site lies within the Hamilton Avenue District, but excludes any
reference to the adjacent extension of Ramona Street that is one of the two designated National Register
areas in the city.
When I read under staff Findings, Paragraph (1) [The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan], I am amazed that the staffplanner states, "This finding
can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates quality design that recognizes the regional
and historical importance of the area as described in the Comprehensive Plan ... "
In fact the design fails to make any hint of a gesture whatsoever in recognizing ''the regional and
historical importance of the area."
The whole reason for ultra-simplistic modernist designs like this one is that modernism, from the outset
(starting about 1910), was to erase all memory of past design and omit references to traditional
architecture. See the writings of Le Corbusier, Loos, Gropius, and other modernist theorist-architects
who abhorred ornament and promoted use of flat roofs and large expanses of blank wall or glass, among
other elements. Therefore there is no way to improve this design to make it compatible with nearby
classical and Spanish Colonial Revival buildings without making the Hayes design look internally
inconsistent and ridiculous.
As for quality, the review process thus far includes no rationale to support the above finding that this is a
high-quality design. The staff planner's criteria for a quality design are unstated. I deduce that they
constitute subjective opinion. But there do exist objective criteria for a good design.
First: A good design must have life to it. But the proposed building has no oblique lines (except a slight
slant in the roof, invisible from the street), no curvilinear lines, and virtually no color. According to
Rudolf Arnheim's celebrated book The Dynamics of Architectural Form, entirely rectilinear buildings are
usually aesthetically dead, for lack of lifelike motion created by these elements. I agree.
Second: There's scarcely anything to look at in this design except large expanses of glass, a thin, brittle
building material which has a sterile character and no innate aesthetic appeal for the viewer.
Third, a large building requires several levels of formal subdivision or hierarchy in order to create
aesthetic complexity and retain viewer interest. But the proposed simple design appears to consist of
approximately 80 percent glass walls in large expanses. The structure will have nearly no hierarchy and
very little visual variety to it, which are a~so severe flaws in the unloved City Hall building across the
street. They are both far too formally simple for their size and thus monotonous, hence the public's
indifference to or dislike of this kind of design.
As for "considerate of its immediate environment" mandated by the Comprehensive Plan and the
Municipal Code, the design is emphatically not aesthetically considerate because most of the buildings
within one block are heritage buildings, while this design is in a completely antithetical style.
In Findings Paragraph (2), the staff planner states that the design is compatible with the immediate
environment of the site, but cites as proof only the size and commercial nature of the design. The staff
planner omits any mention of the area's aesthetic, heritage character .
. For a definition of compatibility, see the city's South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, which states:
"Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with that
existing in the neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes
design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained."
(My emphasis.) But the general design characteristics of this proposed new building are totally different
from all of the surrounding buildings, excluding only the mediocre ones (285 and 300 Hamilton), and
there are no design linkages whatsoever with the many classical and Spanish Colonial Revival structures
nearby. Therefore the Hayes glass-curtain design is incompatible with the buildings surrounding the 240-
248 Hamilton location and does not comply with Municipal Code regulations.
As for Findings Paragraph (4), the PAMC, Ch. 18.76 requires that, "In areas considered by the board as
having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character."
Yet the staff planner inexplicably sidesteps mention of historical or unified design of the neighboring
buildings by citing only technical aspects of mass and height, enhanced vehicular and pedestrian entries,
and a bland description of Hamilton Avenue. He refers to the Downtown Urban Design Guide for
guidelines. But the Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan are the ultimate arbiting documents, and the
design does not conform to their aesthetic requirements for Architectural Review.
June 6 ARB Meeting
At the public ARB meeting on June 6, I addressed the Board and articulated many of the concepts .
explained in this letter.
ARB member Lippert responded that, "the design ... is really wonderful." On the other hand, he admitted
that it does not fit in with the neighborhood. Here is his relevant statement, addressing Mr. Hayes:
"With regard to Mr. Smith's comments with regard to the austerity of the building, I appreciate that it
doesn'~ fit in with the other historic buildings in the neighborhood. If this was in fact in the Ramona
District, I think it would be far more problematic. But in fact if you were to follow the Secretary of
Interior standards, the underlying rule there is "Thou shalt not create false history." And so because of the
nature of the architectural approach that you've taken here, it actually contrasts the other historic
structures. And doesn't impose itself upon them from a false [perspective], 'Thou shalt not create false
history. 'You're not creating a false historical structure by going with either a Mission or Spanish Revival
style building. So I thinkJrom the Secretary of Interior standards point of view, you've done exactly what
it says -'Thou Shalt Not Create False History;' You've created here something that is separate and
distinct, and will never ever be confused with a Birge Clark building. It's a Ken Hayes building."
If it doesn't fit into the neighborhood, then the Municipal Code expressly forbids approval.
One cannot consider the site solely as part of the Hamilton A venue District, when the proposed building
is twice as long on its Ramona Street side, on a block with three historic buildings, and when the Ramona
Street National Register District is only 50 feet away. That historic district is easily within the "immediate
environment" and within the "surrounding development" mentioned in the Municipal Code and
Comprehensive Plan.
On the quality issue, ARB member Alizadeh* stated that she agreed ("partially") with my conclusion that
the building had no character, saying it had "a lack of general interest ... overall." Thus at least one ARB
member concedes that the design does not have the high quality mandated by the Code and the Plan. She
defended'her defense of the design by referring to her training in architecture school where she was taught
not "to create false history," presumably meaning creating a new building in a more traditional style.
(*The full paragraph of Ms. Alizadeh's statement appears at the end of this letter.)
But the ARB members are not beholden to their architecture professors. They are bound by law to
administer the letter and spirit of the PAMC and the Comprehensive Plan, which state clearly that a site
like this one shall be of high quality and compatible with its historic surroundings. The Municipal Code
and Comprehensive Plan do not mention or require "contrast," "separate and distinct," nor do they
,mandate that historic buildings to stand out because the new building is starkly different as a "corporate
effect" (the term used by Ms. Alizadeh). Therefore, I am surprised by Mr. Lippert's apparent inclination
to approve the proposal, while admitting that the design "doesn't fit in with the other historic buildings in
the neighborhood." I interpret Board approval of this proposal as a violation of the ARB's own Code
statutes, which are binding on the Board's review process.
Board member Lew expressed some limited support for my objections regarding the Ramona Street I
heritage buildings. He stated to Mr. Hayes, "For the people who don't like abstract [design], I would hope
that they would see something else in your building." He suggested adding limited amounts of filigree,
planters and awnings. Yet these little additions would not alter the fundamental character of vast expanses
of sterile glass wall incompatibly contrasting with the nearby heritage bUildings.
Finally, ARB member Pritchard stated, "it is a really handsome building," offering no justification or
adequate findings for her opinion, and expressed no reservations regarding the context. The fifthARB
member had recused himself from review of this project.
Regardingso-called "false history," the Board misunderstands the phrase. False history means building
indistinguishably from an old structure in a manner that could deceive a viewer. There is abundant local
precedent for creating attractiVe buildings in a style that is clearly new but similar enough to blend
harmoniously with Palo Alto's heritage architecture. Some such relatively recent commercial buildings
within four blocks of 240 Hamilton are:
499 Hamilton Avenue
505 Hamilton Avenue
520 Cowper Street, the Garden Court Hotel
101 University A venue
499 University A venue, currently the Sprint building
245 Lytton Avenue, a financial center housing Morgan Stanl,ey and Cornish -& Carey
265 Lytton Avenue
250 University, the Plaza Ramona complex
Conclusion
I cannot conceive how both the Planning Department staff and the Architectural Review Board members
can ignore the very clear aesthetic requirements of the city's Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code
with respect to this proposal. The design does not conform to the ordinance citations presented at the
beginning of this letter.
Tl1e. proposal needs to be carefully redesigned for historical compatibility with the immediate
environment of the site. If the Board approves the proposal as is or only lightly modified, there will
necessarily be an appeal by those of us who are concerned that the City's approved ordinances and
policies be honored.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas Sniith, Forest A venue
Co-signers:
Neilson Buchanan, Bryant Street
Michael Hodos, Bryant Street
*Ms. Alizadeh addressing Mr. Smith: "I think in general, the way that we're taught in architecture school
is that you don't want to create false history, like Board member Lippert said. And this also allows those
authentic old buildings to stand out, and to really be seen. And so not everything just gets kind of the
wash of an age. So this is the approach that we're taught, and I respect that. In terms of your comment
that it's characterless, I agree with you partially, that there is a bit of a lack of general interest, I think,
overall. I guess I would call it the corporate effect, as opposed to character. But I still think that this is the
approach that we as architects· are trained to take."
PALO ALTO. DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS
AN OPEN SOURCE PLANNING TOOL
July 8, 2013 discussion draft
by
Downtown North and University South Residents
Contact: N. Buchanan cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan states" The Plan establishes the physical boundaries of residential and
commercial areas and sets limits where necessary to ensure that business and housing remain compatible. It
encourages commercial enterprise, but not at the expense of the City's residential neighborhoods. "
On March 18, 2013, the City Council accepted a staff report which documented massive parked vehicle
intrusion lintc;> residential neighborhoods. The Council acknowledged the need to improve the quality of
neighborhoods with six "near term" 1-6 month improvements. See Appendix A. The report also documented
two issues of great importance to residents who have been appealing for relief for over 5 years .
./ The City Council officially acknowledged on March 18 the current downtown parking deficit of 901
spaces. This deficit had accumulated since the mid;..1980s and clearly understated the accumulated
deficit.
. ./ The Council also acknowledged that the parking deficit would increase by an additional 665 spaces to a
total deficit of 1566 spaces. A timeline for this increase was unfortunately' omitted from the report;
nevertheless, the Council quickly authorized city staff to work on 6 "near-term fixes." Furthermore, city's
methodology omitted important demand factors such as increased density of office workers and growing
success of downtown restaurant ~nd retail businesses .
. The intent of this planning tool is to improve the static data presented to City Council on March 18. A team of
neighborhood activists compiled data and projected the current deficit to a minimum of __ by January
2017. Data and next steps are presented in six sections and will be updated at tl1e end of each month.
Everyone in Palo Alto is invited to use this tool.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
1
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Section 1 is a comprehensive study of 28 factors driving commercial area parking intrusion into 2
residential neighborhoods adjacentto University Avenue.
Section 2 describes 7 actions which could reduce intrusion onto residential streets. 3-5
Section 3 describes parked vehicle intrusion into neighborhoods near California Avenue. 5-7
Section 4 identifies popular concepts needing further clarification. 11-12
Section 5 outlines neXt proposals to improve the quality of neighborhoods. 13-23
Section 6 will highlight success stories and efforts to improve process. 23-23
Appendix A Abstracts from March 18 City Council Report (Cumulative and Future
Parking Deficits in University Avenue Area) 23-23
Appendix.B Supply/Demand Worksheets for University Avenue area 2013-2016 23-23
Appendix C Summary of Downtown Property Use and Square Footage 23-23
Appendix 0 Methodology Used in this Report 23-30
City staff has been asked to comment on this draft as it is refined each month. By early fall 2013
the Planning Department will dedicate one staff member to focus solely on parking issues
throughout Palo Alto. The Planning Department may modify Phase 1 of their. Downtown
Development Capacity Study to address some or all of the demand and supply factors in this
report. By January 2014 the Planning Department, City Council and residents should be able to
collaborate and reconcile this forecast for parking space supply and demand for commercial and 3
residential neighborhoods adjacent to University Avenue. Discussions are underway to include
neighborhoods around California Avenue.
All other neighborhoods in Palo Alto are invited to use this planning
tool to protect the quality of their neighborhoods.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
2~
3
Executive Summary
1. Major intrusion of all day parked vehicles is anticipated through 2017.
Neighborhoods adjacent to University and California Avenues are profoundly impacted by commercial
development. The City Council acknowledged a parking space deficit of 901 on March 18 and
forecast an additional deficit of 665 in the near future. Residents in neighborhoods adjacent to
. Univerisity Avenue predict the deficit to grow to by Janaury 1, 2017. This forecasts assumes 2
new city parking garages despite major difficulties in building and financing efficient garages in the
next 3 years. See Section One and Appendix B.
2. Multiple neighborhoods will be further impacted.
At least 4 Palo Alto neighborhoods are being harmed from profound spillover of commercial vehicles
unable to park in the commercial parking areas. 'It is a clear finding of fact that commercial enterprise
is being promoted by outdated 1980 City policy and planning practices to the detriment of at 4+
residential neighborhoods for the next 3+ years. In an effort to improve the quality of all Palo Alto
neighborhoods, this open source planning model is presented to the cOrTlmunity for further
refinement. The declining quality of the following neighborhoods warrants improved .stewardship from
the City Council:
-/ Everg reen
-/ Crescent Park
-/ Downtown North
-/ University' South
-/ Pending Neighborhoods such as Barron Park
3. The following factors promote parking intrusion into neighborhoods:
-/ Failure to enforce clearly stated provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan
./ Misuse and Abuse of Planned Community Concepts by City Staff, Council and Developers -
./ Over-use and Under-management of Public Benefits
./ Overuse of Outdated Transfer Development Rights
./ Chronic Declarations of Negative Impact by Planning Department Director and City Council
./ Uninformed and Unaware Citizens within the Affected Neighborhoods
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
3. Improved stewardship is needed from Commissions, City Council and Staff
Development expertise can be rebalanced with neighborhood expertise at the Architectural Review
Board, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. Appointment individuals with
broader skill sets t is needed in 2013 and·201-4 for the ARB and·PTC. The City Council must focus
4
on the policies which are clearly lowering the quality of neighborhoods and must enforce development
moratoria when warranted. Negative impacts include the following issues:
V" Intrusion of parked vehicles from commercial areas into residential neighborhoods
V" Traffic spillover onto purely neighborhood streets such as Channing, Maybell, Bryant, Everett
and Hawthorne .
V" Pedestrian and bicycle safety at key intersections such as Bryant and Everett.
V" The City Council and Staff must complete a professional analysis
of parking intrusion into downtown neighborhoods not later than
January 1, 2014. Without a common understanding of the all-day
parked vehicle tidal wave impacting residential neighborhoods, it
is impossible to address the sy~temic planning failures driving
commercial.parking demand onto residential streets .
../' A moratorium on 'further devel·opment should be imposed
immediately to stop·the massive intrusion of parked vehicles into
the three neighborhoods.
4. Over-reliance of quick fixes
All of the six near-term downtown parking improvements approved by the City Council on March 18
are not actively pursued by City Staff due to resource limitations. Furthermore, even if fully
implemented, they have minor impact of the tidal· wave of parked vehicles flowing monthly into each
neighborhood. Reliance on the long-term downtown development study
(inadequately funded for completion circa 2016) is a totally inadequate·
response to need for parking space supply and demand imbalance.
5. High Cost of Free Parking
The increase of all day commercial parking into neighborhoods cannot be resolved without the
Council's full embrace of free parking policies in downtown Palo Alto.
6. Neighborhood Leaders and Residents
Downtown and other neighborhood leaders have both a responsibility
and an opportunity to respond to parking and other development
issues with fact-based persuasion and responsible forcing actions.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Section One
28 Factors Creating Dema"nd for Parking Spaces,
2013 Q3 278 "Universi
Impact on Residential Streets
200/0 Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Office/Retail1 "8,206sf
Estimated impact on
73 VEHICLES*
-14
+59
20 vehicles
30
9
Approval Status: Final Construction Stage
*Source of vehicle impact: Www;cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not ~ity sources.
5
6
Occupancy Date: July 2013 (Partial Occupancy)
For further information contact:
1. Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x~ssss, Aaron.aknin@citybfpaloalto.org
2. Developer:
2013 Q3 801-841 Alma Housing 2013
Project impact is difficult to forecast. Impact, if any, will be primarily upon Downtown South
neighborhoods. Impact should be studied by Planning Department 100 days after opening-. It is not .
clear if the Pla,nningDepartment has the . to follow u on arki im from this project.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation -
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
. For further information contact
Estimated impact on
? VEHICLES?**
1
?
? vehicles
?
?
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin,32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer:
2013 Q4 101 lytton Office/Retail 49,863sf
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
t
.f l'f t.
-~, --_.J
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status: Under construction
Occupancy Date: Late 2013
For further information contact
II .. J.,
~._.", ___ .. ' rr. ., . ~.
, ,'\;
I .. ~ ..
'~c:)'~., :
~ ... --..I~-----
I • __ ..... -., "-' .....
·!C.L 11 .. -1:_ •
(:,;,::,--.,... ~."
.1 ..........
j h~· ... . _.. . -" [)
+22 VEHICLES?*
-4
+18
9 vehicles
7
2
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer Boyd Smith .
2014 Q1 668 Ramona Office/Retail 12,546sf
7
Impact on Residential Streets
of Public Transportation
+50 VEHICLES!* 200/0 Use
-10
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further informa,tion contact
Estimated impact on
+40
15 vehicles
15
10
1. Acting Planning Director Aaron·Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@citvofpaloalto.org
2. Developer
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
".
2014 Q1850Webster Channing House 32,185sf
The expansion includes 27 skilled nursin"g.beds, 27 assisted living units, common areas and offices.
At least 50 daytime employees are estimated to provide basic and clinical services.
Impact on Residential Streets
20%Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status: Under Construction
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
+50 VEHICLES**
-10
+40
15vehicles
15
10
1. Acting Plannirig Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
2. Channing House Facilities Director Bruce Collins 327-0950
2014 Q1 180 Hamilton Avenue Epiphany Hotel(old Casa Olga
Nursing Home) 86 room hotel + restaurant
8
Developer is supposed to present plan to City Planning Department for valet parking. No plan has
been made public as of June 2013. Downtown residents have contacted the JDC and asked for their "
plans to provide parking for hotel guests and staff.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park.
Estimated impact on
Approval Status: Under Construction, Completion Date 2014 01
Occupancy Date: Pending Parking Plan Approval??
For further information contact
+91 VEHICLES*
-18
+73
20 vehicles
50
3
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
JDV Hotel Manager, Lorenz Maurer Imaurer@jdvhotels.com
2014 Q2 Construction of Parking Lot P Garage
A 12 month construction period pushes.60+ vehicles onto residential streets for 12+ months. The
initial proposal by Developer Chop Keenan has been referred to city staff for further analysis in order
to clarify issues such as actual calculation of public benefit, responsibility for private/public project
property taxes, design elements and costs.
Impact on Residential Streets,
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Estimated impact on
Approval Status: Referred back to Staff by City Council
+60 VEHICLES*
-12
+48
20 vehicles
20
5
Occupancy Date: Unknown, 12-month fast track construction period proposed by Mr. Keenan
For further information .contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloaltQ.org
Developer Chop Keenan
2014 Q1 564 University Office/Retail 7,917sf
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
9
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
•. Downtown South
• . Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
+32 VEHICLES!*
-6
+26 Estimated impact on
6 vehicles
10
10
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: ?
2014 Q1
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
+25 VEHICLES?**
-5
+20
8 vehicles
8
4
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@citvofpaloalto.org
Developer: ? .
2014 Q2 456 University: Offices 2016 24,961sf
A 25,000 sf building requires parking for 100 vehicles. As presented by the City Planning
Department, this building provides no new parking spaces on-site.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
10
Impact on Residential Streets
200/0 Use of Public Transportation
NETIMPACT·
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact:
Estimated impact on
+100 VEHICLES!*
-20
+80
30 vehicles
35
15
1.Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
2. Develqper
2014 Q2 456 Universi Retail Fall 14,140sf
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park.
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
City Website Link:
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
+57 VEHICLES!*
:11
+46
15 vehicles
25
6
1. Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
2. Developer
2015 Q4 Housing/Retail 636 Waverley 5,270sf
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
11
12
The developeor of this project is reconsidering building design and may provide all required parking on
site instead of paying in lieu fees. Also the developer has shown willingness to work with his tenants
and residents to implement various traffic demand management concepts which could improve
downtown parking and traffic conditions.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occu pancy Date:
For further information contact
? V~HICLES!*
? vehicles
?
...1
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: David Kleiman, 327-2750, dkleiman@d2realty.com
2015 Q2? 500 University qffice/Retaii 21,0005f °
This development has expanded since March 18 from 10,709 SF to 21,000+sf. It will have 24 on-site
parking spaces but 83 additional parking spaces are needed. Proj~ctions assume 21 office workers
will use public transportation and reduce arkin im actto 62 vehicles.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
Net Impact
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
+83VEHICLES*
-17
+66
20 vehicles
30
16
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: Thoif Brothers? . .
*Sou rce of veh icle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebank/documents/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
2015 Q2 240-248 Hamilton Office/Retail 11 ,5275f
Impact on Residential Streets
250/0 Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Qowntown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
46 VEHICLES!*
:J!
+37
10 vehicles
25
2
1. Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
2. Developer
3. Website Link:
2015 Q2 261 Hamiltc;>n Office/Retail 10,0005f
.
. -
" ~ " l
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transpor,tation
NET IMPACT
Downtown North
Downtown South
Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
• , ; r '~~ ' .. ",. "' -~
y
~"
1 ·-0 .. ,.
~--1.···
Estimated impact on
33 VEHICLES!*
-7
+26
10 vehicles
10
6
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: ?
2015 Q2 135 'Hamilton Office/Retail 19,960sf
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources .
13
14
Currently this property is a 23~car parking lot in active use byPalatir, one of the largest employers in
downtown Palo Alto. Developer Chop Keenan has 'proposed elimination of the private parking lot with
a building with __ on-site parki.ng places. This building according to the March 18 City Manager's
report to City Council requires an addition 61 parking spaces. Discussions are underway between
the City Staff and Developer to resolve parking space issues. Mr. Keenan later presented a proposal
to provide. parking spaces in a private/public venture on city land; however, the City Council sent the
proposal back to staff for further study on. See Attachment Band the Keenan/Parking Lot P Parking
Garage on page
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
+61 VEHICLES*
-12
+49
10 vehicles
35
4
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer Chop Keenan, 326-2920,326-2244, chopkeenan@yahoo.com
2015 Q3 . Menlo Park Stanford/Arriliaga Office Towers
This massive complex is in its final stages of approval by Menlo Park City Council. Citizen leaders in
Menlo Park provide the following information: .
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates. by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
./' 4 building complex on EI Camino, stretching 3 blocks from the Tesla dealership to Middle Ave .
./' 5 stories tall
./' 440,000+ sq feet -the size of 6 Menlo Park Safeways!
./' Office and parking structure dominate the site with smaller portion of housing and retail
15
There are no parking restrictions in Palo Alto to prevent customers and office workers from parking,
for example, on Palo Alto Avenue, Emerson or Alma. On the other hand, Menlo Park has very
effective parking restrictions on its residential streets. See www.savemenlo.org for more information.
This is an extremely low estimate if parking restrictions are not implemented in DTN. Impact on DTN .
streets could be profound during the 2013-15 construction period. This major project avoided
California Environmental Quality" Act requirements.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status: Pending City Council?
Occupancy Date: Unknown
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
10 VEHICLES?**
10 vehicles
o
o
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss,Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Menlo Park Mayor PeterOhtaki city.council@menlopark.org 339-6630
Developer: John Arrillaga
Stanford University: ?
Menlo Park Citizens www.savemenlo.org
TRAFFIC IMPACT WILL BE MUCH MORE SEVERE THAN PARKING INTRUSION. NO PALO
ALTO TRAFFIC STUDIES ARE BEING DONE TO ANTICIPATE MENLO PARK SPILLOVER
TRAFFIC ON KEY RESIDENTIAL STREETS SUCH AS HAWTHORNE/EVERETT/PALOALTO
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
AVENUES AND BRYANT STREET. L YTION, UNIVERSITY AND HAMILTON AVENUES ARE
ALREADY SATURATED AT PEAK COMMUTE PERIODS AND REQUIRE IMMEDIATE ANALYSIS
FOR THEIR CAPACITY TO ACCEPT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WITHOUT DETRIMENT TO
DOWNTOWN NORTH STREET SAFETY.
2015 Q3
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown -South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For further information contact
+60 VEHICLES!*
-12
+48
16 vehicles
16
16
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer
2015 Q3 380 Hamilton Historic Post Office
16
Palo Alto proposes to buy this historical building and convert to city staff offices. The USPS will
probably lease a small portion. Limited parking is on this property. If converted to City or private
offices, an unknown number of employees will seek parking on residential streets or permit parking in
city parking lots.
.Impact on Residential Streets
200/0 Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
+20 VEHICLES?**
-4
+16
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date:
For fu rther information contact
Estimated impact on
7 vehicles
7
2
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: ?
2015 Q4 537 Hamilton Office/Retail 9,9795f
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent park
Approval Status:
Occupancy Date.:
For fu rther information contact
+20 VEHICLES*
-4
+16 ·
5
7
4
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: ?
2016 Q2 300 Homer History Museum/Roth Building
17
There is a reasonable possibility that this building will be converted to a civic museum with no on-site
parking. It is possible current street parking adjacent to the Museum would be changed from all day
parking to 2-hour parking. 10-20+ cars will eventually park on residential streets all day. To
accommodate museum visitors 2-hr restricted parking is likely to be implemented, thus displacing all-.
day parked vehicles further into residential neighborhoods.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
+15 VEHICLE:S?**
-3
+12
2 vehicles
10 .
o
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: ?
20164Q 27 University Stanford/Arriliaga Office
TowerslTheater
18
As currently proposed this project should have adequate parking for day time workers, assuming
there is sufficient CalTrain capacity. See page? which raises questions for CalTrain to accommodate
expanded passenger service at rush hours. However, it is reasonable to assume that 800 workers in
the office towers will generate 25 visitors for lunch each day who park in downtown. If the proposed
Performing Arts Center is kept in the proposal, then Downtown North and South will have additional
night time parking from patrons who have an aversion to underground parking. Also-there will be
unknown impact from pre-theater patrons who dine downtown and walk to the theater. Some' patrons
may park.in the CalTrain parking lots, but parking is not free in those station parking lots. The
following streets wit! experience nighttime parking from non-residents:
• High
• Ramona
• Emerson
• Everett
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Estimated impact on
+25 VEHICLES?**
-5
+20
10
10
o
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Inlpact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
TRAFFIC IMPACT WILL BE MUCH MORE SEVERE THAN PARKING INTRUSION. NO TRAFFIC
STUDIES ARE BEING DONE TO ANTICIPATE SPILLOVER TRAFFIC ON KEY RESIDENTIAL
STREETS SUCH AS HAWTHORNE/EVERETT/PALO ALTO AVENUES AND BRYANT STREET.
LYTTON, UNIVERSITY AND HAMILTON ·AVENUES ARE ALREADY SATURATED AT PEAK
COMMUTE PERIODS AND REQUIRE IMMEDIATE ANALYSIS FOR THEIR CAPACITY TO
ACCEPT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WITHOUT DETRIMENT TO SAFETY AND COMMERCIAL
INTERESTS.
Approval Statys:
. Occupancy Date: .
For fu rther information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Developer: John Arrillaga
Stanford University: ?
2013·2017 Incremental OutboundCalTrain Passengers
This forecast of only 25 incremental outbound passenger per year is extremely low.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Status: Research needed to validate assumptions
For further information contact
+25 PASSENGERS**
-5
+20
8 vehicles
8
4
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Volunteers are needed to research 2015-2017 passenger capacity information from Joint Powers
Authority
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
19
20
#26 New Development Cap 2016 Q4
It is highly probable the City Council will establish a new development cap in 2014. For every
1 OO,OOOsf of new development, there will be an impact of at least 320 additional parking vehicles in
2015 and 20'16. Currently here is no plausible plan to provide parking garages or sufficient on-site
parking for expansion of the development cap. Would the City Council actually increase the
Development Cap without first providing parking capacity? Would a 1 OOO-car garage be built north of
Highway 101? Would paid parking be implemented to reduce demand parked vehicles? Please note
that. this forecast assumes that Downtown North is fully saturated with all-day parked vehicles by mid-
2014. , See Attachment B. Will the City Council and City Manager exert greater stewardship for Palo
Alto and insist on comprehensive parking and traffic analysis before any expansion beyond'the
currentdevelopment cap? See Executive Summary.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
, • Crescent Park
Estimated impact on
+400 VEHICLES**
-80
+320
o vehicles
200
120
Status: RFP Issued for Phase 1. Phase 1 to be completed in early 2013
Completion Date:
For further information contact
Acting' Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
'2013·2017 Accelerating Worker Density in Existing Buildings
High cost and shortage of office space in Palo Alto is an accepted fact. It is reasonable to assume
that downtown tenants will increase the density of workers in existing office bui1dings. This report
assumes 150 additional people will be working within existing downtown office spaces during 2013.-
2016. This is a extremely modest projection considering that there is 3.5 million square feet of office
and retail space downtown. See Attachment C for detail. Palo Alto planning processes are severely
limited by the lack of information about the number, commute patterns and trends for workers
throughout the city. Many cities of Palo Alto's size and importancecol/ect and analyze this data
routinely.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebank/documents/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Status: Ongoing
For further information contact
Estimated impact on
+150 VEHICLES!**
-30
+120?
40 vehicles?
50
30
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
JDV Hotels,
2013·2017 Additional Retail/Restaurant Employees Per Year
21
Forecast assumes only 5.0 additional people will be working mid-day in existing downtown r~staurants
and retail establishments each r for the foreseeable future. This is extremely low estimate.
Irnpact on Residential Streets
200/0 U'se of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Estimated impact on
Status: Collaboration with Downtown Merchants is needed.
For further information contact
+50 VEHICLES?**
-10
+40
15 vehicles
15
10
Economic Development Director Thomas Fehrenbach, 32x-ssss, @cityofpaloalto.org
Rujss Cohen, Executive Director, Downtown Merchants Association
2013-2017 Additional Retail/Restaurant Customers Per Year
This is an extremely low estimate and assumes that retail and restaurant growth 'in existing
businesses increases less than 2 incremental customers per month during the boom cycle. These
are customers who do not work downtown but drive to downto~n mid-day.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Impact on Residential Streets
200/0 Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• . Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Status: Collaboration with Downtown Merchants is needed.
For further information contact
+25 VEHICLES?**
-5
+20
8 vehicles
8
4
Economic Development Director Thomas Fehrenbach, 32x-ssss, @cityofpaloalto.org
Rujss Cohen, Executive Director, Downtown Merchants Association
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce,
2013·2017 Vacant Retail Space
22
In June 2013 there were 4 known vacant retail properties near University Avenue. The following
properties could be leased in the relatively near future. A commercial area seldom is 100010 leased so
it is reasonable to assume that when these properties are reopened for retail use, there will be other
retail properties vacant and awaiting tenants. Therefore, there may be no net intrusion since
occupancy rates for retail space is near maxirnum capacity.
,355 University
429 University
435 University
440 University
1750sf?
750sf?
, 750sf?
750sf?
However, if these properties representing approximately 4000 sf were to ,be fully leased, then it is
reasonable to assume 16 more vehicles would be parked somewhere in the commercial or residential
areas. Each September, the City Planning Department surveys occupancy of retail spaces, the data
below suggests that vacancies have steadily fallen, thus legitimizing the theorythatparkihg demand
has increased with impact into residential neighborhoods. This is compounded by the tendency of
. lower paid retail and restaurant employees to decline the opportunity to pay for parking permits.
Retail and restaurant businesses in Palo Alto historically have shown little willingness to pay for
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
23
parking perrriits for their errlployees. Ideally the incentives to be offered by the City to its employees
will engage downtown businesses to aggressively reduce parking demand from their employees.
Retail Space Vacancy by Year
2009
2010
. 2011
2012
2013
9.0%
6.9%
4.8%
2.8%
available May 2014
Status: Collaboration with Downtown Merchants is needed.
For fu rther information contact
Economic Development Director Thomas Fehrenbach, 32x-ssss, @cityofpaloalto.org
Rujss Cohen, Executive Director, Downtown Merchants Association
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce,
Impact on Residential Streets
200/0 Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
Est~,mated impact on
Status: Collaboration with Downtown Merchants is needed.
For further information contact
+16 VEHICLES**
~
+13
o vehicles
o
o
Economic Development Director Thomas Fehrenbach, 32x-ssss, @citvofpaloalto.org
Rujss Cohen, ~xecutive Director, Downtown Merchants Association
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce,
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates.by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
SECTION 2
WAYS TO REDUCE PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS
2014 Q1 Novel Use of Expanded Go Passes
24
Stanford University has offered extraordinary incentives to employees to use alternate modes of
commuting to work. There is good potential for downtown businesses and employers to find way to
emulate the best practices by Stanford and other large employers. For every 100 downtown workers
who would avail themselves of these incentives, there could be relief for neighborhoods saturated
with worker parking.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
-Downtown South
-Crescent Park
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Status: Unknown
For further information contact
45 vehicles
45
jQ
-100 spaces**
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@citvofpaloalto.org
GPA
2013 Q3 Attendant Parking Services in Parking Garages
Attendant parking in all four downtown garages is an interesting, but untested solution for Palo Alto.
25
If 100% successful in four garages, there would be increased parking capac~ty of 200 spaces. A one-
year trial program may be implemented early fall 2013 and could create new capacity of 42 additional
parking spaces in the downtown commercial area. This assumes projects such as Epiphany Hotel,
500 University and other pipeline projects will utilize most if not all of this theoretical capacity. Cost
for the trial experiment is funded from fees collected from a few developers. If successful, the
responsibility for ongoing costs of valet parking needs clarification. There is also shaky assumption
that downtown workers will prefer paid parking permits instead of free parking on residential
streets even if downtown employers assume permit costs for their employees.
Estimated impact on
.• Downtown North
-Downtown South
-Crescent Park
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Status: Unknown
For further information contact
15 vehicles
25
-42 spaces**
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
GPA
Downtown Parking Assessment District:
2013Q3 Increased Issue of Downtown Parking Permits
Palo Alto has artificially restricted issuance of parking permits. The top floors of the Bryant and
Cowper garages have chronic unused capacity of at least 55 and 35 parking spaces respectively. If
the Planning Department aggressively issues additional parking permits for 80 unused spaces, then
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knoWledgea~le residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
26
there might be some reduction in parked vehicles on residential streets. City planning staff needs to
establish how better use of parking permits would actually impact residential streets. The City
Council has been silent on its position relative to "the high cost of free parking".
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Status: Unknown
For further information contact
20 vehicles
20
~
-40 spaces**
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
GPA
Downtown Parking Assessment District:
2015·2017 Two New Parking Garage(s)
A feasibility study identified 6 other sites for future parking garages but there is no realistic plan for
city funding at this time, except implementation of market cost paid parking. See page for City web
link to parking garage study. If the sites should be feasible, the most optimistic impact for these six
projects would be 1000-1350 downtown parking spaces over a 5-7 year period. During the next 7-10
years, the demand for new office and retail space will probably require much more than 1000-1350
new spaces, especially considering the deficit in parking spaces in 2013. Even if funding were
immediately available for 6 new garages, construction would have to be spread over a 10-15 year
period to minimize impact upon downtown businesses. See Summary on page xx. Nevertheless,
this planning model calls for two new garages to be finished by mid-2016 and a construction of a third
garage to start jn 2016 with completion date in 2017.
Lot 1 (Keenan-Lot P) Proposal
Chop Keenan has proposed to buy or acquire partial development rights to city surface parking lot P
. and build a new garage as a publ.ic/private partnership. The current capacity of surface lot P is 51
spaces. The capacity of this garage (City estimates) is 140 spaces, or 182 with daytime valet
services. The developer would have sole use of 63 spaces (93 spaces with valet parking). The city
would get the benefit of increased public parking from 51 to 77 spaces. The net gain of 26 spaces is
a relatively minor increase given the demand for parking over the next 5-10 years.
Estimated impact of the Keenan Parking Lot (aka Lot P) on
• Downtown North
• . Downtown South
10 vehicles
10
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
• Crescent Park ---.2
KEENAN IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS -26 spaces*
Note: During construction of this garage therewQuld be a loss of at least 60-70 parking spaces.
There is no proof that additional parking garage space would reduce parked vehicles on residential
streets~ Given height restrictions and costs of underground parking, the recent study of parking
garages shows thatthe conversion of surface parking spaces to garage parking spaces is relatively
inefficient. The conversion rate is roughly 3 new garage spaces for the loss of 1 surface lot space.
Valet parking would allow conversion rates of roughly 4 new space for loss of 1 surface lot space.
City Council has raised questions about ownership, tax structure and public benefits cited by Mr.
Keenan.
Lot 1 (Keenan-P) Status: Pending staff review before further Council, ARB and PTC action
Completion date: uncertain, depends on whether city or developer assumes responsibility for
construction
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
GPA
Downtown Parking Assessment District
Developer Chop Keenan
Downtown Business Association, Russ Cohen Director ; Anne Senti-Willis, Board Chair 330-4715
asenti-willis@thoits.com
Parking Lot #2 Combined Gilman Street Garages
27
These two surface parking lots current provide 140 parking spaces and a 268-space parking lot could
be feasible. This new lot could be expanded by 88 additional spaces with valet parking.
Estimated impact of the 2017 new lot on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
NEW LOT 2 IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
xx vehicles
xx
~
-xx spaces**
Note: During 12-24 month construction for this garage there would be a loss of at least 160 parking
spaces. There is no proof that additional parking garage space would reduce parked vehicles on
residential streets.
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin,32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
GPA
Downtown Parking Assessment District:
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.orglcivicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
28
Urban Lane
This site has the greatest potential for new parking spaces. The new structure could provide a total of
478 parking places offset by the loss of 164 spaces at the current surface lot. This project would
require significant coordination between the City, Samtrans and Stanford. Therefore, it probably
would not be built within the next five years. Also the parking structure is not located conventiently to
downtown businesses and office. The benefit would accrue mainly to the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation, Town and Country Shopping Center and CalTrain outbound passengers.
Status: Pending staff review
Completion date:
For fu rther information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Estimated impact of the 2016 "second" new lot on
• . Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
URBAN LANE IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
xx vehicles
xx
xx
-xx spaces**
2013 Q3 Public Transportation Incentives: City Employees
The City will initiate a trial program at unknown date to encourage City employees to take public
transportation. Underground city hall parking spaces currently l.jsE!dby these City employees would.
be opened up to the general public for presumably for permit parking.
Esti.mated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
10 vehicles
10
~
-25? spaces**
Note: Depending on the success of incentives given to City employees in 2013 it is possible that up to
100 additional parking spaces could be opened up in 201.4 and 2015.
Approval Status: Unknown
Implementation Date: Pending staff resources
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
GPA and/or another leadership organization: ?
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
29
2013 Q3 Improved Use of Private Parking Space
It is possible that developers can use an unknown amount of under-utilized private parking space
beneath current office buildings. For example, the Epiphany Hotel, according to City documents,
requiring 91 parking spaces and there are no known plans to provide parking or valet parking when
the hotel opens in late 2013. Also the conversion of the former retail spaces at old movie
theater/Borders Book store site to Samsung's high-tech center requires 157 addition parking spaces
for office workers and visitors. Yet there is no requirement of the building owner or Samsung to add
any parking capacity. Impact on residential streets from just these two projects may have a profound
effect upon University South and Crescent Park neighborhoods. Ironically impact of these 248
vehicles on Downtown North neighborhood will be minimal because this neighborhood could be
100% saturated each working day by late 2014. See Attachment B. Casual inspection of one
privately owned building parking space revealed almost 100 unused parking spaces. This concept
would-be extremely difficult to implement without extraordinary cooperation from the development
community.
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
-. Downtown South
• Crescent Park
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
Approval Status: Unknown
Impl~mentation Date:
For further information contact
40 vehicles
-40
-10
-100 spaces**
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
Building Owners: ?
Downtown Parking Assessment District Leader: ?
2-014 Q3 Park and Ride with Downtown Shuttle Service
This solution has been discussed for years but is a relatively inactive project for the Planning
Department. This is another example of City Planning Department resource shortage to initiate and
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
30
implement "lower hanging fruit" type of solutions such as more efficient issuance of parking permits,
attendant parking, parking lot technology and restrictions on transfer development rights. Downtown
property owners, tenants and business owners should form an organization, perhaps in cooperation
with Stanford University, to duplicate the highly successful Marguerite transportation system
operating since 1973.
• Annual ridership (6/1/2011 -5131/2012): 1.8 million riders
• Number of shuttle stops in service: 175
• Maximum number of shuttle buses running atone time: 37
• Hours of service per year:85,OOO
Estimated impact on
• Downtown North
• Downtown South
• Crescent Park
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS
. For further information . contact
? vehicles
?
-.1.
-? spaces**
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 32x-ssss, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
GPA
*Sou rce of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates frorrl knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
SECTION 3
CALIFORNIA AVENUE NEIGHBORHOODS
260 S. California Ave Office/Retail 27,000sf
. , 1 .. ~ ~ ~-'1~"'~I' -v .•. I
.. • . 1 . ._, ~,"'.I; , .1
Impact on Residential Streets
200/0 Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Evergreen
"~' l >' . ~ .,., 'l. ; ~ . r:, ~
ft".. r~!, " ~
+53 VEHICLES?**
-11
+42
42 vehicles
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto,org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources .
31
2016" "Q3?? 395 Page Mill/3045 Park Blvd Office/Retail 355,OOOsf
. This project consists of two structures ..... 3 and 4 stories tall ......
Impact on Residential Streets
20%) Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
Estimated impact on
• Evergreen
Status: Unknown
Completion Date:
For fu rther information contact
+?? VEHICLES?**
.:.??
+??
?? vehicles
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679,Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Planner, Jodie Gerhardt, 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Developer Ray Paul xxxx@sss.com, 32x~xxx
Evergreen Resident: Paul Machado
#3 3159 EI Camino Real/440 Portage Office/Retail 75,042sf 2015Q4?
32
This 5 story project provides 216 parking space. Mechanical lifts will be used for 196 ofthe216
parking spaces. Parking impact on Evergreen neighborhood streets is estimated at a minimum of 25
parked vehicles
Impact on Residential Streets
20% Use of Public Transportation
NET IMPACT
+31 VEHICLES?**
:..Q
+25
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Estimated impact on
• Evergreen
For further information contact
-•• 'It\.
25 vehicles
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@citvofpaloalto.org
City Planner, Russ Reich, 617-3137 russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nanc .she herd of aloalo.or , 32x-xxxx
Developer John Tarlton xxxx@sss:com, 32x-xxx
#4 Future Projects
33
A request has been submitted to Acting Planning Director to compile and maintain a list of pending
pipeline projects in the California Avenue commercial area. See Appendix A for parking deficit
information city staff provided to City Council. Impact of California Avenue project cannot be evaluate
adequately with a baseline and projections for parking space deficits.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
'SECTION 4
THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS
LONG DEFERRED, BUT NECESSARY ACTIONS·
aka "Kicking the Can Successfully Down the, Road"
The following issues are well-known among the insider leaders in Palo Alto. The
question of the day is who will step up and lead Palo Alto out of these
Gordian Knots.
20134Q Stop Digging the Hole Deeper
34
In July 2013 there are signs that Palo Alto's neighborhoods are beginning to organize and unify their
responses to traffic, parking and safety threats to their neighborhoods. Only time will tell if these
responses are sustained. The City Council can make itsintention more visible by addressing the
following questions not later than December 2013:
../ Can Palo Alto's traditional "project centric planning" adequately address escalating traffic and
pedestrian/bike safety issues at key intersections throughout Palo Alto and neighboring cities?
A better approach would be a comprehensive study of traffic at key intersections, major
arteries, bike lanes and neighborhoods streets now feeling the spill over traffic at rush hours?
../ Will Phase 1 of the study for new Downtown Capacity actually address the full extent of parked
vehicles into neighborhoods adjacent to University Avenue, California and other commercial
areas of Palo Alto? What is the plan to address these problems if Phase 1 is re-designed to
document the intrusions by January 2014?
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
35
./ In the interest of balancing quality of neighborhoods with the current economic boom
opportunities,isn't it appropriate to immediately irrlplement the development moratoriumfor
downtown Palo Alto and stop any exceptions to the moratorium? Which other neighborhoods
warrant development moratoriums to protect them from the development boom? For example,
could downtown Palo Alto be approaching a tippifl9 point where traffic and lack of parking
become counterproductive to economic success for property and' business owners?
./ A city of Palo Alto's size and irrlportance eventually must address the high cost of free parking.
Mayor Gregg Scharff and Vice-Mayor Nancy Shepherd should work with staff so that this Issue
can be brought into full public discussion not later than early 2014 .
./ Parking intrusion into downtown neighborhoods was the initial issue arousing for Downtown
North and University South residents; however, it is now obvious that traffic and safety are '
closely interwoven with parking problems and solutions throughout Palo Alto. Furthermore,
leaders in other neighborhoods, such as Crescent Park, Evergreen, College Park, Midtown
and Barron Park are stepping forward with very similar issues negatively impacted their
neighborhoods.
,/ Is this parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods like the weather? City Council
reluctantly talks about it but nothing can be done?
./ In the case of Mayor Scharf will he take responsibility to establish a clear action plan in
2013?
,/ Will Nancy Shepherd set a high priority setting objective standards to measure quality
of life in all of Palo Alto's neighborhood? For example, commercial parking should not
exceed 50% is Downtown North in 2013 and should be reduced to 30% by 2017.
Status: Pending Response from City Council
Completion Date:
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Neighborhood Advocate: Neilson Buchanan cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
2013 4Q Redistribution of Parked Vehicles in Downtown
Residential Neighbo'rhoods (aka Parking Restrictions and/or
Permits for Residential Streets 2014 Q2)
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
The parking restrictions and permits proposed by City Staff June 18 and 19 2013 do not reduce or
contain the number of downtown workers parking on residential streets ... not now nor in, the future.
Palo Alto's Planning Department has proposed a redistribution scheme for the residential
areas between Embarcadero, Alma, Palo Alto Avenue and Middlefield 'by September 2003. The
impacton Crescent Park neighborhood has not been clarified. The City Council may take action by
,late fall 2013 but whatever parking restrictions and/or permits that might be implemented may have
no material impact on reducing the demand for parking spaces for downtown workers.
Based on. the public presentations on June 18 and 19, a preliminary analysis of residential parking
restrictions and/or permits anticipates the following impacts:
36
1. All options merely redistribute the current number of parked vehicles in different ways into Crescent
Park, Downtown North and University South neighborhoods.
2. There',iS no reduction in the number of people who will park in the residential neighborhoods
because current corrlmercial parking capacity in near capacity and traffic demand management
solutions are far behind schedule.
3. City staff has not presented the additional number of downtown 'workers, hotel guests, restaurant
patrons, retail customers and other visitors who will seek parking spaces in. residential neighborhoods
due to the lack of parking capacity in the commercial zones. The demand for parking spaces is not
static and is certain to increase substantially from June 2013 for the next 3 years.
4. None of the options for parking restrictions and/or perrriits will substantially stop hundreds of
additional downtown parked vehicles into the 3 neighborhoods.
5.This redistribution scheme is vitally important to any resident living adjacent to commercial areas,
including those near California Avenue.
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityo'fpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org ,
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Neighborhood Advocate: Eric Filseth
20142Q South Of Forest Avenue: SOFA
This area could be developed for larger, more efficient parking structures than conversion of the 5
small surface parking lots located throughout downtown. A large efficient SOFA parking lot could
avoid the visual bulking up of open space now provided by existing surface parking lots. Additional
parking lots in SOFA (or near Highways 101 or 280 are not necessarily the best solutions for
downtown parking and traffic concerns but combined with shuttle service, these lots deserve greater
attention.
Several areas outside of the downtown CD districiimpact the parking intrusion into the neighborhood.
The boundary of any study must be defined by any and all commercial (corporate, governmental and
private offices, retail, hotels, all service uses, warehouse, medical, clinics etc.) uses, running between
Alma and Middlefield, Palo Alto Avenue to Embarcadero including all areas zoned CD, PC, PF, RT-
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
not just the areas covered in the previous CAP evaluation. And any uses approved with parking
exceptions such as the below market rate housing projects ..
37
The tlSOFA Area", basically all of the commercially used properties generally along Alma, High,
Emerson and Ramona, between Lincoln and Forest has been a major contributor to the employee
parking intrusion into the Professorville area. The area is approximately 1/3 the size of downtown, but
generally with older smaller buildings on small lots. Most of the buildings are older, nonconforming
structures, built before parking was required or needed. Most were dedicated to relatively low
intensity uses including warehousing, auto repair, repair shops etc. In the past five years many have
been converted to much higher intensity office uses especially high-tech startups that have
occupancies' 3 to 4 times the normal 4/1,000 used as a measure of conventional office use.
Nonconforming provisions of the zoning code are designed to prevent the intensification of uses
without providing the requisite parking. However, for some reason the City has failed to require
parking and has approved intensification without consideration of the parking need. The result is
hundreds of new employees working in small spaces, lined up around a line of computers on
conference tables with few if any parking for these errlployees. The problem is further complicated by
the fact that these properties, like many others at the edge of downtown, are not part of the existing
parking district and may not even be considered for parking permits in the AD.
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@citvofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Neighborhood Advocate: Ken Alsman
2013 Q3 Adoption of best practices
The March 27 Dear Colleagues Memo from two Planning and Transportation Commissioners
established the fact that Palo Alto planning processes are below the best practices in similar cities.
Hopefully the Council and Commission will exercise overdue stewardship and convene a joint
study session soon.
Stanford University has set a high standard for traffic demand management which has resulted in
outstanding reductions of campus parking and traffic. Other 8ayArea cities are implementing sirrlilar
measures to meet their traffic, safety, environmental and parking objectives. See Appendix? for
further information.
Access to hourly rental cars and vans is pending for downtown. Zip Car program could have small
positive effect during the next 3 years. However, ZipCars requir~ parking spaces which cannot be
easily utilized when ZipCars are rented out.
The current city garages do not use any technology devices to increase utilization of unoccupied
spaces. Such technology is used throughout the world.
For further information, see www.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not City sources.
For further information contact
. Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Neighborhood Advocate: Mac Beasley .
www.
2013 Q1 Street Reconfiguration
City staff may be working on issues that affect both residential and commercial parking capacity.
Closure--of University Avenue to vehicular traffic has been discussed off and on over the past 10
years. There are many advantages and disadvantages ranging from improved retail/restaurant
businesses to spillover traffic into traditional residential neighborhood streets.
38
Lytton, Forest, Everett and Hawthorne will also be profoundly impacted by development of
500,000+'sf of new office space on EI Camino Real in Palo Alto and Menlo Park. This creates safety
pedestrian/bike-safety issues. Studies may become available with the development of office towers
at 27 University. However, it is not clear that cumulative impact from the new medical center and
Menlo Park EI Camino Real office developments will be factored in.
Striping of all-day residential area parking spaces in Downtown North and/or University could
red uce available parking by 2-30/0.
Issuance of parking permits in Downtown North and University South residential has unknown
impact on C-rescent Park neighborhoods~ Downtown North is so saturated with all-day commercial
parking that it is difficult to create greater impact beyond 2014 .. The current study of residential
parking restriction and/or permits could reduce the current DTN saturaton but at the expense of other
neighborhoods.
Increasing the red "no parking" curbs at key intersections can improve bike/pedestrian/vehicle
safety at least 10 intersections in residential neighborhoods. This will make minor reductions in
available parking spaces for office tenants and residents; however, it will push the number of all day
parked vehicles further out into Crescent Park and University South. Since Downtown North is
approaching 100% saturation, additional red curbs will impact only a few streets such as 100 Blocks
of Tasso, Cowper, Webster and Byron.
Intrusion of parking restriction and permit street signs will change the visual appearance of
neighborhood and the permit par.king studies should show how neighborhood streetscape will appear
to d rivers and residents.
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
*Source of,vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
39
Neighborhood Advocate: ?? Pending Acceptance
2013 Q1 Night Parking
There are reports of Friday/Saturday night time parking saturation in the west section of the
commerCial areas, especially unavailability of parking in High Street garage. It is clear that the
Caltrain parking lots are underutilized and contributing to the lack of night time parking in the western
section of the University Avenue commercial areas.
There is plenty of night time packing capacity in the Bryant and Cowper garages; however, visitors
and valet parking attendants often prefer more easily accessed residential neighborhoods, espeCially
on weekend nights.
For further information
Jaime Rodriquez james.rodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Neighborhood Advocate: Marion Odell
2013 Q1 CalTrain Capacity
There is considerable concern that expansion of Caltrain capacity will be severely limited during the
next 5 years. Electrification and all new rolling stock are at least 7-10 years away and the key street
intersections over rail tracks would be significantly impeded by the more frequent train schedules at
rush hour. Palo Alto outbound and inbound passengers are competing heavily with seated and
standing passengers bound for other peninsula cities, espeCially Mt. View with greatly expanded
Google employee traffic. Residents and Planning Departments from all Peninsula cities need a clear
understanding about the ability of Caltrain ridership to reduce traffic and park~d cars during 2013-
2017. .
For further information
Jaime Rodriquez james.rodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
Neighborhood Advocate: ElaineUang? And/or GPA?
2013 Q1 Higher Development Standards and Best Practices
New standards and requirements by the Planning Department and City Council may develop during
the next 3 years. Those opportunities are discussed in Section 5 New Commitment for Action. This
section also describes exciting opportunities for developers, business owners, tenants and merchants
to voluntarily recognize common issues and implement solutions without government requirements.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
40
Strict requirements for on-site parking spaces for all future projects is an example of higher standards
needed now and not in the distant future.
Two Planning and Transportation Corrlmissioners have already noted deficiencies in how Palo Alto
uses Planned Conlmunity and Public Benefits. A joint meeting with Planning Commission and City·
Council was suggested as follow up but no action has been taken to date.
Several councilpersons have requested that staff and the Architectural Review Board re-examine
architural standards such as building faces extending out to the edges of sidewalks. A joint study
session has?/has not? been scheduled. .
These actions reflect higher levels of leadership exerted by the Councilpersons and Commissioners.
However, citizen requests for definitive standards for neighborhood parking, traffic and safety have
not beed acknowledged in any way.
For further information contact.
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron.aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
DTN Neighborhood Advocate: Neilson Buchanan
Evergreen Advoacte:
University South Advocate: Ken Alsman/Michael Hodos
Barron Park Advocate·
Crescent Park Advocate: Norman Beamer .
2014 Q1 Retail Trends I·mpacting Neighborhoods
Most cities,even the most successful cities like Palo Alto, struggle to define their downtowns as small
retail business which struggle to corrlpete with the almost irreversible competition from large box
retailers and the internet. It is quite possible that a significant minority of Palo Alto's small businesses
will change during the next 5 years. This is particularly true in the high rent areas such University
Avenue. Problematic traffic and parking are already cited by residents as reasons to avoid California
and University Avenue businesses .. If this trend should develop, then there will be unavoidable
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
41
transition from ground level retail to office. There are several examples of this type of adjustment
already in 2013. Without additional parking capacity or significant new traffic demand management
programs, the all~day worker parked vehicle impact into neighborhoors will reach higher levels. No
conversion of retail spaces to office space should be permitted with provision of new parking spaces
within the commercial areas.
For further information contact
Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, 329-2679, Aaron .aknin@cityofpaloalto.org
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
DTN Neighborhood Advocate: Eric Filseth
Evergreen Advocate: Paul Machado
University South Advocate
Midtown Advocate:
Crescent Park Advocate:
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates 'from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
SECTION FIVE
A NEW COMMITMENT FOR
INTER-NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION
#1 Guiding Values
Neighborhoods are passionate about the future of Palo Alto as a place of commerce and a
place to live.
42
University Avenue and California Avenue commercial areas have been and will be a dynamic,
vibrant area always adapting to needs of the city and region. The Comprehensive Plan points ,-
the way toward to increased vibrancy, activity and success.
At least 4 residential neighborhoods are contiguous to the commercial districts and fate of
quality neighborhood residential life depends upon the City Council to adhere to the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan contain many references to protect residential
neighborhoods from commercial intrusions. See Attachment D?
It is difficult, but very feasible to set stronger., new standards for these four neighborhoods, so
that the City Council can objectively serve as stewards for neighborhoods.
#2 Op~n Communications
Parking problems around the University Avenue Commercial Area will persist for another 50 years, if
stakeholders cannot study and agree upon the actual supply and demand for parking spaces.
Downtown North can serve as consolidator of information and keep the following groups and
organizations informed as the Planning Department develops its plans for parking restrictions and/or
permits: Other neighborhoods have established modes of communication and could link together on
key issues. .
1. Downtown North residents wi Ii utilize a dedicated website open to everyone. Nextdoor Downtown
North, email lists, hand delivered flyer newspapers articles and letters to editors.
2. University South(Downtown South) .
3. Crescent Park Neighborhood
4. Evergreen Neighborhood
5. Barron Park Neighborhood
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankJdocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
43
6. College Terrace Neighborhood
7 ~ Palo Alto Neighborhoods representing all neighborhoods in Palo Alto
8. City Manager James Keene, Acting Planning Director Aaron Aknin, Tom Ferhenbach Economic
Development. The goal is to reconcile this planning model with methodologies used by advance
planners in the Planning Department.
9. Key Developers ( Assuming their acceptance to meet and confer)
10. Downtown Business Associations such as Chamber of Commerce, University Avenue Merchants
Association, California Avenue businesses?
11. Other forward looking groups concerned with smart growth, environment, shared rides, etc
12. Citizens groups in Menlo Park who share development concerns
13. Keep the local newspaper informed throughout this process to study the impact of development
upon residential neighborhoods.
2013 Q3 City Council Leadership
Neighborhoods rely on the City Council to listen and remedy the negative impacts now obvious in
many of Palo Alto's residential neighborhoods. Neighborhoods realize that parking, traffic and safety
compromises over the past 10 years are deeply embedded into the almost irreversible Palo Alto
Process. The following type of actions will be considered seriously by neighborhoods with severe
commercial parking intrusion and other deteriorating quality issues .
./ Active opposition/appeal of any project which adds to the tidal wave of parked-vehicles onto
residential neighborhood. Opposition will occur at every leveL.Planning Department staff,
Architectural Review Board, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council.
./ Strategic, unified guidance to residents from private legal counsel
./ Citizen evaluation of proposed Council structural changes (elimination of term limits, reduced
council seats, etc)
./ In last resort, legal action, recall, referendum and more sympathetic city councilpersons may
be necessary.
For further information contact
City" Manager, James Keene, city.manag~r@cityofpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
DTN Neighborhood Advocate: Neilson Buchanan, Eric Filseth, x, y
Evergreen Advocate: Paul Machado
University South Advocate
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Midtown Advocate:
Crescent Park Advocate:
Barron Park Advocate: Bob Moss
Other 'Neighborhoods?
Menlo Park Citizen Liaison: TBA
2013 Q1 CalTrain Capacity
44
There is considerable concern that expansion of Caltrain capacity will be severely limited during the
next 5 years. Electrification and all new rolling stock are at least 7-10 years away and the key street
intersections over rail tracks would be significantly impeded by the more frequent train schedules' at
rush hour. Palo Alto outbound and inbound passengers are competing heavily With seated and
standing passengers bound for other peninsula cities, especially Mt. View with greatly expanded
Google errlployee traffic. Residents and Planning Departments from all Peninsula cities need a clear
understanding ,about the ability of Caltrain ridership to reduce traffic and parked cars, during 2013-
2017.
For further information
City Manager, James Keene, city.manager@cityo'fpaloalto.org
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd: nancy.shepherd@cityofpaloalo.org, 32x-xxxx
2013 Q3 'Downtown Development Cap Study
The Palo Alto Planning Department does not have a method to forecast. City staff has indicated a
willingness to expand the scope of Phase 1 so that the consultant and staff can address the demand
and supply factors outlined in this report. The goal should be to reconcile this report's forecasts with
professionally data developed by Planning Department staff and their consultant by January 2014.
#4 Citizen Catalysts
Neighborhoods adjacent to University and ,California Avenues will encourage individuals, other
neighborhoods and groups to accelerate a more comprehensive studies of historically unresolved
development issues associated with Palo Alto's growth and development. Hierarchical government's
inability to respond effectively in the Post-Prop 13 era has been well-documented. [Reference: More
recently Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley presented new concepts and solutions in their book The
Metropolitan Revolution.]
Locally there have been demonstrated successes in ____________ . See
Appendix_.
#5 Mayor Gregg Schraff Leadership
Short-term Solutions (2013 2Q -2014 1Q)
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
45
v' City staff continues to evaluate a new parking garage at Lot P. If the private/public partnership
should build the Keenan garage option, then permit parking would be increased only from 51
spaces to 77 spaces. This is negligible gain in parking capacity and has minimal impact of
parked worker vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, it presents minimal public
benefit to citizens 'of Palo Alto. On the other hand, city staff should be looking systematically
about optimizing city garages, surface lots and underutilized privately held parking spaces.
v' Attendant or valet permit parking in one city garage has been authorized by the City Council
and this experiment should begin by August 2013 with results known in 3-4 months.
v' Transportation Demand Management (TDM) alternatives can implemented to reduce city
employee parking perrriit demand with a goal of reducing employee parking by 50-100 spaces
in the City Hall parking garage. The Planning Department has not started work on this
solution. due to low staffing levels. City council can authorized consultants to put this project
on a fast track.
v' There has been no public discussion or programming for restrictions of Transferable
Development Right (TDRs) in commercial areas adjacent to University or California Avenues.
Since TDRs have profound negative impact on the rationalizing parking space supply and
demand. This concept should be a top priority for City Council and staff so that City Council
could act by 2014 Q1.
v' City Council should direct city staff to immediately respond to ways of restricting and
eliminating use of several Zoning Code parking exerrlptions.
v' Neighborhoods and larger employers such as PAMF, Survey Monkey, AOL, COPA and
Palantir could develop an organization to implement TDM practices at Stanford
v' At the end of Phase 1 Downtown Development Cap study, there should re-examination of the
viability of free parking.
#6 Vice-Mayor Shepherd Leadership
Mid-Term Solutions (2014 3Q-2015 2Q)
City staff continues to evaluate a new parking garage at Lot P. If the private/public partnership should
build the Keenan garage option, then permit parking would be increased only from 51 spaces to 77
spaces. This is negligible gain in parking capacity and has minimal impact of parked worker vehicles
in residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, it presents minimal public benefit to citizens of Palo Alto.
On the other hand, city staff should be looking systematically about optimizing city garages, surface
lots and underutilized privately held parking spaces. Options be bold and include elimination of free
parking, building height limits, ground floor retail and expansion of current surface lot footprints,
preservation of open space and SOFA master planning.
City Council declares its intent to regularly collect information of the workforce characteristics
throughout Palo Alto. Issues such as parking, traffic, safety, housing.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
46
#7 Develo,per Leadership
It is possible some developers will recognize that it is in their best interest and the best interest of
tenants to provide adequate on-site parking. When this is evident, then maximum credit and publicity
should be provided by residential neighborhoods. It is also possible more and more developers and
tenants will provide factual information about worker density in existing office, spaces and survey
worker commute patterns. Palantir has shown this level of cooperation. The developer Boyd Smith
and tenant Survey Monkey have an opportunity to make public their impact on parking and
commute/traffic patterns as the 101 Lytton gateway project nears completion. A small number of
developers are expressing initial intent to provide adequate on-site parking and to voluntarily provide
transparency of their tenant's work density.
#8 Address the Toughest Issues ,
It is common for any built-out city to " suddenly discover" that development problems outpace
solutions~ In the case of Palo Alto, the current economic boom and competition with neighboring
cities requires exceptional leadership from citizens, commissioners, councilpersons and developers.
Here is a partial list of issues which warrant discussion and action in 2013 and 2014 before the next
council election. .
A. Lack of Planning Data This data can be vastly improved with a low cost businesses fee program
to document numbers, types, hours of work, commute patterns, etc. The Planning Department
cannot possibly manage park,ing, traffic, safety and neighborhood deterioration without basic
employment data.
B. Improved Planning Department Expertise During the recent economic downtown, all of the city
departments have been pared back. Now is the time to reassess each department, especially the
Planning Department's capacity, to fulfill its stewardship during the next 24-36 months of
development boom.
c. Objective Standards for Neighborhood Quality The City Manager and staff must assert their
professional responsibilities and make Palo Alto a leader not only in the development of21st Century
economy but also in neighborhood livability. The City Council should assume leadership and
empower the City Manager and new Planning Director to rebalance economic development with
neighborhood livability. Downtown North and University South neighborhoods have become 1000+
car parking lots for downtown commercial area and could increase to 2000+ car parking lot by 2017.
D. Informed, Involved Citiz~ns Sanford Forte (Evergreen neighborhood) will be advocating a
simple communication bridge so that city staff, can keep citizens involved throughout the complex
process that developers use to get their projects approved. The communication gap is now obvious
with the Maybell controversy and everyone should strive to prevent this type of miscommunication
and enduring hard feelings. For more information, cont~ct Sanford Forte
./ The planning, zoning and exceptions to zoning process in Palo Alto allows developers and
staff to work out extremely complex terms for development with little public involvement at the
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
very beginning stage of all developments. On a practical level it is almost impossible for
citizens to be informed and plan in advance for their support or opposition.
47
v' The City Council can easily to set policy that would trigger an *immediate* email notice to
everyone directly impacted (census tracks or zip codes) for any development. No commercial
or residential development would be exempt from this requirement, no matter how small.
Creating and maintaining a neighborhood "opt-in" email base that citizens is a trivial thing,
especially since the city manager and staff pride themselves has being one of the "most
connected" cities in the US.
v' With a simple click of a mouse -even without formal papers or permit apps being made,
planning department staff would simply broadcast a few lines about what development was
discussed, and where, along with who *initiated* the discussion, with appropriate contact
information for the developer initiating contact with staff staff.
v' This open communication which is not privileged, would keep interested neighborhood
interests informed from the very beginning, even regarding hypothetical inquiries about
commercial or residential development made by any commercial interest.
v' The primary reason for this suggestion is that permits are often issued -or developments are
far along into the design phase -before ordinary concerned citizen notices what has
happened. Implementing this via policy decision would bring neighborhoods into the process
at the very start of a development -i.e. when it is being proposed even in the most hypothetical
way bya developer to city staff planners. Again, the purpose is transparency; early
involvement at the beginning, to prevent surprise; and creating more of a pre-dialogue about
development before things get too far along. Everyone wins. .
v' The alternative to more open communication will be growing amount of citizen backlash,
shock, anger, frustration on all sides, damaged social capital and wasted time and money.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebank/documents/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Section Six
Success Stories
(small steps forward, but not too late)
48
#1 101 Lytton, aka Gateway Project, being developed by Boyd Smith will include bin~ing provisions
on the developer: and tenant to implement various traffic and parking demand management concepts.
These commitments plus funding for parking spaces are important public policy issues to be
recognized since this project developer set irTlproved, but not perfect standards for future
development in Palo Alto.
#2 Another developer has stepp·ed forward on a voluntary basis to provide more parking spaces
than the city "requires" and to collaborate with residents on TDM opportunities with his tenants.
Residents should monitor and support this developer as his project becomes better defined. This
project as currently proposed will have all required parking on-site and demonstrates the developer's
respect for adjacent residential neighborhoods. .
#3 The Planning Department will dedicate a new position to full-time management of parking issues .
effective early fall 2013.
#4 After a very rocky start the City Council has redirected the development process for 27 University
Project, aka Stanford/Arrillaga Office Towers, Transportation Hub and Theater. The Santa Monica
"float up" process is a best practice that Palo Alto should adopt. See Appendix _
#5 The City Manager will involve various stakeholders during the selection process for a new
Planning Director.
#6 One of downtown's largest employers, Palantir, and the City's Economic Development Director
Tom Fehrenbach voluntarily revealed the density of workers in 2012. However, this employer's
worker density has not been .updated. There is no systematic review of employment in the downtown
area.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Appendix D
Methodology
49
1. This forecast model is not intended to be precise. Whenever possible, official city data have been
used. When city data are not available, reasonable assumptions have been made. The goal is an
ongoing study of supply and demand from known 2013 baselines in order to stimulate City Council
and staff to develop a professionally driven supply/demand model for parked vehicles in the
cornmercial and residential areas adjacent to University and California Avenues.
2. The forecast period is June 2013 through December 2016.
3. Every attempt will be made to test these assumptions with the professional staff of Palo Alto's
Planning Department. Reconciliation of city and residents' data may be possible early 2014.
4. The forecast assumes 20% of all workers, tenants and visitors in these two commercial areas will
arrive by public transportation. There is no hard data to substantiate this generous assumption.
Actual use of public transportation is probably much lower than 20%.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Inlpact on individual neighborhoods .are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
so
5. The forecast addresses 10am-2pm parking demand Monday-Friday, although many residential
neighborhoods are saturated from 10am to 4pm. Parking demand for weekend nights is developing
into a problem in search of a solution.
6. The forecast does not include every factor creating supply and demand for commercial parking
spaces. A list of excluded factors is in Section Four.
7. The forecast assumes there are less than 200 "empty" mid-day permit parking spaces in High,
Bryant and Cowper Street garages in summer 2013. This forecast assumes that this capacity will be
filled by2014 Q1. See Appendix B. Three new garages are added serially during 2014-2016.
8. Appendix B lists demand and supply impacts by their specific timelines. For example, if a parking
garage opens in 2015 02 with 50·additional parking spaces, then the forecast model makes that
adjustment. If a new office building opens 2014 01 with a deficiency of 35 parking spaces, then the
model creates a new demand of 35 spaces in 2014 Q1.
9. The forecast assumes midday 2~ and 3-hour restricted parking places are fixed and near capacity
at noon each working day from 2013 to 2016.
10. Forecast model utilizes 28 factors that create demand from 2013 to 2016 for unrestricted all day
parking places (prinlarily permit parking and residential streets).
11. The city planning department is working on at least 7 factors that increase the supply of all day
parking places during the same time period. The 7 factors are included in the forecast.
12. Demand and supply factors are presented in Section One arid Two in rank order of their intensity.
13. City staff, downtown stakeholders and the general public are invited to participate throughout the
refinement of this report. ;
14. This report will be updated not less than once a month by downtown residents and be posted on
www.paloaltoresidentsfirst.com.
15. Traffic throughout Palo Alto is not addressed in this report and warrants immediate study.
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources'
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Omissions from the March 18 City Manager Report
to. Council (Attachment D)
Project
1. 203 Forest (Former Dry Cleaners, Now Offices
4,626 sf
2. 342 University
3.355 Alma
4.801-842 Alma
5. 450 University
6. 501 University
7.380 Hamilton
Impact
20
THE FLOODED ZONE: DOWNTOWN NORTH
Cumulative Deficit
20
51
The following blocks are considered to be fully saturated by both city planning staff and downtown
resident leaders. The saturation peaks between 10am/noon and begins to ebb around 4pm. Streets
and avenues are listed in order of saturation ... starting at 7am through 2pm.
Streets
High
Emerson
Ramona
Avenues
Palo Alto Ave 100-200Block
Everett 1 00-500 Block
Hawthorne 100-400 Block
*Source of vehicle impact: www~cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
Kipling
Bryant
Waverley
Cowper 200-300 Block
Webster 200-300 Block
Byron 300 Block
Ruthven 400 Block
Palo Alto Ave 100-200 Block
THE TIDAL BASIN: DOWNTOWN NORTH SUMMER 2013
During the 2013-2016 the following streets will be subjected to total saturation midday during the
week. The infilling of the tidal basin will be driven by downtown workers not DTN residents.
Streets
Cowper.100 Block
Webster 100 Block
Byron 100 Block
Tasso 100-200 Block
Avenues
Everett 600 Block
Ruth Ven 500 Block
Hawthorne 500-600 Block
Palo Alto Avenue 300-600 Block
52
1. Transportation Demand Management {TDM} alternatives to reduce city employee parking permit demand with a goal
of reducing employee parki~g by 50-100 spaces in the City Hall parking garage.
2. Attendant parking trial at one or more downtown garages
3. Evaluating development of a private-sector proposal to build a new parking garage at Lot P
4. Potential restrictions to use of Transferable Development Right (TDRs) in Downtown
5. Consideration of restricting and eliminating use of several Zoning Code parking exemptions
6. Development of parking restrictions and/or permit parking in residential neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown·
*Source of vehicle impact: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaxlfilebankldocuments/33531
**Source of vehicle impact: Estimates from knowledgeable residents not city sources
Impact on individual neighborhoods are estimates by knowledgeable residents not city sources.
A B c IQ E F G H I J K
Rough Estimates: Cumulative Parking Space Deficit Downtown Palo Alto I California
1 Avenue and Downtown Neighborhoods ATTACHMENT A
2 draft July 7 2013 (20% use of public transportation) draft 7/7/13
UNIVERSITY CUMULATIVE DTN
SOUTH/ COMMERCIAL CUMULATIVE
DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN CRESCENT PARKING SPACE PARKED
3 YEAR TYPE OF IMPACT IMPACT NORTH SOUTH PARK TOTAL DEFICIT VEHICLES
March 18 Baseline
Established by City
4 2013 Q2 Staff and Council 901 1200
5 2013 Q3 Parking Garage Valet Parking Trial -15 -25 -2 -42 859 1185
6 2013 Q3 Parking Garage More Parking Permits Issued -20 -20 -20 -60 799 1165
7 2013 Q3 Office/Retail . 278 University 20 30 9 59 858 1185
8 2013 Q3 Housing Alma Housing 0 0 0 0 858 1185
9 2013 Q4 Parking Garage Incentives To City Employees -10 -10 -5 -25 833 1175
10 2013 Q4 Office/Retail 101 Lytton 9 7 2 18 851 1184 .........
11 2013 Q4 Office/Retail 668 Ramona 15 15 10 40 891 li99 .......
12 2013 Q4 Office Worker Density Increases 20 25 15 60 951 1219
13 2013 Q4 Retail/Restaurant Employment Growth 7 7 5 19 9701 1226
14 2013 Q4 Retail/Restaurant Customer Growth 4: 4 2 10 980 1230
15 2013 Q4 CalTrain Outbound Passengers 4 4 2 .0 990 1234
16 2014 Q1 Nursing Home Channing House 15 15 101 40 1030 1249
-------
17 2014 Q1 Retail 451 University 8 8 4 20 1050 1257
18 2014 Q1 Hotel/Restaurant 'Epiphany Hotel 20 50 3 73 1123 1277
19 2014 Q1 Office/Reta i I 564 University 6 10 10 26 1149 1283
20 2014 Q1 Retail Full Lease of Vacant Space 0 0 0 0 1149 1283
Neighborhood
21 2014 Q2 Parking Parking Restrictions/Permits 0 0 0 0 1149 1283
22 2014 Q2 Retail 456 University 15 25 6 46 1195 1 1298
23 2014 Q2 Office 456 Uni\lersity 30 35 15 80 1275 1328
24 2014 Q2 Proposed Lot #1 {P} Construction Period for Lot P 25 25 10 60 1335 13531
A B C I[ E F G H I J K
DNT
effectively
saturated @
25 2014 Q4 Office Worker Density Increases 40 50 30 120 1455 1393 95% parked
26 2014 Q4 Reta i I/Resta u ra nt Employment Growth 30 10 40 ,1495 1393
27 2014 Q4 CalTrain Outbound Passengers 16 4 20 1515 1393
28 2014 Q4 Retail/Restaurant Customer Growth 16 4 20 1535 1393
29 2015 Q2 Office/Reta i I 135 Hamilton 0 0 0 1535 1393
30 2015 Q2 Office/Retail 240-248 Hamilton 35 2 37 1572 1393
31 2015 Q2 Office/Reta i I 261 Hamilton 20 6 26 1598 1393
32 2015 Q2 Retail/Ofice 500 University 50 16 66 1664 1393
33 2015 Q3 Office/Retail Menlo Park Construction 10 0 10 1674 1393
34 2015 Q3 Office Hamilton Post Office 8 6 14 1E~88 1393
35 2015 Q3 Office/Retail 611-651 Cowper 24 24 48 1736 1393
36 2015 Q4 Parking Garage Keenan Garage Lot(P) #1 -35 -35 -7 -77 1659 1358
37 2015 Q4 CalTrain Outbound Passengers 15 5 20 1679 1358
38 2015 Q4 Office/Retail 537 Hamilton 8 8 16 1695 1358
39 2015 Q4 Retail/Housing 636 Waverley 0 0 0 1695 1358
40 2015 Q4 Office Worker Density Increases 70 50 120 1815 1358
41 2015 Q4 Retail/Restaurant #11 Employment Growth 20 20 40 1855 1358
42 2015 Q4 CalTrain #19 Customer Growth' 10 10 20 1875 1358
43 2016 Q1 Proposed Lot #2 Construction Period for Lot 2 70 30 100 1975 1358
44 2016 Q2 Museum History Musuem/Roth 6 6 12 1987 1358
NEW Dev Capacity per 100,000
45 2016 Q4 Retail/Office sf 200 120 320 2307 1358
46 2016 Q4 CalTrain Outbound Passengers 10 10 20 2327 1358
Office Towers/Theater (27
47 2016 Q4 Office/Retail University) 10 10 20 2347 1358
48 2016 Q4 Office Worker Density Increases 70 50 120 2467 1358
49 2016.Q4 Retail/Restaurant Employment Growth 20 20 40 2507 1358
50 2016 Q4 CalTrain Customer Growth 10 10 20 2527 1358
51 2018 Q4 Parking Garage New Garage Lot #3 -75 -75 -150 2377 1358
52 2017 Q2 Parking Garage New Garage Lot #2 -100 -200 -300 2077 1358
53 2017 Q2 Proposed Lot #3 Construction Period for Lot 3 20 20 10 50 2127 1378
54 178 793 255 1226
55
A B C I( E F G H I J K
UNIVERSITY CUMULATIVE DTN
SOUTH/ COMMERCIAL . CUMULATIVE
DOWNTOWN DOWNTOWN CRESCENT PARKING SPACE PARKED
56 YEAR TYPE OF IMPACT IMPACT NORTH SOUTH PARK TOTAL DEFICIT VEHICLES
L M
1
2
CALIF AVE
CUMULATIVE
PARKED
3 VEHICLES
4
5
6
7 ....
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 -
L M
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
'42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
w
w > V') ~ ~ c w W .....I
:E u.. ~ !::d ::::> a:: ....J « J:
6 ~ 0.. W
::::> > u
....J
U)
L/')
1
Spotwood, Alicia
Subject:FW: 240 Hamilton Project
Attachments:Development Impacts draft July 8 2013 20%.docx; Parking Space Deficit Cumulative
Summary July 8 DTN Max Out.xlsx; Bar Chart Vehicle Forecast July 12 2013.png
From: Neilson Buchanan [mailto:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 12:09 PM
To: Architectural Review Board
Cc: Aknin, Aaron; Keene, James; norman.beamer@ropesgray.com; Ken Alsman; Michael Hodos; beasley@stanford.edu;
Sally-Ann Rudd; Mike Griffin; Michael Griffin; Paul Karol; Eric Filseth; Jeff Levinsky; Glanckopf, Annette;
kallen@kilpatricktownsend.com; Bob Moss; Fred Balin; Paul Machado; Richard Brand; Marion Odell; Elaine Meyer; Susan
Brian Anuskewski; kwhite.karenl@gmail.com; Doug Smith; John Guislin
Subject: 240 Hamilton Project
Unfortunately I will be on vacation on July 18. Also other key leaders
from Crescent Park and University South are unavailable this week. Due to
time pressures I just cannot organize other less informed citizens to
attend your ARB meeting this week. By copy of this email, I encourage
leader/citizens copied to this email to oppose the 240 Hamilton project.
I realize that members of the ARB prefer short succinct citizen comments
to simplify your already heavy workload. However, expecting citizens to
address issues piecemeal assures that Palo Alto's growing traffic, parking
and safety issues will be resolved far into the future. So here is
another long email. It is obvious to be that the PA process is failing
badly during this economic boom of built-out Peninsula cities and the ARB
is a very important cog in the planning process. It is totally impossible
for well-informed, fact-checking citizens to respond to these complex,
embedded planning issues in 3 minute presentations at ARB meetings.
I urge you to stop or slow down the approval process for 240
Hamilton. There is a growing understanding now within many neighborhoods
that "under-parked" developments have negatively impacted neighborhoods
throughout Palo Alto. The city staff, your Commission and Council simply
are not exercising due diligence. Avoiding data collection, refusing to
address repeated citizen pleas and compounding problems with approvals
such as 240 Hamilton are guaranteed to create more and more "Maybell"
citizen pushbacks...probably in 2014. In fact, I will be so bold as
predicting that when residents of unimpacted University South residential
street eventually comprehend the tidal wave of parked vehicles coming
their way, the current Maybell situation will pale in comparison.
FACT ONE:
2
ON MARCH 18 THE CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGE DOWNTOWN PARKING DEFICIT 901
PARKING SPACE ACCUMULATED SINCE THE MID 1980S. THERE WAS AN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT A MINIMUM FURTHER NEAR TERM FUTURE OF AN ADDITIONAL
665 PARKING SPACE. 240 HAMILTON IS PART OF THAT 665 PIPELINE YET TO HIT
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS. 240 HAMILTON REPRESENT 46 PARKING SPACE
DEFICIT. TO PUT 46 SPACES IN PERSPECTIVE. BYRANT STREET FROM LYTTON TO
POE HAS 82 PARKING SPACE FULLY USED MONDAY THRU FRIDAY.
FACT TWO:
THE METHODOLOY USED BY CITY STAFF FOR THE MARCH 18 REPORT SERIOUSLY
UNDERESTIMATES THE IMBALANCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACE SUPPLY AND
DEMAND OVER THE NEXT 3 YEARS.
240 HAMILTON IS ANOTHER SERIOUSLY FLAWED PROJECT AND THE CITY STAFF AND
COUNCIL READILY ADMIT THAT THIS PROJECT WHEN COMPLETED WILL PUSH 46 MORE
PARKED CARS ONTO RESIDENTIAL STREETS. BECAUSE DOWNTOWN NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD
IS OVER 83% SATURATED EACH WORKING DAY, THEN MOST OF THE PARKING WILL
IMPACT UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD. AS A COMMON COURTESY, THE ARB DOES
HAVE THE AUTHORITY AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE AND
NOTIFY RESIDENTS ON THIS ISSUE.
FACT THREE:
CITIZENS IN PALO ALTO ARE RESORTING TO THEIR OWN CITY PLANNING MEASURES
SINCE CITY STAFF IS SO LIMITED BOTH IN THEIR RESOURCES AND THEIR
RELATIVELY NARROW MISSION TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS. IN MY PERSONAL
OPINION THE PA PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY HISTORY (NOT PREFERENCE) IS TOO
PROJECT CENTRIC. IF THE ARB TAKES A BROADER VIEW OF ACCUMULATING TRAFFIC
AND PARKING IMPACTS, THEN THE CITY STAFF ALSO CAN BETTER STEWARDS.
ATTACHED ARE THREE CITIZEN-GENERATED DOCUMENTS. EVERY ATTEMPT IS BEING
MADE TO USE CITY DATA AND TO COORDINATE WITH THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT. OUTREACH TO DEVELOPERS AND THE CHAMBER HAS COMMENCED TO MAKE
THIS A SHARED PROBLEM AND SOLUTION. PLEASE STEP UP AND AT LEAST READ THE
DRAFTS. SEVERAL RESIDENTS AND I ARE AVAILABLE TO MEET INDIVIDUALLY WITH
YOU.
In previous ARB meetings I have observed your internal conversation that
the purview of the ARB is very limited in scope. You dont take
responsiblity for the visual impact of parked cars on residential
streets!!! Certainly the staff, PTC and Council have almost unlimited
responsibilities. However, you are charged with a most important
responsibility, ie "how our city presents itself visually in terms of
commercial and residential construction". If the ARB can address the
color of our backyard (not visible from street) HOA pool fence, then
cannot you look out and see the parked cars in front of residences?
I am not in favor of willy-tilly rush to build parking garages, but at
least could not you be viewing the architecture of the next, most viable
parking garage and its impact on downtown? Palo Alto residents need a new
level of leadership from the ARB and I hope you will re-examine how your
3
define your role as the impact of the current economic boom compounds the
accumulated parking, traffic and safety deficits in Palo Alto and our
neighboring cities.
BTw Please dont underestimate the amount of citizen concern for the
parking impact you are creating by failure to recognize the scope of
impact.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Spotwood, Alicia
Subject: FW: 240 Hamilton Project
From: Paul Machado [mailto:plmachado@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:33 PM
. To: Ken Alsman
Cc: Neilson Buchanan; Architectural Review Board; Aknin, Aaron; Keene, James; norman.beamer@ropesgray.com;
MiGhael Hodos; beasley@stanford.edu; Sally-Ann Rudd; Mike Griffin; Michael Griffin; Paul Karol; Eric Filseth; Jeff
Levinsky; Glanckopf, Annette; kallen@kilpatricktownsend.com; Bob Moss; Fred Balin; Richard Brand; Marion Odell; Elaine
Meyer; Susan Brian Anuskewski; kwhite.karenl@gmail.com; Doug Smith; John Guislin
Subject: Re: 240 Hamilton Project
I concur with Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Alsman, but I am not sure anyone at city hall is concerned
enough to act on the growing chorus of citizen complaints. Are developers ever required to
park their own projects? Do the neighborhood streets of this city merely exist for the planned over
flow parking of developers? Will residents be taxed to pay for under parked developments?
On Mon, lul15, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Ken Alsman <kenalsman@aol.com> wrote:
Like many others i will not be retunling until after the .18th. However ,I want to add my concerns to those of
Neilson. Unlike him, 1 believe the charter of the ARB requires you to take a much broader view of the projects
you review, a need to look at the problems these projects and your actions are causing to nearby neighborhoods.
It is time for the ARB to stand up for the community, not just the development community.
Sent from my iPhone
On lul15, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunately I will be on vacation on July 18. Also other key
leaders from Crescent Park and University South are unavailable
this week. Due to t pressures I just cannot organize other
less informed citizens to attend your ARB meeting this week. By
copy of this email, I encourage leader/cit~zens copied to this
email to oppose the 240 Hamilton project. .
I realize that members the ARB prefer short succinct citizen,
comments to simplify your already heavy workload. However,
expecting citizens to address issues piecemeal assures that Palo
Alto's growing traffic, parking and safety issues will be
resolved far into the future. So here is another long
email. It is obvious to be that the PA process is failing
badly during this economic boom of built-ou~ cities
and the ARB is a very important cog in the planning process. It
totally impossible well-informed, fact-checking citizens
1
to respond to these complex, embe,dded planning issues in 3
minute presentations at ARB meetings.
I urge you to stop or slow down the approval process for 240
Hamilton. There a growing understanding now within many
neighborhoods that "under-parked" developments have negatively
impacted neighborhoods throughout Palo Alto. The city staff,
your Commission and Council simply are not exercising due
diligence. Avoiding data collection, refusing to address
repeated citizen pleas and compounding problems with approvals
such as 240 Hamilton are guaranteed to create more and more
"Maybell'~ citizen pushbacks ... probably 2014. In ,I will
be so bold as predicting that when residents of unimpacted
University South residential street eventually comprehend the
tidal wave of parked vehicles coming their way, current
Maybell situation will pale in comparison.
FACT ONE:
ON MARCH 18 THE CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGE DOWNTOWN PARKING
DEFICIT 901 PARKING SPACE ACCUMULATED SINCE THE MID
1980S. THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT A MINIMUM FURTHER NEAR
TERM FUTURE OF AN ADDITIONAL 665 PARKING SPACE. 240 HAMILTON IS
PART OF THAT 665 PIPELINE YET TO HIT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
STREETS. 240 HAMILTON REPRESENT 46 PARKING SPACE DEFICIT. TO
PUT 46 SPACES IN PERSPECTIVE. BYRANT STREET FROM LYTTON TO POE
HAS 82 PARKING SPACE FULLY USED MONDAY THRU FRIDAY.
FACT TWO:
THE METHODOLOY USED BY CITY STAFF FOR THE MARCH 18 REPORT
SERIOUSLY UNDERESTIMATES THE IMBALANCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL
PARKING SPACE SUPPLY AND DEMAND OVER THE NEXT 3 YEARS.
240 HAMILTON IS ANOTHER SERIOUSLY FLAWED PROJECT AND THE CITY
STAFF AND COUNCIL READILY ADMIT THAT THIS PROJECT WHEN 'COMPLETED
WILL PUSH 46 MORE PARKED CARS ONTO RESIDENTIAL S'TREETS. BECAUSE
DOWNTOWN NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD IS OVER 83% SATURATED EACH WORKING
DAY, THEN MOST OF THE PARKING WILL IMPACT .UNIVERSITY SOUTH
NEIGHBORHOOD. AS A COMMON COURTESY, THE ARB DOES HAVE THE
AUTHORITY AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE AND
NOTIFY RESIDENTS ON THIS ISSUE.
FACT THREE:
CITIZENS IN PALO ALTO ARE RESORTING TO THEIR OWN CITY PLANNING,
MEASURES SINCE CITY STAFF IS SO LIMITED BOTH IN THEIR RESOURCES
AND THEIR RELATIVELY NARROW MISSION TO PROTECT
NEIGHBORHOODS. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT BY HISTORY (NOT PREFERENCE) IS TOO PROJECT CENTRIC.
IF THE ARB TAKES A BROADER VIEW OF ACCUMULATING TRAFFIC AND
PARKING IMPACTS, THEN THE CITY STAFF ALSO CAN BETTER STEWARDS.
ATTACHED ARE THREE CITIZEN-GENERATED DOCUMENTS. EVERY ATTEMPT
IS BEING MADE TO USE CITY DATA AND TO COORDINATE WITH THE
2
PLANNING DEPARTMENT. OUTREACH TO DEVELOPERS AND THE CHAMBER HAS
COMMENCED TO MAKE THIS A SHARED PROBLEM AND SOLUTION. PLEASE
STEP UP AND AT LEAST READ THE DRAFTS. SEVERAL RESIDENTS AND I
ARE AVAILABLE TO MEET INDIVIDUALLY WITH YOU.
In previous ARB meetings I have observed you+ internal
conversation that the purview of the ARB is very limited in
scope. You dont take responsiblity for the visual impact of
parked cars on residential streets!!! Certainly the , PTC
and Council have almost unlimited responsibilities. However, you
are charged with a most important responsibility, "how our
city presents itself visually terms of commercial and
residenti construction". If ARB can address the color of
our backyard (not visible from street) HOA pool fence, then
cannot you look out and see the parked cars in front of
residences?
I am not in f~vor of willy-tilly to build parking garages,
but at could not you be viewing the architecture the
next, most viable parking garage and its impact on
downtown? Alto residents need a new level of leadership
from the ARB and I hope you will re-examine how your define your
role as the impact of the current economic boom compounds the
accumulated parking, traffic and s deficits in Palo Alto
and our neighboring cities.
BTw Please Gont underestimate
the parking impact you are creating by
scope of impact.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@ .com
<Development Impacts draft July 8 2013 20%.docx>
citizen concern for
to recognize the
<Parking Space Deficit Cumulative Summary July 8 DTN Max Out.xlsx>
<Bar Chart Vehicle Forecast July 12 2013.png> '
3
Spotwood, Alicia
Subject: FW: 240 Hamilton Project
From: Ken Aisman [mailto:kenalsman@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:14 PM
To: Neilson Buchanan
Cc: Architectural Review Board; Aknin, Aaron; Keene, James; norman.beamer@ropesgray.com; Michael Hodos;
beasley@stanford.edu; Sally-Ann Rudd; Mike Griffin; Michael Griffin; Paul Karol; Eric Filseth; Jeff Levinsky; Glanckopf,
Annette; kallen@kilpatricktownsend.com; Bob Moss; Fred Balin; Paul Machado; Richard Brand; Marion Odell; Elaine
Meyer; Susan Brian Anuskewski; kwhite.karenl@gmail.com; Doug Smith; John Guislin
Subject: Re: 240 Hamilton Project
Like many others i will not be returning until after the 18th. However,I want to add my concerns to those of
Neilson. Unlike him, I believe the charter of the ARB requires you to take a much broader view of the projects
you review, a need to look at the problems these projects and your actions are causing to nearby neighborhoods.
It is time for the ARB to stand up for the community, not just the development community.
Sent from my iPhone
On Ju115, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunately I will be on vacation on July 18. Also other key
from Crescent Park and University South are unavailable
this week. Due to time pressures I just cannot organize other
informed citizens to attend your ARB meeting this week. By
copy this email, I encourage leader/citizens copied to this
email to oppose the 240 Hamilton project.
I ize that members of the ARB prefer short succinct citizen
comments to simplify your already heavy workload. However,
expecting citizens to address issues piecemeal assures that Palo
Alto's growing traffic, parking and safety sues will be
resolved into the future. So here is another long
email. It is obvious to be that the PA process is failing
badly during this economic boom of built-out Peninsula cities
and the ARB is a very important cog in the planning process. It
is total impossible for well-informed, fact-checking citizens
to respond to these complex, embedded planning issues in 3
minute presentations at ARB meetings.
I urge you to stop or slow down the approval process for 240
Hamilton. There is a growing understanding now within many
neighborhoods that "under-parked" de~elopments have negatively
impacted neighborhoods throughout Palo Alto. The y staff,
1
Commission and Council simply are not exercising due
ligence. Avoiding data collection, refusing to address
repeated citizen pleas and compounding problems with approvals
such as 240 Hamilton are guaranteed to create more and more
"Maybell" citizen pushbacks ... probably in 2014. In fact, I will
be so bold as predicting that when residents of unimpacted
ity South residential street eventually comprehend the
wave of parked vehicles coming their way, the current
Maybell situation will pale in comparison.
FACT ONE:
ON MARCH 18 THE CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGE DOWNTOWN PARKING
DEFICIT 901 PARKING SPACE ACCUMULATED SINCE THE MID
1980S. THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT A MINIMUM FURTHER NEAR
TERM FUTURE OF AN ADDITIONAL 665 PARKING SPACE. 240 HAMILTON IS
PART OF THAT 665 PIPELINE YET TO HIT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
STREETS. 240 HAMILTON REPRESENT 46 PARKING SPACE DEFICIT. TO
PUT 46 SPACES IN PERSPECTIVE. BYRANT STREET FROM LYTTON TO POE
HAS 82 PARKING SPACE FULLY USED MONDAY THRU FRIDAY.
FACT TWO:
THE METHODOLOY USED BY CITY STAFF FOR THE MARCH 18 REPORT
SERIOUSLY UNDERESTIMATES THE IMBALANCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL
PARKI.NG SPACE SUPPLY AND DEMAND OVER THE NEXT 3 YEARS.
240 HAMILTON IS ANOTHER SERIOUSLY FLAWED PROJECT AND THE CITY
STAFF AND COUNCIL READILY ADMIT THAT THIS PROJECT WHEN COMPLETED
WILL PUSH 46 MORE PARKED CARS ONTO RESIDENTIAL STREETS. BECAUSE
DOWNTOWN NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD IS OVER 83% SATURATED EACH WORKING
DAY, THEN MOST OF THE PARKING WILL IMPACT UNIVERSITY SOUTH
NEIGHBORHOOD. AS A COMMON COURTESY, THE ARB DOES HAVE THE
AUTHORITY AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE AND
NOTIFY RESIDENTS ON THIS ISSUE.
FACT THREE:
CITIZENS IN PALO ALTO ARE RESORTING TO THEIR OWN CITY PLANNING
MEASURES SINCE CITY STAFF IS SO LIMITED BOTH IN THEIR RESOURCES.
AND THEIR RELATIVELY NARROW MISSION TO PROTECT
NEIGHBORHOODS. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION THE PA PLANNING
DEPARTMENT BY HISTORY (NOT PREFERENCE) IS TOO PROJECT CENTRIC.
IF THE ARB TAKES A BROADER VIEW OF ACCUMULATING TRAFFIC AND
PARKING IMPACTS, THEN THE CITY STAFF ALSO CAN BETTER STEWARDS.
ATTACHED ARE THREE CITIZEN-GENERATED DOCUMENTS. EVERY ATTEMPT
IS BEING MADE TO USE CITY DATA AND TO COORDINATE WITH THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT. OUTREACH TO DEVELOPERS AND THE CHAMBER HAS
COMMENCED TO MAKE THIS A SHARED PROBLEM AND SOLUTION. PLEASE
STEP UP AND AT LEAST READ THE DRAFTS. SEVERAL RESIDENTS AND I
ARE AVAILABLE TO MEET INDIVIDUALLY WITH YOU.
2
In previous ARB meetings I have observed your internal
conversation that the purview of the ARB is very limited in
scope. You dont take responsiblity for the visual impact
parked cars on residential streets!!! Ceriainly the , PTe
and Council have almost unlimited responsibilities. However, you
are charged with a most important responsibility, "how our
city presents itself sually in terms of commercial and
residential construction". If the ARB can address the color of
our backyard (not visible fro~ street) HOA pool f~nce, then
cannot you look out and see the parked cars in front
residences?
I am not in favor willy-tilly rush to build parking garages,
but at least could not you be viewing the architecture of the
next, most viable parking garage and its impact on
downtown? Palo Alto residents need a new level of leadership
from the ARB and I hope you will re-examine how your define your
role as the impact of the current economic boom compounds the
accumulated parking, traffic and safety deficits in Palo Alto
and our neighboring cities.
BTw se dont underestimate the amount of citizen concern for
the parking impact you are creating by failure to recognize the
scope of impact.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611
cnsbuchanan@ .com
<Development Impacts draft July 8 2013 20%.docx>
<Parking Space Deficit Cumulative Summary July 8 DIN Max Out.xlsx>
<Bar Chart Vehicle Forecast July 12 2013.png>
3
8754.txt
NOTE ONLY
Page 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 9, 2013
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Vote to Endorse the Slate of Candidates for the Division’s Executive
Committee for 2013-14 and Direct the City Clerk to Forward to Jessica
Stanfill Mullin, the Regional Public Affairs Manager for the Peninsula
Division, League of California Cities the Completed Ballot for the City
of Palo Alto
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should formally vote to endorse the slate of candidates for the Division’s
Executive Committee for 2013-14 and direct the City Clerk to forward to Jessica Stanfill Mullin,
the Regional Public Affairs Manager for the Peninsula Division, League of California Cities the
completed ballot for the City of Palo Alto.
BACKGROUND:
The Peninsula Division’s Nominating Committee - Peninsula Division President and South San
Francisco Council Member Rich Garbarino, Redwood City Council Member Barbara Pierce, and
Morgan Hill Mayor Steve Tate submit the following candidates for the Division’s Executive
Committee for 2013-14:
President: Chuck Page, Council Member, Saratoga
Vice President: Kirsten Keith, Council Member, Menlo Park
Secretary-Treasurer: Nancy Shepherd, Vice Mayor, Palo Alto
Board Director: Marilyn Librers, Council Member, Morgan Hill
At-Large (vote for one candidate in each County):
Santa Clara County, Jim Davis, Council Member, Sunnyvale
San Mateo County, Art Kiesel, Council Member, Foster City
The ballots will be opened and tabulated at the Annual Breakfast on Friday, September 20,
2013 in Sacramento, California. The new officers will be introduced at the breakfast meeting.
Each city is entitled to one vote for each office.
Attached please find the biographies submitted for these candidates.
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
2013-14 Peninsula Division Executive Committee Candidate Biographies (PDF)
Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk
Candidate’s Biographies for the
2012-13 League of California Cities
Peninsula Division Executive Committee
Position: President
Candidate: Chuck Page, Councilmember, Saratoga
Application Statement:
I have served on the League Division Board for the past 4 years and stepped up to the Vice
President role when an experienced board member was needed. I have served on the League’s Environmental
Policy Committee for the last 5 years, including this year as Chairman and last year as Vice Chair. I have worked
diligently to promote the League’s agenda, and fought hard to ensure that local control remains foremost in our
State Legislator’s minds. I have enjoyed lobbying our elected state legislators on behalf of League causes, and
am proud to be a contributing member of an organization that makes a stand on behalf of cities throughout
California for our common benefit. As President, I will continue to fight the good fight and my goal will be to
reach out to newly elected and ensure that they know about and begin to participate in the League!
Council Member Chuck Page – Biography
Brief Summary:
• Born Schenectady, New York, grew up in Northern New Jersey
• Saratoga City Council Member & twice former mayor (2008-9 & 2011-12), elected in 2006 and reelected
overwhelmingly in 2010
• Chair of the League of California Cities State Environmental Policy Committee
• Vice President of the League’s Peninsula Division (Board member 4 years)
• Twice Past Chair & current member of West Valley Sanitation District Board of Directors
• Former member of Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors (2009-11)
• Currently District Financial Services Manager at Farmers Insurance Co, where I coach agents to help their
clients to grow their assets and protect the realization f their dreams and help my own clients with their
financial investments & insurance needs.
• Father of 2 amazing & beautiful daughters, Lindsay age 19 (Sophomore, Cal State Channel Islands) and
Megan age 17 (Senior @ St. Francis HS Mountain View)
Detailed Biography
Currently:
• Saratoga City Council Member – elected 2006, re-elected 2010
• Just finished 2nd term as Mayor, have served 2 years as Vice-Mayor
• Chair, League of CA Cities Environmental Policy (served since 2008)
• Vice President, Peninsula Division, League of CA Cities
• Board Member, West Valley Sanitation District (served as Chair twice in 6 years)
Public Service History
• 2006-Present – Saratoga City Council Member – elected 2006, re-elected 2010
• 2009, 2012 – Mayor ; 2008, 2011 – Vice Mayor
• 2009 – Present – Member of League of California Cities Environmental Policy Committee, Vice Chair in 2012,
Chairman in 2013
• 2009 – Present – Vice President, Peninsula Division of League of California Cities
• 2006 – Present – West Valley Sanitation District (Chairman 2009, 2012)
• 2009 – 2011 – Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors
• 2008-9, 2011-12 – Hakone Estate & Gardens Board of Directors
• Saratoga Planning Commissioner – 1998-2001
• President & Board Member, Friends of Saratoga Library – 2000-2003
• Board Member – Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC)
• Saratoga Rotarian since 2000
• Started Youth Group at SH Church, Saratoga, 2005-6
• Auctioneer for Boys & Girls Club of Silicon Valley, Sacred Heart Church, Saratoga
• HS Sports Boosters, Assistance League of Saratoga-Los Gatos, Saratoga Rotary,
• Boy Scouts of America, etc.
• Member, Mayor Richard Riordan’s LA Technology Task Force – 1992-94
• Business Mentor, Los Angeles Unified School District – 1992-94
Born Schenectady, New York, grew up in Northern New Jersey
Attended Fairfield University and Ramapo College of NJ, and graduated with a
• BS Mathematics and
• BS Business Administration
Work History
IBM – 15 years:
• Programmer, Systems Engineer, Sales Rep
• Sales Manager
• National Sales & Marketing Manager – CAD/CAM Solutions
Worked for Microsoft as Regional Director, Los Angeles
Worked for several Computer Sales firms as Sales and Professional Services manager
Government Relations & Sales for RecycleBank and Republic Services
Currently District Financial Services Manager at Farmers Insurance Co, where I coach Agents to help their clients
to grow their assets and protect the realization of their dreams and help my own clients with their financial
investments.
Father of 2 amazing & beautiful daughters, Lindsay age 19 (Sophomore, Cal State Channel Islands) and Megan
age 17 (Senior @ St. Francis HS Mountain View)
Position: Vice President
Candidate: Kirsten Keith, Councilmember, Menlo Park
Application Statement:
It has been a pleasure as the Secretary-Treasurer for the Peninsula Division. As Vice Chair, I would continue to
encourage active participation in our Chapter and explain the importance of taking action to enhance legislation
that affects our cities and our ability to govern locally. Prior to being Treasurer, I was a League representative.
Additionally, I have actively served on the Employee Relations subcommittee of the League since 2010, where
we frequently take positions on Legislation. I have served on the Menlo Park City Council since 2010 and have
been appointed to many local agencies and boards, including C/CAG, BAWSCA and the Service League of San
Mateo County. Thank you for your consideration. It would be an honor to serve as the Vice Chair.
Council Member Kirsten Keith – Biography
Attorney, Councilmember, Community Volunteer
Summary
I have volunteered with community organizations throughout San Mateo County for over twenty years. I served
on the San Mateo County Commission on the Status of Women for eight years, and served twice as president. In
Menlo Park, I have served on the Planning Commission for seven years before being elected to City Council in
2010. I was Mayor of Menlo Park in 2012.
Experience
Board of Directors at Bay Area Water Supply And Conservation Agency
May 2013 - Present (2 months)
BAWSCA represents the interests of 24 cities and water districts, and two private utilities, that purchase water
wholesale from the San Francisco regional water system. These entities provide water to 1.7 million people,
businesses and community organizations in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties.
Board of Directors, Finance Committee at Service League of San Mateo County
March 2012 - Present (1 year 4 months)
The Service League of San Mateo County is a non-profit agency that develops, coordinates, and delivers in-
custody programs, services, and other activities within all San Mateo County jails. The agency delivers after-
release programs and services at five program sites in the community.
Advisory Board Member at CORA - Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse
December 2011 - Present (1 year 7 months)
CORA is the only agency in San Mateo County, California with the sole purpose of serving victims of domestic
violence and abuse. The agency provides free and confidential emergency, intervention and prevention services,
including the county’s only emergency shelter and transitional housing for victims. All services are available in
English and Spanish.
Technical Advisory Committee Member at JobTrain
August 2011 - Present (1 year 11 months)
The primary role of this advisory committee is to provide guidance about strategic issues pertaining to JobTrain's
Project Build Construction program.
City Council Member, 2012 Mayor at City of Menlo Park
December 2010 - Present (2 years 7 months)
The City Council is the City's governing body. In general municipal elections, its members are elected at-large to
four-year overlapping terms. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem (vice mayor) are selected to one-year terms by the
Council at its first meeting in December of each year.
Luncheon Committee Member at The Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
January 1997 - Present (16 years 6 months)
The San Mateo County Legal Aid Luncheon Committee diligently raises money to help people obtain legal
services, who otherwise could not, in our County.
Attorney at Law Offices of Kirsten Keith
January 1994 - Present (19 years 6 months)
I have a private criminal defense practice and am a member of the San Mateo County Private Defender Program,
representing people accused of misdemeanors and felonies. I speak Spanish fluently.
Planning Commissioner, 2007 Chair at City of Menlo Park
April 2004 - December 2010 (6 years 9 months)
The Planning Commission is responsible for coordinating the enforcement of the City's Zoning Ordinance and
related policies concerning applications for residential, commercial, and industrial development projects. The
Commission also leads the development of studies concerning land use issues.
Member, President 2004 at National Women's Political Caucus, San Mateo County
January 2003 - January 2006 (3 years 1 month)
The National Women's Political Caucus is a multipartisan, multicultural, grassroots organization dedicated to
increasing women's participation in politics and creating a power base designed to achieve equality for all
women.
Committee Delegate at Bar Association of San Mateo County
January 2001 - January 2006 (5 years 1 month)
The mission of the San Mateo County Bar Association is to promote the honor and dignity of the legal
profession, to educate its members, to foster the highest professional standards, to encourage collegiality and
to maintain cooperation between its members and the judiciary, to furnish excellent indigent criminal defense,
to assist the public in accessing legal services, to provide and recognize public service as it relates to this mission,
and to advance the fair and effective administration of justice for all.
Board Member at League of Women Voters, South San Mateo County
January 2002 - January 2005 (3 years 1 month)
League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan political organization for women and men which encourages informed
and active participation in government and influences public policy through education and advocacy. We do not
support or oppose any political party or any candidate.
Housing Commissioner at City of Menlo Park
August 2003 - April 2004 (9 months)
The Housing Commission is directed to review and recommend actions in reference to the BMR Housing
Program, review housing production in reference to specific economic and social needs, review and recommend
actions in reference to the Housing Element contained in the General Plan, and more.
Commission on the Status of Women, Chair 2000-2002 at San Mateo County
January 1996 - January 2004 (8 years 1 month)
The Commission on the Status of Women of San Mateo County is a non-partisan appointed body that advises
the County Board of Supervisors. Established by the Board of Supervisors in 1982, they provide leadership in
developing policies, programs and legislation that address the needs of women, girls and families.
Community Mediation Services Committee Member at City of Menlo Park
December 2001 - August 2003 (1 year 9 months)
The Mediation Commission helped Menlo Park neighbors resolve their disputes. In 2002, the City Council chose
to have Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center handle these issues.
Member, Board of Directors at Sor Juana Inez
January 1998 - January 2001 (3 years 1 month)
Sor Juana Inez was the first battered women’s service agency in San Mateo County to serve the
Spanish-speaking community. Sor Juana Inez was incorporated into CORA a number of years ago.
Prenatal to Three Initiative, Adopt-A-Family Program Member at San Mateo County
February 1998 - February 1999 (1 year 1 month)
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and the Prenatal to Three Initiative created the Adopt-A-Family
program and a System of Sharing.
Board Member at O'Connor Tract Co-Op Water Company
1997 - 1999 (2 years)
The OTCWC is a non-profit water co-operative that services single and multi-family residents in parts of Menlo
Park and East Palo Alto. It is a small, rural water system that utilizes old agricultural wells, and operates
completely independently form neighboring water purveyors.
Immigrant Rights Volunteer at FOCC - Fair Oaks Community Center
January 1993 - December 1995 (3 years)
The Fair Oaks Community Center is a multi-service facility offering a variety of services to the broader Redwood
City Community. Services are offered by a combination of City staff and representatives from public and private
non-profit agencies.
Law Clerk at The Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County
September 1992 - June 1993 (10 months)
Legal Aid relies on close to 400 pro bono volunteers to help disadvantaged residents improve their lives through
equal access to justice.
Public Interest Law Foundation Member, President 1992 at Golden Gate University School of Law
September 1991 - June 1993 (1 year 10 months)
The Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF) is a non-partisan, student-run organization committed to fostering the
careers of students who intend to dedicate themselves to providing assistance to those traditionally
underrepresented in the legal system.
Volunteer Victim Advocate at Family Violence Prevention Fund
September 1991 - June 1992 (10 months)
Everyone has the right to live free of violence. Futures Without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention
Fund, works to prevent and end violence against women and children around the world.
DAs Office, Domestic Violence Unit, Law Clerk at City and County of San Francisco
September 1991 - June 1992 (10 months)
This unit specializes in stalking and relationship based domestic violence cases. They attempt to contact every
reported victim for follow up and services.
Temporary Restraining Order Clinic, Volunteer at Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County
September 1989 - June 1990 (10 months)
The mission of the Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County is to provide high-quality legal services in order
to ensure that low-income persons and seniors have access to the civil justice system in times of crisis – to
secure safe, habitable shelter, adequate income, and protection from domestic violence and elder abuse.
Volunteer Rape Crisis Intervention Advocate at Santa Barbara Rape Crisis Center
June 1988 - June 1990 (2 years 1 month)
Santa Barbara Rape Crisis Center has served over 10,000 survivors of sexual assault and their significant others
in the last 35 years. They are dedicated and committed to ending sexual assault in our lifetime.
Honors and Awards
Drucilla Stender Ramey Public Interest Achievement Award
Golden Gate University School of Law Public Interest Law Foundation, April 2013
The Golden Gate University School of Law Public Interest Law Foundation has selected GGU Law Alumna Kirsten
Keith (JD 94), City Council Member and former Mayor of Menlo Park as its second recipient of the Drucilla
Stender Ramey Public Interest Achievement Award. The award, named in honor of GGU Law’s former dean and
public interest champion, honors individuals in the GGU community whose outstanding work has advanced
justice and social change in the lives of vulnerable populations.
Education
Golden Gate University, School of Law
J.D., Law, 1990 - 1993
Activities and Societies:
San Francisco District Attorney's Office, Internship
Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, Internship
Family/Domestic Violence Prevention Fund, Internship;
Public Interest Law Foundation Award;
Mock Trial Competition, Member;
Public Interest Law Foundation, Past President
University of California, Santa Barbara
BA, Political Science, 1986 - 1989
Activities and Societies:
Legal Aid Society, Santa Barbara County, Volunteer;
Amnesty International Washington, D.C., Internship;
Cambridge University, Student Exchange Program;
National Organization of Women (NOW), Member;
U.C.S.B. Political Science Student Committee, Member;
Women's Center of Santa Barbara, Volunteer;
Planned Parenthood, Volunteer;
Alpha Delta Pi Sorority, Member
Position: Secretary-Treasurer
Candidate: Nancy Shepherd, Vice Mayor, Palo Alto
Application Statement:
I have a firm commitment for the work of League and believe that I can further legislative efforts that will
support local municipalities with positive action. I appreciate your support for my nomination as
Secretary/Treasure for 2014. Thank you.
Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd – Biography
Nancy Shepherd was elected in 2009 to serve a five year term on Palo Alto City Council. This year she serves as
Council Finance Committee Chair. She is a managerial accountant, with over 20 years experience in both
corporate and partnership commercial real estate. She has a strong community based background, for which
she has received many awards, honors and recognition from her work on nonprofit boards, event committees
and fundraisers. She holds a Masters of Arts in International Relations, with a development theory and
International Political Economy focus, and graduated from Leadership Mid Peninsula in 1989. Although born
and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area, Palo Alto has been her home since 1984.
Additionally, Nancy Shepherd
• served the Peninsula League as Santa Clara At-Large Rep for 2013,
• retired managerial accountant in commercial real estate,
• manage Sacramento lobbyist efforts for Council sub-committee,
• serve on Transportation, Communication and Public Work legislative committee for League
• has a personal passion for legislative watch and action
Personal Bio: Nancy Shepherd
Personal
• Born in San Francisco, CA and raised in California
• Resident of Palo Alto since 1984
Occupation
• Managerial Accountant commercial real estate, retired
Education
• San Francisco State University
• Graduate, Mid-Peninsula Leadership
• MA International Relations SFSU
Council Service
• Elected to City Council in 2009
Council Committees and Positions
• Vice Mayor 2013
• Policy & Services
• Finance Committee, Chair 2012
• Rail Committee, Chair 2013
• Liaison, Utilities Commission
• Liaison, Library Advisory Commission
• Liaison, Historic Resource Commission
• Liaison, Public Arts Commission
• Liaison, VTA Bus Rapid Transit Policy Advisory Committee
• Alternate, VTA Policy Advisory Committee
• Steering Committee Member, Bay Area Council Smart City Conference 2013, China
Community Service
• 2008-2010, Trustee, Mid-Peninsula High School
• 2006-2010, Financial Manager, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto
• 2004-2009, Treasurer, Palo Altans for Government Effectiveness (PAGE)
• 2003-2005, Event Planner, Adolescent Counseling Services
• 2000-2002, President, Palo Alto Council of PTAs
• 1999-2002, Board Member, Palo Alto Foundation for Education
• 1995-2002, Organizer, PAUSD district-wide fundraising
Awards
• 2009 & 2010, The Wiley W. Manuel Award for Pro Bono Legal Service, The State Bar of California
• 2007, Sally Siegel Award, Palo Alto Council of PTAs
• 2006, Volunteer of the Year Award, Adolescent Counseling Service
2002, California State PTA Honorary Service Award, Palo Alto Council of PTAs
Position: Board Director
Candidate: Marilyn Librers, Council Member, Morgan Hill
Application Statement:
I am now in my second four year term as City Council for the City of Morgan Hill. Population 40,000. I am
extremely interested in the League activities at the State level and how it pertains to local government. I have
extensive experience serving on Board of Directors including the Economic Development Corporation. The EDC
is the managing partner for all the downtown properties previous owned by the City of Morgan Hill before the
RDA funds were taken back. I have served on numerous nonprofit boards and am employed as the Executive
Director of the Pauchon Research Foundation.
Council Member Marilyn Librers – Biography
Experience
Pauchon Research Foundation
July 1, 2008 – Present
Executive Director
Executive Director of nonprofit private Foundation. The Mission is to support and fund research in the fields of
science, medicine and business for the betterment of mankind. This funding can be for individuals who have
achieved proven accomplishments or are working towards a project with a goal of completion. Responsibilities
include daily operation of the organization, fiscal management of a two million dollar diversified portfolio, board
of director interaction and public relations. Identifying grant recipients, award of grants and visitation of
science labs and institutions.
Accomplishments include:
• Opening of first business office in 2008 and facilitating move to larger space in 2012.
• Recruiting founding Board of Directors.
• Advising Board of Directors in October 2008 to move investment out of stock market at a saving of
$85,000 per month at the beginning of the economic depression.
• Awarding over $61,000 in grants and materials to awardees globally.
• Purchase of five rental properties which included refurbishing each property for rental or re-sale.
• Establishing local science fair for students to encourage science at a young age. These science fairs are
funded by fund raising efforts at no cost to the Foundation. A total of $1500 has been awarded to local
students in the last three years.
• Created website, brochure and logo for Foundation.
• Established worldwide relations with other scientific organizations including attending the annual
conference of scientists in Panama City, Panama hosted by the Smithsonian of the Caribbean and the
IEEE conference in Seattle.
• Joining the planning team for IEEE 2013 to be held in San Jose.
• Establishing media relations which included a full page story in the inaugural edition of Morgan Hill Life
newspaper.
• Creating partnership with American Institute of Mathematics for speaker series to be held in 2014 in
Morgan Hill.
City of Morgan Hill
November 2008 – Present
Elected City Council Member
Responsible for all facets of running and operation of the City of Morgan Hill, population 40,000 people. Elected
to second four year term in November 2012. Departments include parks, roads, building, recreation, library and
arts, police and fire services, legal, records, finance department, utilities, administration, tourism, youth
development, public works, flood control, emergency services and economic development. City Manager, City
Attorney and Police Chief report directly to the City Council. Outside committee assignments for me include
Board of Directors, Morgan Hill Economic Development Corporation, Sister City International, Health Foundation
of Morgan Hill, Economic Development Committee liaison for Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Association,
City Corporation Yard Commission, Waste Water and Flood Control Board, and Habitat Conservation Committee.
Attend budget workshops, strategic planning sessions and annual two day goal setting retreat.
Morgan Hill Chamber of Commerce
January 2007 – June 2008
Director of Membership
Responsibilities included the sales of memberships to community businesses along with retaining memberships.
Duties included orientation of member services to new members, coordinating ribbon cuttings and introduction
of members at Chamber events. Direct responsibility for the Women in Business luncheon which included
managing a volunteer committee. Attendance of approximately 50 members monthly. Direct responsibility for
the Chamber Ambassador Committee which included the coordination of a volunteer committee. Monthly
meetings of a committee of 15 members. Responsible for fiscal reporting on membership sales. Initiating Mini
Trade Show two times per year which is still being used as a membership incentive.
Webco Sweeping
April 1995 – January 2007
Sales Manager
Reported directly to the owner of a large service company which included the supervision of two customer
service representatives. Responsible for company sales in Northern California and Nevada. Developed and
implemented the first marketing plan that increased sales four times over previous year. Sales continued to
increase annually at rate of at least 100% over previous year. Responsible for generating accounting reports and
monthly billings. Took on the responsibility of a first ever business budget for the company which included
income and expenses. Negotiated all corporate and government sales contracts. Implemented customer
services procedures and conducted ongoing training.
Mt. Madonna YMCA
February 1986 to October 1993
Director of Administrative Services
Reported to the Executive Director and was directly responsible for all facets of the operation’s administrative
function which encompassed volunteer, community service, public relation programs and supervisory duties.
• Developed, implemented and monitored budgets for all administrative, fund raising accounts and building
occupancy and maintenance.
• Implemented and supervised all billing and collections for YMCA branch accounts.
• Participated in creative promotions for membership growth and membership retention along with
program sales. This resulted in a significant membership growth.
• Successfully worked with local media and developed brochures and flyers for volunteer recruitment,
program information and special events.
• Worked directly for the Board of Directors which included recruitment of Board Members.
• Direct responsibility for the Public Relations Volunteer Committee, annual Fund Raising Committee.
Coordinated meetings and victory dinner for annual campaign.
• Directly managed five full time employees. Conducted ongoing training of customer services procedures
for over 25 additional employees.
• Event Manager for annual golf tournament. Recruited and managed volunteer committee. Secured
corporate sponsorships and community sponsorships. Event included a full day of programming during
the play of the tournament and ending with dinner and entertainment. This was a significant contribution
to the annual budget.
Related Certificate Course Work
• Ethics Training every other year mandated by the State of California
• How to Supervise Employees
• Publicizing a Nonprofit Agency
• Planning Large Events
• Career Choice in the Nonprofit Sector
• Budgeting and Accounting for Nonprofits
• Personnel Actions
• Customer Service Trainer
• Running a Successful Volunteer Committee
• Leadership Morgan Hill Class of 2012
Affiliations
• Editorial Board for Morgan Hill Today Magazine
• Santa Clara County Cities Association
• League of California Cities
• Silicon Valley Leadership Group – Women Executives
• Co-chair of Cobs and Robbers Ball 2013 supporting Morgan Hill Police Department
• Rock the Mock, Morgan Hill Unified School District and Chamber of Commerce teaching interview skills
to teens for first job interviews
• Safe Trick or Treat Committee for Downtown Association
• Sister City International annual fund raising event committee member
• Rotary Club of Morgan Hill since 2002 – past board of directors
• Gilroy Elks Lodge – Fashion Show Chairman – since 2001
Past Affiliations
• United Way of South County Board Member 1989-1993
• Community Solutions Board Member 1994-1999
• City of Morgan Hill Parks and Recreation Commissioner 2002-2008
• Morgan Hill Community Foundation Board Member 2002-2008
• City of Morgan Hill Centennial Celebration Committee Treasurer 2006
• YAC (Youth Action Committee) Advisor and City Liaison 2003-2008
• Saint Louise Regional Hospital Foundation fund raising committee 2008 & 2009
Position: At-Large Representative – San Mateo County
Candidate: Art Kiesel, Council Member, Foster City
Application Statement:
I have been very involved with the League serving on Policy Committees for the past 5 years and am currently
serving as Vice Chair of the Housing, Community, and Economic Development committee. I have also served on
the Immigration Reform Task Force and the General Resolutions Committee. I have also served on various San
Mateo County Committees primarily C/CAG, C/CAG Legislative sub-committee, and the C/CAG Budget sub-
committee.
The perspective that I can continue to bring to the Executive Committee is on of recognizing the need for a
strong local government. After serving on the Board for the past two years as the elected Board Director from
the Peninsula Division, I have become more convinced of the need for a unified voice for cities and that should
be accomplished through a strong League of California Cities.
I was first elected to the City Council for Foster City in 2007, having served for 3 ½ years on the Foster City
Planning Commission and 4 years on the Foster City Information Technology Advisory Committee. During the 13
years of being involved in government, I have seen the erosion of local control and funds in an effort to fill the
coffers of a mismanaged State Government. During my tenure in the private sector, serving as a senior
executive with a NYSE listed organization gaining a keen understanding of the working of large organizations, I
learned the importance of establishing and maintaining good working relationships and have done so with our
State representative.
I have seen the need for Prop 1A and 22 to protect local funds where I collected signatures for both measures.
Most of us have experienced the dissolution of RDA and the negative effects it has had and will continue to have
on local government. Locally, we will have to find new approaches to address economic re-vitalization, the
addressing of jobs, and to deal with the mandated affordable housing, all without the funds to do so. We
continue to scramble to address unfounded those mandates and concern remains over the results of
realignment. My experience on the League Board and Policy Committee representation has provided me with
the knowledge and perspective to be an effective member of the Peninsula Division Executive Committee.
Council Member Art Kiesel – Biography
League Involvement
• 2008-09 Member of the Transportation, Communications and Public Works Policy Committee
• 2009-12 Member of the Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee
• 2012-13 Vice Chair of the Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee
• 2011-13 Peninsula Division Board Director
• 2013 Appointed Member of the Immigration Task Force
• 2013 Appointed Member of the General Resolutions Committee
• 2007-Present Very Involved in the Peninsula Division’s activities including CitiPAC fund raising efforts and
attending Legislative Action Day in Sacramento
County Involvement
• 2008-11 Liaison to Airport Round Table
• 2008-10 Liaison to Airport Land Use
• 2011-13 Liaison to C/CAG
• 2011-13 Liaison to C/CAG Legislative sub-committee
• 2013 Member of the C/CAG Budget sub-committee
City Involvement
• 2000-04 Member of Information Technology Advisory Committee
• 2004-07 Member of Planning Commission
• 2007-Present Member of City Council serving as Mayor in 2011-12
• 2007-Present Liaison to Planning Commission
• 2009-Present Liaison to Audit Advisory Committee
Position: At-Large Representative – Santa Clara County
Candidate: Jim Davis, Council Member, Sunnyvale
Application Statement and Biography:
I have been very active on League committees. I served on the committee to plan training for this year’s Annual
Conference. I served on the Helen Putnam Awards Committee and I am a member of the League’s Public Safety
Committee. Besides regular attendance at policy committee meetings, I served on the 201 Medical
Transportation Committee as well as the sub-committee on Gun Violence. I have also served nationally on the
National League of Cities’ Public Safety Steering Committee. Additionally, I am the Vice Chairman of the
National League of Cities’ Large Cities Council. Locally, I serve as the alternate for the Grand Boulevard Initiative
Committee. I am the alternate to the VTA Policy Advisory Committee. I am also a member of the Moffett Field
Restoration Advisory Committee. I believe the breadth of my service speaks to my understanding of the major
issues that the Bay Area faces. My serve on the League of California Cities and the National League of Cities
provides me a strong background regarding League operations. I am retired and have the time to participate in
a range of activities that other might not be able to do. I hope that this resume assures member of my
willingness and ability to serve on the Peninsula Division’s Executive Committee.
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
September 9, 2013
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of
$585,000 to Fund the November 2013 Election Costs for Measure D
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $585,000 for Measure D, the
Referendum on the Ordinance to Rezone the Property Located at 567-595 Maybell Avenue
from R-2 Low Density Residential and RM-15 Multiple Family Residential to PC Planned
Community Overlay to Permit a 12 Single Family Unit and a 60 Unit Multifamily Affordable
Rental Development for Seniors with a corresponding decrease of the General Fund Budget
Stabilization Reserve.
BACKGROUND:
On August 8, 2013 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9368 calling for a special election for
the referendum on the ordinance to rezone the property located at 567-595 Maybell Avenue
from R-2 low density residential and RM-15 multiple family residential to PC Planned
Community Overlay to permit a 12 single family unit and a 60 unit multi-family affordable rental
development for seniors, for November 5, 2013.
DISCUSSION:
As presented to the City Council at the August 8, 2013 City Council meeting, the initial cost
estimate for a November election for two ballot measures was $634,400. Based on the City
Council decision to place only one ballot measure on the November 2013 ballot, the cost is now
estimated at $585,000. These costs include $545,000 for the County Registrar’s of Voters costs
and $40,000 for additional City Clerk’s costs. The additional non-salary City Clerk’s costs will
cover noticing costs including translations in required languages. As discussed at the City
Council meeting, in order to fund the election costs, a Budget Amendment Ordinance for the
expenses is required (see attached).
Two invoices from the Registrar of Voters, verifying referendum signatures, have been received
by the City Clerk’s Office, for a total cost of $15,435. It is anticipated that the City will receive
an invoice for partial payment of the election costs in October with a final invoice of the
remaining costs in December 2013. Any unexpended monies will be returned to the Budget
Stabilization Reserve as part of the Closing of the Budget for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2014.
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
BAO xxxx Maybell Rezoning Election (DOC)
08-08-13 CC Excerpt Item 2 Special Election (DOC)
Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO.xxxx
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 TO
PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION OF $585,000 FROM THE
BUDGET STABILIZATION RESERVE FOR SPECIAL ELECTION
COSTS FOR THE REFERENDUM ON THE ORDINANCE TO REZONE
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 567-595 MAYBELL AVENUE.
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 10,
2013 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2014; and
B. On August 8, 2013 the City Council adopted Resolution No.
9368 calling for a special election for the referendum on the
ordinance to rezone the property located at 567-595 Maybell
Avenue from R-2 low density residential and RM-15 multiple family
residential to PC Planned Community Overlay to permit a 12 single
family unit and a 60 unit multi-family affordable rental
development for seniors, for November 5, 2013; and
C. As the referendum election costs are not budgeted items,
the City Council must approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance for
the expenses from both the Registrar of Voters and the City
Clerk’s Department; and
D. An appropriation of Five Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand
Nine Hundred ($585,000) is needed to fund costs for to the
election; and
E. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2014
budget as hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2. The sum of Five Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand Nine
Hundred ($585,000) is hereby appropriated to the Non-Departmental
operating budget and the General Fund Budget Stabilization
Reserve is correspondingly reduced.
SECTION 3. The General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is
hereby reduced by Five Hundred Eighty-Four Thousand Nine Hundred
($585,000) to Twenty-Nine Million Four Hundred Ninety Six
Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($29,496,000).
SECTION 4. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon
adoption.
SECTION 5. The actions taken in this ordinance do not
constitute a project requiring environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________
City Clerk
__________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Senior Assistant City
Attorney
__________________________
City Manager
__________________________
Director of Public Works
__________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 8
Special Meeting
August 8, 2013
Transmittal of Certificate of Sufficiency of Signatures on Referendums on
Resolution No. 9348 Amending Land Use Map of Comprehensive Plan and PC
Ordinance 5200 Establishing Overlay Zone to Permit Development of 12
Market Rate Single Family Homes and 60 Affordable Multi-Family Senior
Homes, and Council Reconsideration to Repeal Same or to Call Special
Election for November 5, 2013 to Place Referendums on Ballot.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, wished to assist the Council in discharging its
duty under Palo Alto Charter Article 6, Section 3, which called for the Council
to act in response to the receipt of sufficient signatures on a referendum of a
Council legislative action. Under the Charter, the Council was required to
reconsider the legislative and either repeal it or submit it to the electorate at
the next General Municipal Election or special election. The first referendum
concerned the Council's adoption of an Ordinance adopting a Planned
Community (PC) Overlay Zone for the Maybell Avenue property. Staff made
no recommendation on that referendum. The second referendum concerned
a Resolution amending the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan. Staff recommended the Council repeal the Resolution, because the
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was not determinative of the senior
housing project proposed for the Maybell Avenue property. The Council
could avoid the expense of an election regarding the second referendum by
granting the relief requested and repealing the Resolution. The Council
could submit the second referendum to the electorate for a determination.
Should the Council choose to place one or both referenda on the November
2013 ballot, the Council would choose an election date and pass a Resolution
calling the election on August 8, 2013. August 9, 2013 was the last legal
day to forward the Resolution to the Santa Clara County (County) Board of
Supervisors calling an election on November 5, 2013. Those dates complied
with the State requirement of 88 days. The County Registrar of Voters set
two dates which applied to the November 5, 2013 election. August 16, 2013
was the due date for direct arguments for and against a ballot measure.
August 23, 2013 was the due date for rebuttal arguments and for the City
Attorney's impartial analysis of a measure. The Registrar of Voters did not
set the due dates for election dates in June 2014 or November 2014. If the
Council chose to place one or both referenda on an election date in either
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 2 of 8
City Council Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 8/8/13
June or November 2014, Staff would inform the Council of the due dates
once the Registrar of Voters set them. A standalone all-mail ballot was a
legal option; although, it had not been utilized previously in Palo Alto.
Candice Gonzalez, Executive Director of Palo Alto Housing Corporation
(PAHC), believed the Maybell Avenue Project (Project) was inherently good
and would benefit the community. The Council made changes to the Project
for the benefit of the neighborhood. Almost all senior housing in Palo Alto
existed under PC Zones. Delaying the Project would be a disservice to lower
income seniors; therefore, she requested the Council place the referendum
on the ballot on November 5, 2013.
Michael Maurier stated the City's participation in the Project raised concerns
regarding conflict of interest. Changing the zoning was a betrayal of the
neighborhood residents. The City utilized the PC loophole to undermine
residential property owners' interests and quality of life.
Ken Scholz supported senior housing; however, the Council and PAHC did
not fully protect the neighborhood. He proposed the Council rescind the
decisions, not hold a special election and return to negotiations with
neighborhood residents.
Bob Moss preferred the Council rescind the Ordinance and Resolution, and
allow the Project to proceed under existing zoning. The PC Zoning violated
several provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tim Wong's June 18,
2013 letter stated the Council approved funding of $7,320,220; however,
the Council approved only $5.8 million. Mr. Wong's June 26, 2013 letter
indicated the Council approved the needed zoning; however, June 26, 2013
was two days prior to the second reading of the Ordinance and 32 days prior
to the effective date of the Ordinance.
Timothy Gray wished to work together to build senior housing without
disposing of protections provided by the Comprehensive Plan. Development
should honor the Comprehensive Plan, and zoning should preserve the
quality of life.
Soroor Ebnesajjad reviewed PAHC's tax credit application and found it did
not include funds from development of the market-rate housing. PAHC
struggled to identify a grocery store and medical clinic within a reasonable
distance of the Project.
Laszlo Tokes indicated neighborhood residents provided several reasons for
the Council not to approve the rezoning of the Project. The only sensible
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 3 of 8
City Council Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 8/8/13
alternatives were to rescind the rezoning or have PAHC withdraw its
application.
Cheryl Lilienstein felt the City was committed to the Project and intended to
approve rezoning for the Project. The Council accepted incorrect data for
the Project.
Kevin Hauck believed the rezoning circumstances set a precedent for
developers. PAHC's traffic study ignored pedestrians and bicyclists. Holding
an election would not resolve the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and tax credit application issues.
Kathy Eisenhardt encouraged the Council to rescind the Ordinance. The two
referenda reflected the tremendous support for existing zoning. Residents
were frustrated with large developments and restricted traffic flow.
Jerry Underdal recalled the lack of public comment regarding the Project at
the February 13, 2013 Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
meeting. The Project would be good for the neighborhood.
Lydia Kou stated the referenda caused both the Ordinance and Resolution to
be suspended. The City's June 26, 2013 letter, prepared two days prior to
the Council's vote to adopt the Ordinance, represented that the Project was
zoned for the intended use.
David Darling reiterated that the traffic study was inaccurate. The Project
was a bad idea.
Joe Rolfe was disappointed by opposition to the Project and requested the
Council place the referenda on a November 2013 ballot. Alternative
development would generate more traffic, demand more municipal services,
and increase school enrollment.
Diane Rolfe encouraged development of the Project, particularly the senior
housing. The Project would have less impact on schools, traffic, and
pollution.
Suzanne Keene suggested the land remain as a heritage orchard.
Rachel Wright believed the Project was a part of the homeless solution.
Affording housing projects were always opposed by immediate neighbors.
She requested the referenda be placed on a ballot.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 4 of 8
City Council Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 8/8/13
Ron Hall applauded the Council for its commitment to affordable housing.
PC Zoning was an excellent tool to retain affordable housing in perpetuity.
Lynnie Melena noted PAHC's outreach efforts. She supported the Project
and urged the Council to proceed with a November 2013 election.
Aram James supported the Project and hoped the Council would place the
referenda on a November 2013 ballot. Diversity in the neighborhood should
be preserved.
Jim Jurtovich felt the Council turned their backs on citizens by approving
high-density projects. The Council could allow construction of 30 units of
senior housing and 7 market rate homes.
Jean McCown, Palo Alto Housing Corporation Board Member, believed the
community supported the Project. The referenda should be placed on a
ballot in November 2013. Project opponents supported affordable housing
but only under existing zoning. The Project could not occur without the
approved PC Zone.
Chuck Jagoda believed diversity and affordable housing were important. He
supported the Council's adoption of the Ordinance and Resolution.
Cedric de La Beaujardiere supported the Project and urged the Council to
place the referenda on the November 5, 2013 election. He did not believe
senior housing would generate more traffic than market rate homes.
Massing of the Project was within the character of the neighborhood.
Aparna Ananthasubramanian reported the two leading causes of
homelessness in the elderly were poverty and lack of affordable of housing.
Waiting lists for affordable housing in Palo Alto were either closed or more
than one year long. Affordable housing was critical for vulnerable
populations.
Herb Borock urged the Council to repeal the Ordinance for rezoning. A
Motion to place an item on a ballot or to repeal an item could be continued
to a future meeting. If the Council placed the referenda on a 2014 ballot,
PAHC could apply for funding in the next cycle. The cost for a ballot
measure on the November 2014 election would be less than $40,000.
Jennifer Fryhling, speaking for five people, expressed concerns about the
City's June 26, 2013 letter regarding Project zoning; PAHC's July 1, 2013
certification that zoning was complete for the Project; the City's failure to
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 5 of 8
City Council Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 8/8/13
retract any letter regarding zoning approval; and the City's June 18, 2013
letter regarding a loan commitment for the Project.
Alice Smith stated outreach and municipal meetings resulted in
improvements to the Project. The City Transportation Department should
convert Maybell Avenue to a one-way street with half the street reserved for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Rita Vrhal opposed the selective rezoning of Palo Alto. The Council should
rescind the Ordinance and Resolution.
John Elman believed much of the opposition was caused by closing
Arastradero Road. Neighbors did not oppose senior housing; however,
Clemo Avenue was used as parking for the neighborhood park.
Robert Smith felt the Project was out of scale with the neighborhood and
should not have been approved. PAHC did not have sufficient funds to build
the Project; therefore, it needed the market rate homes to complete
funding. He urged the Council to repeal the Ordinance.
Council Member Berman indicated the Council's job was to do what was best
for the entire City. Given the divisiveness of the issue, a one-year delay in
the ballot measure would be costly to the fabric of the community. He
encouraged both parties to campaign vigorously and respectfully in the next
few months and to support the will of the electorate.
MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member
Kniss to: 1) adopt Resolution 9368 attached to the Staff Report as
Attachment C calling for a special election for November 5, 2013 on the
referendum on the Ordinance to rezone the property located at 567-595
Maybell Avenue from R-2 low density residential and RM-15 multiple family
residential to PC Planned Community Overlay to permit 12 single family units
and a 60-unit multifamily affordable rental development for seniors; 2)
adopt Resolution 9369 attached to the Staff Report as Attachment D
repealing Resolution No. 9348 amending the comprehensive plan land use
map that changed the land use designation for 567-595 Maybell Avenue
from multi-family residential to single family residential; and 3) authorize
Council Members to use their official titles if they choose to sign ballot
arguments.
Council Member Berman stated the campaign would be used to present both
parties' opinions, and then the voters would decide. It was not logical to
have the issue continue for 15 months. He did not favor repeal of the
Ordinance.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 6 of 8
City Council Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 8/8/13
Council Member Kniss explained the Council did not give funds to PAHC; it
loaned funds to PAHC. Most people were not aware of affordable housing
projects in Palo Alto. Affordable senior housing had a positive impact on the
community. To provide 60 units of affordable senior housing had great
value. It was important to hold an election sooner rather than later.
Council Member Price supported the Motion as stated. The Council needed
to focus on the broader social good. The lack of affordable housing was a
cause of homelessness. The Project was well designed and provided needed
affordable housing. Extending the debate into 2014 would be divisive.
PAHC and the City offered to continue discussions with neighbors; however,
some opponents would not accept the offers. All Palo Alto voters had a right
and responsibility to vote.
Council Member Schmid requested the City Attorney comment on the City's
June 26, 2013 letter.
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney, had not seen the June 26, 2013
letter. City Staff contacted the tax credit association, which was aware that
the zoning did not take effect, that two referenda qualified for the ballot and
that a CEQA lawsuit was filed. A tax credit association official spoke with
Planning Department Staff who relayed pertinent information.
Council Member Schmid suggested a written status update regarding the
June 26, 2013 letter be provided to the Council. The second part of the
Motion continued the zoning change but not the Comprehensive Plan
change. Several public speakers indicated the commitment for senior
housing was in perpetuity. He inquired whether zoning for the L-shaped
market rate homes was also in perpetuity.
Ms. Silver explained that the PC Zoning Ordinance provided that the PC
District was an overlay. If the property owner elected to develop the
property as a senior citizen housing complex, then the PC Zone superseded
the underlying zoning. The protection for the L-shaped parcels created with
the PC Zone would be in the Ordinance and would supersede any sale.
Council Member Schmid asked if those changes were considered in
perpetuity.
Ms. Silver stated the changes were not necessarily in perpetuity, because
the developer could request a zone change.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 7 of 8
City Council Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 8/8/13
Council Member Schmid felt the proposed senior housing would be an asset
to the City. The zoning along Clemo and Maybell Avenues raised issues of
zoning and traffic for the neighborhood. He supported holding an election.
Vice Mayor Shepherd believed in the democratic process. She supported
placing the initiative on the ballot. Under existing zoning, the maximum
build on the property could be 37 units.
Aaron Aknin, Acting Director Planning and Community Environment,
reported 34 units could be constructed under existing zoning.
Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to understand the number of bedrooms that
would be added to the community. The Council was interested in the
number of bedrooms, because the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
was concerned about zoning of residences. Small units could attract seniors
or singles but not families with children. The Project followed Palo Alto's
process. The Project resulted in 104 bedrooms. She inquired about the
number of bedrooms resulting from a single-family development.
Mr. Aknin calculated the Project would provide 103 bedrooms. A standard
development without a density bonus would provide 119 bedrooms. A
standard development with the maximum density bonus would provide 161
bedrooms.
Vice Mayor Shepherd heard that a market-rate development would not be
built to the maximum density allowed for the site. She wanted to proceed
with a ballot measure, because people signed referenda in order to vote.
Council Member Holman inquired whether the funding source for affordable
housing required the Project to remain as affordable housing.
Ms. Silver reported there were several safeguards regarding affordability
covenants. The City would place a regulatory covenant on the land via its
loan to PAHC. Other loan providers also held affordability covenants. The
tax credit funding probably also had an affordability requirement.
Council Member Holman felt too many projects negatively impacted the
community; however, this Project was compatible with the neighborhood.
This Project would help with the homelessness issue. The number of
bedrooms from a market-rate development would have a greater impact
than the Project. The Council needed to address traffic issues on Maybell
Avenue. She requested that campaign participants make informed and
accurate statements.
EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 8 of 8
City Council Meeting
Excerpt Minutes: 8/8/13
Council Member Burt agreed with previous comments made by colleagues.
The two most prevalent objections to the Project concerned the houses on
Maybell Avenue and the PC process. The current zoning along Maybell
Avenue was R-2, which meant 8 units could be built under existing zoning.
Under the PC Zone, the Council reduced the number of units from 9 to 7.
With the Council's changes, housing on Maybell Avenue had a lower impact
and a better design than existing zoning would provide. The Project
provided fewer impacts and less density than existing zoning.
Council Member Klein concurred that PC Zoning protected the neighborhood
better than existing zoning. He recommended residents read the Frequently
Asked Questions provided by the Planning Department Staff and located on
the City's website. Setting the election in November 2013 provided a time
value for the community.
Mayor Scharff stated the neighbors supported 60 units of senior housing but
preferred 8 units of market-rate housing. The Project would improve the
quality of life in the neighborhood more than existing zoning. Unless
someone was willing to pay for the property, it would not be an orchard.
Existing zoning would reduce the quality of life for the neighborhood. Some
neighbors formed a non-profit corporation and filed a CEQA lawsuit. He
suggested they dismiss the lawsuit and let the residents of Palo Alto decide
on the Project. He reiterated that the Project was less impactful than
existing zoning, and citizens should support the Project.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Donna Grider, City Clerk, noted that direct arguments were due Friday,
August 16, 2013. She would be in the Council Conference Room to accept
arguments. Rebuttal arguments were due Friday, August 23, 2013, in the
Clerk's Office.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4040)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/9/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Back to School with Walk and Roll Maps
Title: Approval of Walk and Roll to School Maps for the Safe Routes to School
Program for Public Schools
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Walk and Roll Maps developed by the Safe
Routes to School program for ten of the Palo Alto public schools.
Executive Summary
Over the past year the Safe Routes to School Partnership Program worked with residents to
develop new Walk and Roll maps that highlight the suggested routes to schools for the
community. Historically, suggested route to school maps were prepared by the Parent Teacher
Associations of the individual schools. Through the VTA-funded VERBS grant program, the City
has started to develop Walk and Roll maps for the community with consistent messaging and
branding for Palo Alto. The Walk and Roll maps are also supplemented with Safe Route to
School plans for near-term signage/marking improvements and long-term capital projects.
In advance of the 2013-14 school year, the Safe Routes to School program has released the first
10 of 17 Walk and Roll maps for Palo Alto Schools. Elementary schools with completed Walk
and Roll maps include: Addison, Walter Hays, Palo Verde, Ohlone, Barron Park, Briones,
Escondido, and Duveneck. Terman Middle School and Gunn High School have also completed
the map development process.
Maps for the remaining schools and the Monroe Park neighborhood are in process or will be
complete before the end of the current school year. Walk and Roll maps may be viewed online
at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background
The City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Program grew out of a community partnership with
the Palo Alto Unified School District and Palo Alto Council of PTAs to reduce risks to students on
their commutes to school and to encourage more families to walk, bike or choose other
alternatives modes to driving more often. Since 1994, committed PTA volunteers as well as City
and School District staff have collaborated to improve the safety of students traveling to school.
This program aligns with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Goal T-6: A High Level of Safety for
Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets. Under this goal, the Safe Routes to
School effort is part of Program T-46 regarding educational programs for the safe use of
bicycles and City-sponsored bicycle education programs in the public schools. Furthermore,
Policy T-40 is supported by this program by prioritizing the safety and comfort of school
children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes.
In the Spring of 2012, the City of Palo Alto initiated an expanded Safe Routes to School
program, with funding from a $528,000 two-year Vehicle Emissions Reductions Based at
Schools (VERBS) grant from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. The project will
enhance the City's Five E's approach to Safe Routes to School programming: Education,
Engineering, Enforcement, Encouragement, and Evaluation.
The VERBS grant will allow the City to evaluate the existing conditions for students traveling to
school, assess current education programs, develop new encouragement tools, explore policy
changes to improve school commute safety, and map suggested routes for walking and
bicycling to school for all 17 PAUSD schools. More information may be viewed at the Safe
Routes website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes.
Discussion
Beginning in the spring of 2012, the Safe Routes program staff began a process to partner with
each Palo Alto Unified District school and associated PTA to develop Walk and Roll maps of
suggested routes to school for pedestrians and bicyclists.
An analysis of the walking and biking conditions at each school was conducted via observations,
field surveys, and meetings with staff, parents, and neighbors. Parent input was solicited via
meetings, a school district-wide survey, and school-specific requests for comments via email. In
addition, the Gunn High School map was developed with student survey and interview data.
Other factors included in the analysis at each school were intersection control, street
walkability, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Also noted were unsafe driver,
City of Palo Alto Page 3
pedestrian, and bicyclist behavior, as well as physical infrastructure needs.
Using the analysis of conditions at each school, staff has also generated a list of recommended
improvements to the area near each campus. Safe Routes to School funds have been identified
to implement near-term improvements such as signage and markings and a bid package for
construction will be released this Fall. Staff is also coordinating improvement with the
Resurfacing Program to build long-term capital facilities such as pedestrian ramps at
intersections, the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 implementation program for
building of Bicycle Boulevard networks and other facilities to improve school commutes for
students.
The ten completed Walk and Roll maps are attached including one sample back page of the
maps that is the same for each school. The routes have been designed and approved by the
City’s Chief Transportation Official based on the input received above and based on additional
technical expertise from a traffic consultant retained by the City through the VTA grant funding.
The back side of the maps contains safety tips for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers.
Environmental Review
This project is exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act as it
involves minor modifications, such as signage, wayfinding and striping, to existing right of ways.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Final Addison Walk and Roll Map (map only) (PDF)
Attachment B: Final Ohlone Walk and Rol Map (map only) (PDF)
Attachment C: Final Palo Verde Walk and Roll Map (map only) (PDF)
Attachment D: Final Walter Hays Walk and Roll Map (map only) (PDF)
Attachment E: Barron Park Elementary Walk and Roll Map (map only) (PDF)
Attachment F: Briones Elementary Walk and Roll Map (map only) (PDF)
Attachment G: Duveneck Elementary Walk and Roll Map (map only) (PDF)
Attachment H: Escondido Elementary Walk and Roll (map only) (PDF)
Attachment I: Terman Middle Walk and Roll (map only) (PDF)
Attachment J: Gunn High Walk and Roll (map only) (PDF)
Attachment K: SAMPLE BACK OF MAP - Final Ohlone Walk and Roll Map (PDF)
One Mile
1/2 Mile
1/4 Mile
Heritage
Park
Palo Alto
High School
å
å
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
I 0 1/8 1/4 Miles
Caltrain
AddisonElementarySchool
San MateoCounty Santa ClaraCounty
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Linc
o
l
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cha
n
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hamilton Avenue
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Hal
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ever
e
t
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Bo
y
c
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ad
d
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lin
c
o
l
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Mi
d
d
l
e
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Univ
e
r
s
i
t
y
A
v
e
n
u
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Al
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
21 (6)
22 (7)22 (7)
7 (2)
8 (3)
21 (6)
16 (5)
10 (3)
14 (4)
19 (6)
24 (7)
34 (10)
34 (10)
6 (2)
9 (3)
8 (2)
Addison Elementary School
WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL
SUGGESTED ROUTES
Ped/Bike Crossing
Street/One-Way Street
Enrollment Area
Trac Signal
Parks andOpen Space
Caltrain Station
Est. Walking TIme (Biking Time)XX (X)
Marked Crosswalk
County/CityBoundary
Crossing Guard Location
Pedestrian-Only Access
Bicycle-Only Access
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Access
Bicycle Parking
Suggested Route(Walking and Biking)
School
All-Way Stop
Caltrain
Mid
d
l
e
e
l
d
R
d
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
Linc
o
l
n
A
v
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
Addison Elementary School
Addison Elementary School
&
&
&
&
Inset
See Inset
The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership
encourages parents to walk or bike with students and
use this mapping tool to explore options for commuting
from home to school. Parents are responsible for choosing
the most appropriate route based on their knowledge of
conditions on the route between home and school and
the experience level of their child.
For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&&
One Mile
1/2 Mile
1 /4 M i l e
Rinconada
Park
Greer
Park
Hoover
Park
Seale
Park
OhloneElementary School
Jordan
Middle School
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
R
o
s
s
R
o
a
d
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
10
1
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
Oregon Express
w
a
y
Embar
c
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
G
r
e
e
r
R
o
a
d
M
i
d
d
l
e
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Colorado Avenue
Loma Verde Avenue
Clara Drive
Hea
t
h
e
r
L
a
n
e
Amarillo Avenu
e
California Aven
u
e
California A
v
e
n
u
e
N
e
w
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
C
o
w
p
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Moreno Avenu
e
Seale Avenue
S
a
n
d
r
a
P
l
a
c
e
7 (2)
15 (5)
45 (13)
14 (4)
18 (5)15 (5)
6 (2)
10 (3)
10 (3)
8 (2)
33 (10)
23 (7)
17 (5)
15 (5)
9 (3)
33 (10)0 1/41/8 MilesI
OhloneElementary School
WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL
SUGGESTED ROUTES
For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes
&
Trac Signal
Parks and Open Space
Est.Walking Time
(Biking Time)
XX (X)
Marked Crosswalk
Crossing Guard Location
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Access
Bicycle Parking
Suggested Route (Walking and Biking)
School
All-Way Stop&
County/City
Boundary
The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages
parents to walk or bike with students and use this mapping tool to
explore options for commuting from home to school. Parents are
responsible for choosing the most appropriate route based on their
knowledge of conditions on the route between home and school
and the experience level of their child.
G(&
&
&
L
o
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
Colorado Avenue
G
r
e
e
r
R
o
a
d
Amarillo Avenu
e
Lawrence Lane
V
a
n
A
u
k
e
n
C
i
r
c
l
e
Sycamore Drive
Ohlone Elementary School
OhloneElementarySchool
Inset
See Inset
O n e M i l e
1 /2 M i l e
1 /4 M i l e
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&Mitchell
Park
Greer
Park
Hoover
Park
Seale
Park
Jordan
Middle School
Ohlone
Elementary
School
Palo Verde Elementary School
Stanford
Middle
School
L
o
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
R
o
s
s
R
o
a
d
R
o
r
k
e
W
a
y
10
1
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
M
i
d
d
l
e
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Oregon Expressw
a
y
C
o
w
p
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Colorado Avenue
G
r
e
e
r
R
o
a
d
East Meadow Drive
Loma Verde Avenue
Ames Avenue
S
t
o
c
k
t
o
n
P
l
a
c
e
Amarillo Avenue
36 (7)28 (6)
13 (3)
20 (4)
9 (2)
18 (4)
18 (4)
6 (1)
16 (3)
7 (1)
7 (1)
14 (3)8 (2)
0 1/41/8 Miles
I
Palo Verde Elementary School
WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL
SUGGESTED ROUTES
&
Enrollment Area
Trac Signal
Parks and Open Space
Est. Walking Time
(Biking Time)
XX (X)
Marked Crosswalk
Crossing Guard Location
Pedestrian-Only Access
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Access
Bicycle Parking
Suggested Route
(Walking and Biking)
School
All-Way Stop&
The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents
to walk or bike with students and use this mapping tool to explore
options for commuting from home to school. Parents are responsible
for choosing the most appropriate route based on their knowledge of
conditions on the route between home and school and the experience
level of their child.
For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes
&G(
Palo Verde Elementary School
Palo Verde Elementary School
L
o
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
R
o
r
k
e
W
a
y
Ames Avenue
Am
e
s
C
o
u
r
t
Greer Road
Inset
See Inset
0 1/41/8 MilesI
O n e M ile
1/2 Mile
1/4 Mile
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&&
&
&
&
&
Rinconada
Park
Hoover
Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park
J. Bowden
Park
Walter Hays Elementary School
Jordan
Middle
School
Palo Alto
High School
AddisonElementary School
Duveneck
Elementary
School
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Mi
d
d
l
e
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Sea
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Oreg
o
n
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Chu
r
c
h
i
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Low
e
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Cole
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Add
i
s
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Calif
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Melv
i
l
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Cali
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
Channing AvenueHa
r
r
i
e
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
We
b
s
t
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
9 (3)7 (2)
9 (3)
18 (6)
17 (5)
10 (3)
9 (3)
7 (2)
14 (4)
28 (8)
36 (10)
35 (10)
25 (8)
22
26 (8)
20 (6)
19 (6)
7 (2)
49 (15)
Walter HaysElementary School
WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL
SUGGESTED ROUTES
The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents
to walk or bike with students and use this mapping tool to explore
options for commuting from home to school. Parents are responsible
for choosing the most appropriate route based on their knowledge of
conditions on the route between home and school and the experience
level of their child.
For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes
&
Enrollment Area
Trac Signal
Parks and Open Space
Est. Walking Time
(Biking Time)
XX (X)Marked Crosswalk
Crossing Guard Location
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Access
Bicycle Parking
Suggested Route
(Walking and Biking)
Suggested Route
(Walking Only)
School
All-Way Stop&
Walter Hays Elementary SchoolWalter Hays Elementary School
RinconadaPark
Mi
d
d
l
e
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Hopkins Avenue
Embarcad
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
Ful
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Gu
i
n
d
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
&&
Inset
See Inset
IIPark Boulevard
Alma Street
Ha
n
o
v
e
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Ma
t
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ba
r
r
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ke
n
d
a
l
l
Av
e
n
u
e
Lo
s
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Pa
g
e
M
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
LagunaAvenue
Ch
i
m
a
l
u
s
D
r
i
v
e
La
P
a
r
a
Av
e
n
u
e
La Donna Street
El CentroStreet
Cu
r
t
n
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ve
n
t
u
r
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Mi
l
i
t
a
r
y
W
a
y
Whitsell Avenue
El Camino Real
Ma
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
MagnoliaDrive
Bol
P
a
r
k
P
a
t
h
Pa
r
a
d
i
s
e
W
a
y
Ha
n
s
e
n
W
a
y
Po
r
t
a
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
La
m
b
e
r
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ol
i
v
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
El CaminoWay
Barron ParkElementarySchool
Gunn High School
BolPark
BoulwarePark
1/4 Mile
1/2 Mile
6 (2)
9 (3)
9 (3)
19 (6)
19 (6)
0 1/41/8 Miles
Barron ParkElementary School
WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL
SUGGESTED ROUTES
&
Attendance Area
Trac Signal
Parks and Open Space
Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)
Marked CrosswalkCrossing Guard Location
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
Bicycle ParkingSuggested Route (Walking and Biking)
School
All-Way StopXX (X)&
Suggested Route (Walking Only)
Multi-use Path
Vehicle BarrierI
The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and
students to use this map to explore options for commuting between
home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most
appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the
different routes and the experience level of their student.
For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes
Barron Park Elementary School
Barron ParkElementary School
Josina Avenue
Ke
n
d
a
l
l
Av
e
n
u
e
Ba
r
r
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Inset
See Inset
7 (2)
6 (2)
17 (6)
19 (6)
7 (2)
9 (3)
8 (3)
17 (6)
I
Or
m
e
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Enc
i
n
a
G
r
a
n
d
e
Clem
o
Ge
o
r
g
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
L
o
s
P
a
l
o
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Wil
k
i
e
W
a
y
Par
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Cha
r
l
e
s
t
o
n
Roa
d
Edle
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Am
a
r
a
n
t
a
Don
a
l
d
Driv
e
Coul
o
m
b
e
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
Roa
d
Jam
e
s
R
d
Ca
m
p
a
n
a
Bake
r
Geo
r
g
i
a
Pom
o
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Rickey
s
Lane
Deod
a
r
Stree
t
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
B
o
l
P
a
r
k
P
a
t
h
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Al
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Los Altos-Palo A
l
t
o
Bike Path
Mi
r
a
n
d
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Arroyo
Court
Para
d
i
s
e
W
a
y
La
D
o
n
n
a
W. M
e
a
d
o
w
D
r
i
v
e
1 /2 M i l e
1/4 Mile
BrionesElementarySchool
Terman
Middle
School
Gunn
High School
Barron Park
Elementary
School
Monroe
Park
Monroe
Park
Robles
Park
Briones
Park
Terman
Park
0 1/41/8 Miles
BrionesElementary School
WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL
SUGGESTED ROUTES
Pedestrian-Only Access
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Access
Bicycle Parking
Multi-use Path
&
Attendance Area
Trac Signal
Parks and Open Space
Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X)
Marked Crosswalk
Crossing Guard Location
Suggested Route
(Walking and Biking)
School
All-Way Stop&
Suggested Route(Walking Only)Pedestrian Beacon
Vehicle BarrierI
The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and
students to use this map to explore options for commuting between
home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most
appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the
different routes and the experience level of their student.
For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes
Briones Elementary School
BrionesElementary School
Am
a
r
a
n
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Geo
r
g
i
a
Ave
n
u
e
Or
m
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
May
b
e
l
l
A
v
e
n
u
e
Coul
o
m
b
e
Driv
e
Inset
See Inset
7 (2)
7 (2)
14 (5)
6 (2)
8 (3)
9 (3)
17 (6)
17 (6)
16 (5)
20 (7)
Rinconada Park
Eleanor
Pardee
Park DuveneckElementarySchool
Walter Hays
Elementary
School
Jordan
Middle
School
Lo
u
i
s
R
o
a
d
Gr
e
e
r
R
o
a
d
Ce
n
t
e
r
D
r
i
v
e
Li
n
c
o
l
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hig
h
w
a
y
1
0
1
Hamilt
o
n
Aven
u
e
Oreg
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
Pitma
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
He
a
t
h
e
r
L
a
n
e
Dan
aAven
u
e
St
a
n
l
e
y
W
a
y
Wi
l
d
w
o
o
d
L
a
n
e
Pat
r
i
c
i
a
Lan
e
St
.
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
Dr
i
v
e
ChanningAvenue
Ne
w
e
l
l
R
o
a
d
AlesterAvenue HamiltonAvenue
Embarcad
e
r
o
Road
Edgewood D
riv
e
1
/
2
M
i
l
e
1
/
4
M
i
l
e
0 1/41/8 Miles
DuveneckElementary School
WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL
SUGGESTED ROUTES
&
Attendance Area
Trac Signal
Parks and Open Space
Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X)
Marked CrosswalkCrossing Guard Location
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Access
Bicycle ParkingSuggested Route(Walking and Biking)
School
All-Way Stop&
Suggested Route(Walking Only)
The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and
students to use this map to explore options for commuting between
home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most
appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the
different routes and the experience level of their student.
For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes
Duveneck Elementary School
DuveneckElementary SchoolAles
t
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Dan
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
H
a
m
i
l
t
o
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
ChanningAvenue
He
a
t
h
e
r
La
n
e
Inset See Inset
1/2 M ile
1 /4 M i l e
1 M i l e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
Co
l
l
e
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Hanover Street
HarvardStreet
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Av
e
n
u
e
El Camino
R
e
a
l
Ash Street
Yale Street
Ca
m
b
r
i
d
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Escondido Road
Pin
e
H
i
l
l
Roa
d
Bowdoin Street
Pa
g
e
M
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
Park Boulevard
Alma Street
Ash Street
St
a
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Birch Street
Williams Street
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Castilleja Avenue
CaltrainPath CaliforniaCaltrainTunnel
Oberlin Street
El Camino Real
E s pla n ada Way
St
a
nf
o
r
d Ave
n
ue
Birch Street
Par
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Olmstead R
o
a
d
Co
l
l
e
g
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
10 (3)14 (5)
24 (9)
EscondidoElementary School
Lucille NixonElementarySchool
Werry
Park
Weisshaar
Park
Cameron
Park CollegeTerraceLibrary
Bowden
Park
Peers
Park
Palo AltoHigh School
StanfordUniversity
0 1/41/8 Miles
6 (2)
5 (2)
9 (3)
8 (3)
EscondidoElementary School
WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL
SUGGESTED ROUTES
&
Attendance Area
Trac Signal
Parks and Open Space
Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X)Marked Crosswalk
Vehicle BarrierCrossing Guard Location
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Bridge or Tunnel
Bicycle ParkingSuggested Route(Walking and Biking)
School
All-Way Stop&
Suggested Route (Walking Only)
Multi-use Path
I
The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and
students to use this map to explore options for commuting between
home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most
appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the
different routes and the experience level of their student.
For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes
Escondido Elementary School
EscondidoElementary School
St
a
n
f
o
r
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ro
s
s
e
L
a
n
e
Ru
n
n
i
n
g
F
a
r
m
L
a
n
e
EscondidoRoad
HanoverStreet
Bowdoin Street
I
Inset
Se
e
I
n
s
e
t
I
9 (3)
6 (2)
8 (2)
16 (5)
16 (5)
18 (5)
16 (5)
25 (8)
38 (11)
Gunn
High
School
Briones
Elementary
School
Barron Park
Elementary
School
TermanMiddle School
1/2 M
ile
1/4 Mile
Terman Park
BrionesPark
1 Mile
RoblesPark
BolPark
MonroePark
Par
k
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
May
b
e
l
l
Ave
n
u
e
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
G
e
o
r
g
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Wi
l
k
i
e
W
a
y
Mon
r
o
e
Driv
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
Way
Don
a
l
d
Driv
e
Am
a
r
a
n
t
a
Ave
n
u
e
Clem
o
Aven
u
e
L
o
s
P
a
l
o
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Lag
u
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Jam
e
s
Road
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Los
A
l
t
o
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Glen
b
r
o
o
k
Driv
e
Cesan
o
Court
Foo
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
B
o
l
P
a
r
k
P
a
t
h
Al
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
La
D
o
n
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Mata
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
Mac
l
a
n
e
Stre
e
t
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
Roa
d
Char
l
e
s
t
o
n
Road
W. M
e
a
d
o
w
Driv
e
Ven
t
u
r
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Rickey
s
Lane
Deod
a
r
Stree
t
Los Altos-Palo Alto Bik
e
P
a
t
h
Para
d
i
s
e
W
a
y
M
i
r
a
n
d
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Miranda Avenue
ArastraderoBike Path I 0 1/41/8 Miles
TermanMiddle School
WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL
SUGGESTED ROUTES
&
Attendance Area
Trac Signal
Parks and Open Space
Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X)
Marked Crosswalk
Crossing Guard Location
Pedestrian-Only Access
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
Bicycle Parking
Pedestrian Beacon
Suggested Route (Walking and Biking)
School
All-Way Stop&
Suggested Route (Walking Only)
Multi-use Path
Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge
Vehicle BarrierI
The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages Terman
parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting
between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the
most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the
different routes and the experience level of their student.
For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes
TermanMiddleSchool
TermanMiddleSchool
Pom
o
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Donald
Drive
Pom
o
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ara
s
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Donald
Drive
Ter
m
a
n
D
r
i
v
e
Los Altos-Palo Alto Bike Pa
t
h
Ter
m
a
n
D
r
i
v
e
Los Altos-Palo Alto Bike Pa
t
h
Inset
See Inset
II
I
6 (2)
8 (3)
16 (5)
12 (4)
24 (8)
25 (9)
26 (9)
27 (10)
13 (5)
26 (9)
Mitchell
Park
Terman
Park
Bol
Park
Robles
Park
BrionesPark
Ramos
Park
Boulware
Park MitchellParkLibrary
Monroe
Park
GunnHighSchool
TermanMiddleSchool
BrionesElementarySchool
Barron Park
Elementary
School
JLSMiddleSchool
HooverElementary
School
CubberleyCommunityCenter
El CarmeloElementarySchool
FairmeadowElementarySchool
Park
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Wa
v
e
r
l
e
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
Bry
a
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mata
d
e
r
o
Ave
n
u
e
Miran
d
a
Avenu
e
Fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
May
b
e
l
l
Ave
n
u
e
Los
R
o
b
l
e
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
i
l
k
i
e
W
a
y
Mon
r
o
e
Drive
H
i
l
l
v
i
e
w
A
v
e
n
u
e
Ge
o
r
g
i
a
Av
e
n
u
e
F
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
Aras
t
r
a
d
e
r
o
Roa
d
Los
A
l
t
o
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
Jam
e
s
Road
Char
l
e
s
t
o
n
Road
Sha
s
t
a
Driv
e
Meado
w
Drive
Creekside
Drive
D
u
n
c
a
n
Pl
a
c
e
N
e
l
s
o
n
D
r
i
v
e
Nel
s
o
n
Dri
v
e
Ma
c
k
a
y
Dri
v
e
Cesa
n
o
Cour
t
Los Altos-Palo Alto Bike Path
M
i
r
a
n
d
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
El
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Arastra
d
e
r
o
B
i
k
e
P
a
t
h
Arastra
d
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
Don
a
l
d
Driv
e
El C
a
m
i
n
o
Way
Wil
k
i
e
W
a
y
Mac
l
a
n
e
Stre
e
t
Para
d
i
s
e
Way
Lag
u
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
B
o
l
P
a
r
k
P
a
t
h
El C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Han
o
v
e
r
Stre
e
t
Pag
e
M
i
l
l
Roa
d Al
m
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mi
d
d
l
e
e
l
d
R
o
a
d
Mayv
i
e
w
Aven
u
e
Ro
s
s
R
o
a
d
Am
a
r
a
n
t
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
Carlson
1 Mile
1/2 Mile
1/4 Mile
Scheduled to open Fall 2013
0 1/41/8 Miles
Gunn High School
WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL
SUGGESTED ROUTES
&
Attendance Area
Trac Signal
Parks and Open Space
Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X)
Marked CrosswalkCrossing Guard Location
Bicycle Parking
Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge or Tunnel
Suggested Route
(Walking and Biking)
School
All-Way Stop&
Suggested Route (Walking Only)
Multi-use Path
VTA Bus Stop
Pedestrian Beacon
Vehicle BarrierI
The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages Gunn
parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting
between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the
most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the
different routes and the experience level of their student.
For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit:
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes For more information on VTA Route 88,
22, or 522 schedule and fares, stop by
the Student Activities Office or go to
www.vta.org.
GunnHigh School
Foot
h
i
l
l
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
w
a
y
B
o
l
P
a
r
k
P
a
t
h
Gunn HS Path
Arastrad
e
r
o
Road
Miran
d
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
StudentActivitiesCenter
StudentActivitiesCenter
Library
SpangenbergTheatreSpangenbergTheatre
BowGymBowGym
Library
TitanGymTitanGym
GunnHigh School
Mir
a
n
d
a
Av
e
n
u
e
StanfordResearch Park
Inset
See Inset
Suggested Routes
Ohlone
Elementary
WALK
AND ROLL
TO
SCHOOL
Parents: Help your student learn how to share
the road safely. Help your child choose the best
walking or cycling route - it may not be the same way you
would drive in a car! Children who regularly practice safe
walking and biking skills when young are more likely to
make safer choices as teenagers.
Obey adult crossing guards. They are there to help
you cross congested intersections safely.
Wear your helmet and buckle it
every time. It’s the law. To best
protect your brain, your helmet
must fit properly: snug and level
on your head, just above your
eyebrows.
Be predictable. Avoid crashes as
well as traffic tickets by following
the same rules of the road that
apply to car drivers when riding
your bike. This includes obeying
ALL stop signs and traffic signals,
as well as yielding to pedestrians.
Be alert. Watch out for drivers
turning left or right, or cars coming
out of driveways. Avoid doors
being opened in front of you by
riding out of the door zone.
Be alert. Look for cars from all
directions before entering the
street - including from behind you.
Cross at corners. This is where
drivers expect you.
Don’t assume drivers see you!
Make eye contact - especially at
intersections and driveways.
Slow down in school zones. The safe speed may
be below the 25 mph speed limit.
Be aware of school commute routes. Children
walking or biking to school help reduce traffic
congestion - give them a brake and use extra
caution. Young children think drivers can stop
instantly and may not be able to judge speed
or distance of vehicles moving toward them.
Obey “No Right Turn on Red” signs where
posted at school intersections. This allows
students to cross safely without cars turning
through the crosswalk.
Yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.
Avoid making U-turns and other unsafe
maneuvers.
Never double park. Avoid blocking red curbs
or disabled access ramps.
Make sure your child gets out of your car on the
curb side, not near traffic.
Use booster seats to make adult seat belts
safer for children younger than 8 years old
or under 4’-9” tall.
Set a good example by following instructions
of crossing guards.
Try to carpool whenever possible to help
reduce traffic congestion near schools.
City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School
www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes
saferoutes@cityofpaloalto.org
650.329.2156
Bike Safely
Drive Safely
Walk or Skate Safely
BIKELANE
check all directions
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 STAFF REPORT: 4057
Approval of Utilities Enterprise Fund Construction Contract No. C14141174
with ON Tanks, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of $340,000 for Repairs at
Mayfield Reservoir
Staff is requesting this item to be continued to September 16, 2013.
/City Manager
L/
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4059)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/9/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of the Recommendation from the Policy and
Services Committee on the SUMC Funds
Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommends Approval of the
Allocation of the Stanford University Medical Center Funds
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Draft Motion:
The City Council approve the Policy and Services recommendation:
1. Once the City Council is in receipt of the Infrastructure Committee report, the Council
will develop a ranked master list of projects to use for the Stanford University Medical
Center funds (excluding the Health and Safety Category), and each year thereafter as
part of the budget process; the Finance Committee and Council shall review the status
of Stanford University Medical Center funds and projects on the master list for possible
revision, until such time that the funds are exhausted.
2. In a parallel process, the Policy and Services Committee will review the allocation of
restricted funds under the category of Community Health and Safety of the Stanford
University Medical Center funds and make recommendations to the Council until such
time that the funds are exhausted.
Background
On June 25 the Policy and Services Committee reviewed and discussed the conceptual guiding
principles and approval process for use of the SUMC development agreement funds.
Attachment A provides the June 25 staff report. The Committee voted to recommend allocating
the funds based on a master list of infrastructure projects. The minutes from this meeting are
attached (Attachment B).
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Discussion
On June 25 the Policy and Services Committee considered the process for allocating the SUMC
funds on infrastructure projects. The Committee approved a recommended process for
allocating the funds to infrastructure projects from a master list of projects that would be
developed once the Infrastructure Committee completes its work and makes recommendations
to the City Council. The Committee also expressed interest in spending the majority of SUMC
funds within the next 10 years. This would ensure that the funds would be used in a near-term
impactful way rather than reserved for the future. The Committee also considered the relative
value of spending money in the near term versus the declining value of money in the future.
The Committee agreed that by spending the SUMC funds on projects in the near term the City
would get more projects completed.
The Committee also recommended that the Policy and Services Committee review, in a parallel
process, the SUMC development agreement funds that are restricted funds under the category
of Community Health and Safety and make recommendations to the Council until such time
that the funds are exhausted. The Committee recommended the Finance Committee review
and make recommendations on the remainder of the SUMC funds with final approval by the
City Council.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Stanford CMR # 3883 to Policy and Services June 25, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment B: Excerpt Minutes from the June 25, 2013 Policy &Services Meeting (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3883)
Policy and Services Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 6/25/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Stanford Development Agreement Funds Approval Guidelines
and Process
Title: Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement Funds
Guiding Principles and Approval Process
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Draft Motion:
The Policy & Services Committee recommends the City Council approve the:
1. Guiding parameters for use of the Stanford University Medical Center development
agreement fund as follows…
2. Process for Council review and approval of proposed projects as outlined in the staff
report and Attachment C.
Background
On May 6 the City Council reviewed and discussed conceptual guiding principles and an
approval process for use of the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) development
agreement funds (see attachment A). Council referred development of guiding principles and
an approval process for the use of the SUMC funds to the Policy and Services Committee for
further discussion and recommendation to the full Council. Furthermore, the Council
authorized use of $2 million from such funds for Project Safety Net. Attachment B provides the
draft meeting minutes from the May 6 Council meeting.
Council’s comments on the potential guidelines included suggestions such as:
1. Funds should be used for impactful, long-last projects.
2. Bulk of funds should be used for infrastructure projects.
3. The endowment fund concept, although thought provoking, is inconsistent with
City of Palo Alto Page 2
investing in large scale transformative, impactful projects, especially given the small
scale of the base funding.
4. Expenditure of funds should reflect the City’s core values and guiding principles.
Council also had comments related to project ideas. Overall, Council deferred the discussion of
specific projects until a review framework could be established. Staff clarified that the projects
for the One Bay Area Grant process that were identified in the May 6 staff report to Council
were presented as ideas of the types of projects that Council might consider for funding and
not as explicit suggestions for projects to approve.
Discussion
As a starting point and to help facilitate the Committee’s discussion, the staff report provides
the following:
1. Summary of the funds by category and analysis of interest earned verses cost of
construction over next ten years.
2. Key financial management practices that will guide the administrative oversight of the
funds.
3. Recommended parameters (framed as guiding questions) for use of SUMC funds based
on Council feedback and staff’s recommendations.
4. Recommended process for review of projects.
Summary of SUMC Funds
As illustrated in Table 1 below, the SUMC Parties (Stanford Hospitals and Clinics, Lucile Packard
Children’s Hospital, and Stanford University) have paid $32.5 million in public benefit fees to
the City through January 2013 as required by the Development Agreement between SUMC and
the City as part of the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project. The City is set to receive an additional $11.7 million from Stanford in the 2016-2017
timeframe upon issuance of final occupancy permits. This final payment brings the total due the
City to $44.3 million.
The City has spent $664,000 for activities related to Project Safety Net and the 27 University
Avenue project. Additionally, Council recently committed $4.3 million from the Infrastructure,
Sustainable Neighborhoods & Communities and Affordable Housing Fund to fund a long-term
loan to the Stevenson House rehabilitation project and a short-term loan to the Maybell-Clemo
affordable senior housing site, and $2 million to project safety net.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Table 1. Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement Funds
SUMC Funds
Category
Total
Payments
Due
Amount
Received
Amount
Spent or
Loaned
Available
Funding as of
3/31/13*
Committed/
Status
Project Operating
Deficit
$2,417,000 $2,417,000 $0 $2,612,413 Committed through
end of project to
mitigate unexpected
project impact costs
Linkage from
Downtown through
PAITS to Quarry/ECR
Intersection
$2,250,000 $2,250,000 $374,124 $2,035,937 Recommended for CIP
funding in FY2015
Linkage along Quarry
Road for
Pedestrian/Bicycles/
Transit
$400,000 $400,000 $0 $432,340 Recommended for CIP
funding in FY2015
Community Health
and Safety Programs
$4,000,000 $4,000,000 $139,389 $4,180,151
($1,600,000
for PSN)
Council allocated $2m
to PSN on May 6.
$139,000 spent;
$260,000 newly
budgeted in FY2014
Balance in PSN $1.6m
Infrastructure,
Sustainable
Neighborhoods and
Affordable Housing
$23,200,000 $15,466,666 $4,470,220
($150,000 for
portion of 27
University)
$11,669,332
($7,733,333
due upon
occupancy,
est. 2016)
Sustainability
Programs
$12,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,381,809
($4,000,000
due upon
occupancy,
est. 2016)
Totals $44,267,000 $32,533,666 $4,983,733 $29,311,982
(includes $1.8m
interest)
*Includes interest earned.
As noted, over the life of the development agreement, the City is due to receive $44.3 million
from the SUMC parties. As the City considers the timing of investing SUMC funds, the chart
below examines how these funds might fare if invested at the City’s interest rate growth
assumption from the long-range financial forecast versus the cost of construction over the next
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ten years. With construction costs rising faster than interest rates the table below shows that
waiting to construct projects would cost more than the City would gain in interest earnings.
Table 2. Interest Growth Verses Cost of Construction Over next 10 years
($Millions)
Total
SUMC
Funds 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Interest only $29 $30 $30 $44 $45 $46 $47 $48 $49 $50 $51 $52
Construction
cost index $29 $30 $31 $45 $47 $48 $49 $51 $53 $54 $56 $57
Difference $0 $1 $1 $1 $2 $2 $3 $4 $4 $5 $5
Total
Difference $28
*Interest is averaged at 2.28% per year and the construction cost index is averaged at 3%.
Financial Management Practices
Staff will incorporate sound financial practices in managing the SUMC funds to maximize and
preserve the funds until allocated. In managing the SUMC funds, staff will:
1. Preserve the funds by prohibiting the funds from being used to cover structural budget
short falls. This aligns with the financial practice of not using one-time funds to cover
ongoing budget gaps.
2. Accrue interest earnings generated by the monies in the project categories within the
sub fund categories. This aligns with the fundamental practice of crediting interest
where it is generated.
3. Not charge administrative costs to the funds to best preserve the totality of the funds
for projects (although allowed in the development agreement).
Parameters for Use of SUMC Funds
Based on the Council’s discussion and feedback on May 6 and the City Manager’s review, staff is
recommending that the Policy and Services Committee consider the following parameters
(framed as guiding questions) for use of the SUMC funds:
1. Should funds be invested in projects that will have a lasting effect with the intention to
generate measurable community impact?
2. Should funds be treated as one-time funds and not used for ongoing program
expenditures that result in unsustainable continuing commitments after funding
expires?
3. Should funds be dedicated in the near-term, over the next five to ten years, with an
City of Palo Alto Page 5
emphasis on allocating sooner than later?
4. At the same time, should funds be allocated over time, both to assure careful review
and to manage implementation effectively?
5. Should the Council attempt to develop a “master list” that potential projects could be
drawn from, so that project funding decisions are made within a larger perspective and
so relative importance and value is clear?
6. Does the Policy and Services Committee wish to discuss adding other guiding
parameters?
Process for Review of Projects
Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee consider recommending Council
routinize decisions and allocations of Stanford Funds. Staff suggests Council considers use of
SUMC funds twice annually, once in the Fall and once in the Spring. During each cycle, staff and
Council, will submit proposals for consideration to the City Manager. Staff will review and
package proposals, much as we do during budget, weighing the suggestions against guidelines
and other criteria established by Council, and forwarding to Council.
The Finance Committee will review proposals, and make funding recommendations to the City
Council. The City Council will consider the Finance Committee recommendations and make
final determination on the use of funds. Attachment C provides a flow chart of the annual cycle.
Resource Impact
On May 6 staff reported that $29.3 million was available from the SUMC funds (see page 5 of
report ID #3651). Council approved $2 million of that amount for Project Safety Net (PSN).
Included in the FY2014 Adopted Budget is $260,000 in budgeted expenditures for PSN. This
puts the balance of available SUMC funds at $29 million going into FY2014.
Since the City has proposed using SUMC funds as matching grant funding and for loans, in the
case of affordable housing, this funding will be returned to the City in the future. As these
funds are returned to the SUMC categories they will become available for appropriate projects
in future years.
During Council’s review of the FY2014 proposed capital improvement, Council decided to place
on hold the allocation of SUMC funds for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-
04010; $1.2 million, $6 million over 5 years) until guidelines and the process can be formalized.
Instead this project will be funded out of the infrastructure fund until a decision is made
regarding the use of SUMC funds. The Council could decide to reimburse the infrastructure
fund for any funds used. Also in the FY2014 budget, Council approved in-concept funding of $1
million for the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass capital project (PE-11011). These
funds would be used as a local match towards $4 million in funding to be received from the One
Bay Area Grant process.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Council noted that the staff report showed that $5.4 million had been collected in development
impact fees and asked what the total amount would be upon completion of the project. Staff
estimates the SUMC projects will generate $8.5 million in development impact fees during
construction.
The City’s Infrastructure Committee is currently evaluating currently available funding sources
that could be allocated to infrastructure projects at Council’s discretion such as the SUMC
Funds. The Committee has not made any recommendations.
Policy Implications
The guiding parameters and the process to evaluate use of funds will guide Council’s review of
all future funding requests.
Environmental Review
No environmental review is required at this stage of the discussion process but, if funded, some
projects may require a CEQA analysis.
Attachments:
Attachment A. 05-06-2013 Staff Report (PDF)
Attachment B. 05-06-2013 Draft Meeting Minutes (PDF)
Attachment C. Process for Reviewing Use of Funds (PDF)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3651)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/6/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Stanford Funds Review and Allocation Process
Title: Review of Guiding Principles for Stanford University Medical Center
Fund Allocations and Allocation of $2 Million to Project Safety Net
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council provide input on staff’s proposed process for allocating
Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Development Agreement funds and formally
approve an allocation of $2 million for Project Safety Net from the Community Health and
Safety Program funds, which was previously discussed by the City Council.
Motion
To approve Staff’s recommendation to approve an allocation of $2 million for Project Safety Net
from the Community Health and Safety Program funds.
Executive Summary
The SUMC Parties (Stanford Hospitals and Clinics, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and
Stanford University) have paid $32.5 million in public benefit fees to the City through January
2013 as required by the Development Agreement between SUMC and the City as part of the
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project. The City is set
to receive an additional $11.7 million from Stanford in the 2016-2017 timeframe upon issuance
of final occupancy permits. This final payment brings the total due the City to $44.3 million.
The City has spent $664,000 for activities related to Project Safety Net and the 27 University
Avenue project. Additionally, Council recently committed $4.3 million from the Infrastructure,
Sustainable Neighborhoods & Communities, and Affordable Housing fund to fund a long-term
loan to the Stevenson House rehabilitation project and a short-term loan to the Maybell-Clemo
affordable senior housing site. This report outlines a proposed process and set of guidelines for
allocating Stanford funds to appropriate projects consistent with the requirements of the
# 15Attachment A
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Development Agreement. The report also recommends that the City Council formally approve
an allocation of $2 million to Project Safety Net as discussed below.
Background
On June 6, 2011, the City Council approved Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning changes,
a conditional use permit, annexation and design applications for the Stanford University
Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (the “Projects”). The Projects
include the construction of a new Stanford Hospital and clinics buildings, an expansion of the
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, construction of new School of Medicine buildings,
renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion, construction of a new medical office building and
parking garage at Hoover Pavilion, roadway improvements along Welch Road and Durand Way,
and SUMC design guidelines. A Development Agreement vesting these approvals was entered
into between the SUMC Parties and the City and was effective on June 6, 2011 and continued
for thirty years from the effective date.
On July 25, 2011 Council discussed the status of the funds (Report ID #1954) and high-level
themes guiding the use of the funds. Staff committed to returning to Council with defined
guidelines, which are discussed in this report. In addition, at the July 25 meeting Council
discussed the intent to allocate $2 million to Project Safety Net from the $4 million in
Community Health and Safety Program funds. While the $2 million allocation was discussed, it
was not formally approved via a Council vote. Staff is, therefore, asking Council to formalize the
allocation via this staff report. The Council minutes from the July 25, 2011 meeting are
attached to this report (Attachment C).
This report lays out Staff’s recommendation of a proposed process and set of guidelines for
allocating these funds in the near term and in future years. While the Infrastructure Blue
Ribbon Commission (IBRC) initiative has identified many specific projects that could be funded
by the SUMC monies, to best leverage all available funds, it is important to examine these
projects in a larger context. Staff is proposing a phased approach to allocating the SUMC funds
that is tied to leveraging opportunities such as grant funding, capital improvement program
budget discussions, and a possible revenue ballot measure. Staff is seeking Council input on
this proposed process and guidelines so staff can tailor upcoming discussions at the key
decision points mentioned above.
Discussion
City Staff responsible for the project areas that will receive funds have met to layout a proposal
for a process and guidelines to allocate SUMC funds. This process hinges on upcoming
decisions and discussions that could take place around possible transportation grant
City of Palo Alto Page 3
opportunities in 2013 or beyond, the FY2014 (or beyond) capital improvement program budget,
and projects for a possible bond or initiative in FY2014.
Guiding Principles
Council discussed all the SUMC funds during an update on July 25, 2011 (Report ID #1954).
Council comments suggested the funds should not be used for budgetary deficits, but rather to
establish permanent funds from which the community could benefit for years to come
(Attachment C). Comments also pointed to the transformative nature of the funds to do
something for the community in a major way. Further, comments suggested that only high-
priority projects, after much vetting from the community, should be selected. Projects that
were fiscally sustainable could also be a requirement.
Staff, building on Council comments, added financial management concepts along with
principles of endowment management to develop the following recommended policy
guidelines for reviewing SUMC funding allocation proposals (for Council discussion).
Guiding Principles for Use of SUMC Funds
1. SUMC funds are onetime funds and they should be used to invest in initiatives that will
have lasting impact
2. Funding decisions should strike a balance between safeguarding the principal and
leveraging the interest
3. Interest is accrued to the individual funds
4. Should the vote threshold to approve the use of the funds by Council be high?
5. Any decision to expend funds includes full status report, review of approved policy
guidelines and an accounting of expenditure outlays
6. Proposed projects or programs that would leverage matching grant funding or other
funding sources would be weighted highly
7. The funds should not be used for ongoing expenditures, should strive to be one-time in
nature
8. Endowment fund management concepts to consider and help frame discussion:
a. Capital preservation for future generations
b. “The trustees of an endowment institution are the guardians of the future
against the claims of the present. Their task is to preserve equity among
generations.” James Tobin
c. Capital appreciation as well as current income (i.e. rent from real property)
d. Restricted versus unrestricted funds
City of Palo Alto Page 4
e. The role of the endowment in supporting the organization’s mission?
f. How much of the endowment’s return should be spent and how much
should be reinvested?
g. Balance this tension: the current needs of the City and community vs. the
obligation to preserve the endowment for future generations
h. What’s the life of the SUMC funds? (i.e. endowments are forever)
i. Risks:
Gradual reduction of assets on small non impactful projects or outcomes
“Too many hands in the pot,” Dilution of impact
Lax oversight
j. How can endowment value be preserved for the future?
k. Policies that will guide it’s management, written down and reviewed
periodically
Staff proposes that the (Council) Finance Committee weigh the merits of any proposed funding
allocations via these guidelines and concepts. Under this process, all funding allocation
proposals would come through Finance Committee for review and recommendation to the full
Council. Staff would provide a package for Finance Committee review that would include a
review of the guidelines, status on any expenditures and a recommendation based on staff
review and other input from possible staff or external review committees.
Current Fund Status
As of March 2013, the City has spent a portion of SUMC funds on specific projects: 27 University
($524,124), Project Safety Net ($139,389), and affordable housing ($4,300,000; long and short
term housing loans).
The table below summarizes the responsible departments, funding received and the remaining
funding after taking into account committed funds and interest income earned. The table does
not include proposed allocations from the SUMC funds in the FY2014 Proposed Budget for
Project Safety Net ($260,000) and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan ($1.2 million).
These proposed allocations are due to be reviewed by the Finance Committee on May 16 as
part of the FY2014 budget hearings. For a detailed accounting of SUMC funds to date see
Attachment A.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
SUMC Funds
Category
Responsible
Department
Payments
due from
Stanford per
Development
Agreement
Amount
Received
from
Stanford
Amount
Spent or
Loaned
Available
Funding as
of 3/31/13
(includes
interest
earned)
Committed/
Status
Committed/Designated
Project Operating
Deficit
ASD $2,417,000 $2,417,000 $0 $2,612,413 Committed through end of
project to mitigate
unexpected project impact
costs
Linkage from
Downtown through
PAITS to Quarry/ECR
Intersection
Planning $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $374,124 $2,035,937 Recommended for CIP
funding in FY2015
Linkage along Quarry
Road for
Pedestrian/Bicycles/
Transit
Planning $400,000 $400,000 $0 $432,340 Recommended for CIP
funding in FY2015
Not Committed – Council Input Sought
Community Health
and Safety Programs
Community
Services
$4,000,000 $4,000,000 $139,389 $4,180,151 Available, recommended
in part for Project Safety
Net
Infrastructure,
Sustainable
Neighborhoods and
Affordable Housing
Public
Works
and
Planning
$23,200,000 $15,466,666 $4,470,220
(Council
voted on
9/24/12 to
use $150,000
for a portion
of 27
University)
$11,669,332
($7,733,333
due upon
occupancy,
est. 2016)
Available pending OBAG
project selection, then to
Infrastructure and
Sustainability Committees
for prioritization and
recommendation to
Council
Sustainability
Programs
Public
Works
and
Planning
$12,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,381,809
($4,000,000
due upon
occupancy,
est. 2016)
Available pending OBAG
project selection, then to
Infrastructure and
Sustainability Committees
for prioritization and
recommendation to
Council
Totals $44,267,000 $32,533,666 $4,983,733 $29,311,982
(includes
$1.8m
interest)
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Two projects, Linkage from Downtown through Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station to
Quarry/El Camino Real Intersection and Linkage along Quarry Road for Pedestrians, Bicycles,
and Transit, have well-defined project areas. The Quarry Road linkage is a project that is
required to be completed by December 2016. The same deadline applies to the larger
Downtown linkage funds. Staff will work with Stanford as needed to coordinate these projects.
Two other funding areas, Infrastructure and Affordable Housing and Climate Change and
Sustainability represent funding that could go to any number of projects without any
Development Agreement conditions. As discussed below, staff recommends that the process
for allocating these funds be staged.
The fourth funding category is for Community Health and Safety Programs with an emphasis on
Project Safety Net. Staff proposes formalizing the $2million allocation to Project Safety Net and
that no new allocations be decided until Project Safety Net has completed their strategic
planning process currently under way. This is discussed in more detail below.
Finally, the Project Operating Deficit funds are set aside in the Development Agreement to
mitigate unanticipated project impact expenses that emerge during the course of the project.
Staff anticipates holding these funds until final project completion, at which time the funds
could be used to backfill additional City operating expenses that arise when the projects come
fully online. At this point, the funds are not considered available for other projects.
Community Health and Safety Programs ($4.2 million available)
DA requirement:
$4 million to be distributed to selected community health programs that benefit
residents of the City, based on joint committee recommendations and Council
acceptance
Council may decide to use the entire portion for the Project Safety Net Program
The SUMC parties and the City shall establish a joint committee to review proposals and
make recommendations to the City Council on programs or projects other than Project
Safety Net. (The decision is Council’s sole discretion.)
Consistent with the Guiding Principles discussed above and Council’s earlier direction, staff
proposes that $2 Million of the Stanford funds be allocated to Project Safety Net (PSN). PSN is a
recognized leader in suicide prevention and youth well-being and the umbrella entity for this
effort in Palo Alto. The SUMC funding would support prevention, intervention, and education
programs and projects targeted at “At Risk Youth” in the community. Project Safety Net is
currently going through a significant planning process as a community collaborative with a local
City of Palo Alto Page 7
non-profit Compass Point to define a strategic path for meaningful social impact on Palo Alto’s
youth wellbeing and suicide prevention goals over the next three years. This planning work will
be complete by the end of the fiscal year and will be particularly informative as we consider
how best to invest the remainder of the Community Health and Safety funds. The planning
work will further define PSN’s core programmatic and strategic goals, building upon current
efforts. The plan will also provide a recommended structure along with decision making
processes for the collaborative that will support the programmatic and strategic goals.
At this time staff recommends that Council make no decision as to the allocation of the
remainder of the funds, but wait until staff returns with the results of PSN’s strategic planning
process. Staff does believe that a process similar to the Human Services Resources Allocation
Process would be appropriate in discussing and prioritizing fund allocations.
The Development Agreement anticipates use of this $4 million within a 10 year period. At the
right point in time, staff recommends establishment of the joint review committee to discuss
the best investment opportunities for the other $2 million.
Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities and Affordable Housing ($11.8
million available)
DA requirement:
$23 million for use in connection with infrastructure, sustainable neighborhoods and
communities and affordable housing
Final payment of $7 million due upon issuance of a hospital occupancy permit, which is
expected in 2016.
Council recently approved the City’s participation in the One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG) to
seek grant opportunities for transportation projects that would satisfy infrastructure needs and
sustainability objectives (report ID #3551). The Stanford funds were identified as a potential
source for the necessary matching grants. The total for matching grants is $25 million and the
available funds in the two SUMC funds categories is $22.7 million. It is unlikely that the City will
be approved for all 10 projects so the ultimate matching requirement is expected to be far less
than $25 million. The grant approval process is expected to be completed in April, with the City
learning which projects have been approved by May. Staff proposes to return after the grant
awards are announced with a final funding strategy, including the possible use of SUMC funds,
recognizing there are many other competing possibilities, now and in the future.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Staff recommends that Council consider that upcoming discussions about the potential use of
SUMC funds and prioritization and allocation possibilities be held with the Infrastructure
committee, as a prelude to Finance Committee review.
Staff proposes to set aside an amount of approximately $1,500,000 to be ready for affordable
housing opportunities.
Climate Change and Sustainability ($8.2 million available)
DA Requirement:
$12 million for use in projects and programs (including carbon credits) for a sustainable
community, including programs identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan, and
investments in renewable energy and energy conservation.
$8 million received to date; $4 million final payment to be received upon hospital
occupancy permit
Projects prosed for the OBAG program, such as Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle-Pedestrian
Bridge, are consistent with the City’s sustainability goals. Staff expects to learn what projects
have been approved for OBAG funding in May.
In any case, staff proposes that the discussion of project prioritization and recommended
allocation of the sustainability funds be referred to the City’s staff “Sustainability Board” for a
more detailed analysis and report.
Resource Impact
In addition to the funds from the Development Agreement identified earlier, development
impact fees of $5.4 million have been collected so far on the project. Staff recommends
preserving the development impact fees until the end of the project to help address remaining
mitigations at that time.
Administrative Fees:
The development agreement allows for the City to recover from the SUMC funds the
reasonable costs associated with managing, accounting and reporting for the funds. While City
staff has recently began contributing time to managing the funds it is not significant. At this
time staff does not recommend charging an administrative fee to the funds.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Since the City has proposed using SUMC funds as matching grant funding and for loans, in the
case of affordable housing, this funding will be returned to the City in the future. As these
funds are returned to the SUMC categories they will become available for appropriate projects
in future years.
Policy Implications
One of the policy implications is how to synchronize the process for prioritizing infrastructure
and other potential projects with the availability of funding. Council will surely want to discuss
alternatives.
Staff has met with representatives of Stanford to discuss the proposed allocation of funds
discussed in this report and the ongoing process for allocating those funds.
Environmental Review
No environmental review is required at this stage of the discussion process but, if funded, some
of the proposed projects may be required to complete a CEQA Analysis prior to construction.
Attachments:
Attachment A: SUMC Funds 2012 (XLSX)
Attachment B: SUMC Funds 2013 (XLSX)
Attachment C: Excerpt City Council minutes from 07-25-2011.pdf (PDF)
Ci
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
5/
2
/
2
0
1
3
St
a
n
f
o
r
d
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
(
F
u
n
d
2
6
0
)
FY
2
0
1
2
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pe
d
&
B
i
k
e
L
i
n
k
Pe
d
&
B
i
k
e
L
i
n
k
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
&
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
To
t
a
l
F
Y
2
0
1
2
FY
2
0
1
2
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
at
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
P
a
r
k
At
Q
u
a
r
r
y
R
d
Af
f
o
r
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
&
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
He
a
l
t
h
&
S
a
f
e
t
y
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
Au
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
De
f
i
c
i
t
co
s
t
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
2
6
0
0
1
0
60
2
6
0
0
2
0
60
2
6
0
0
3
0
60
2
6
0
0
4
0
80
2
6
0
0
1
0
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
:
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
F
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
2,
4
1
7
,
0
0
0
2,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
40
0
,
0
0
0
7,
7
3
3
,
3
3
3
4,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
4,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
20
,
8
0
0
,
3
3
3
20
,
8
0
0
,
3
3
3
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
E
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
1,
3
4
0
,
1
7
2
1,
3
4
0
,
1
7
2
45
9
,
9
8
4
Al
l
o
c
a
t
e
t
o
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
(1
,
3
4
0
,
1
7
2
)
(1
,
3
4
0
,
1
7
2
)
Al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
E
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
15
7
,
8
1
4
13
0
,
7
5
8
26
,
1
1
7
50
4
,
9
3
4
26
1
,
1
7
3
25
9
,
3
7
6
1,
3
4
0
,
1
7
2
-
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
2,
5
7
4
,
8
1
4
2,
3
8
0
,
7
5
8
42
6
,
1
1
7
8,
2
3
8
,
2
6
7
4,
2
6
1
,
1
7
3
4,
2
5
9
,
3
7
6
22
,
1
4
0
,
5
0
5
21
,
2
6
0
,
3
1
7
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
:
Te
m
p
S
a
l
a
r
i
e
s
/
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
(
1
)
20
,
2
2
4
20
,
2
2
4
45
,
0
0
0
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
2
7
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
(
2
)
24
7
,
3
6
9
24
7
,
3
6
9
25
0
,
0
0
0
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
1,
6
5
0
1,
6
5
0
-
Ot
h
e
r
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
5,
6
4
4
5,
6
4
4
20
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
-
24
7
,
3
6
9
-
-
-
27
,
5
1
8
27
4
,
8
8
6
31
5
,
0
0
0
Ne
t
t
o
t
a
l
0
6
/
3
0
/
1
2
2,
5
7
4
,
8
1
4
2,
1
3
3
,
3
9
0
42
6
,
1
1
7
8,
2
3
8
,
2
6
7
4,
2
6
1
,
1
7
3
4,
2
3
1
,
8
5
8
21
,
8
6
5
,
6
1
9
20
,
9
4
5
,
3
1
7
Fu
t
u
r
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
:
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
2
-
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
7,
7
3
3
,
3
3
3
4,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
pe
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
1
s
t
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Pe
r
m
i
t
i
s
s
t
i
l
l
u
n
d
e
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
b
y
O
S
H
P
D
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
8
-
1
s
t
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
7,
7
3
3
,
3
3
3
4,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
(1
)
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
b
u
d
g
e
t
e
d
f
o
r
s
i
x
m
o
n
t
h
s
,
t
h
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
d
i
d
n
o
t
s
t
a
r
t
u
n
t
i
l
A
p
r
i
l
.
(2
)
$
6
6
K
F
e
r
g
u
s
G
e
r
b
e
r
Y
o
u
n
g
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
$5
0
K
S
a
n
d
i
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
$3
1
K
S
a
n
d
C
i
v
i
c
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
$8
5
K
F
u
k
u
j
i
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
$1
3
K
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
$2
K
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
R
e
a
r
d
o
n
Ci
t
y
o
f
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
5/
2
/
2
0
1
3
St
a
n
f
o
r
d
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
(
F
u
n
d
2
6
0
)
FY
2
0
1
3
Ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
In
t
e
r
m
o
d
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
Qu
a
r
r
y
R
o
a
d
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
&
Cl
i
m
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
To
t
a
l
F
Y
2
0
1
3
FY
2
0
1
3
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Af
f
o
r
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
&
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
He
a
l
t
h
&
S
a
f
e
t
y
Ac
t
u
a
l
s
Au
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
co
s
t
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
2
6
0
0
1
0
60
2
6
0
0
2
0
60
2
6
0
0
3
0
60
2
6
0
0
4
0
80
2
6
0
0
1
0
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
0
7
/
0
1
/
1
2
2,
5
7
4
,
8
1
4
2,
1
3
3
,
3
9
0
42
6
,
1
1
7
8,
2
3
8
,
2
6
7
4,
2
6
1
,
1
7
3
4,
2
3
1
,
8
5
8
21
,
8
6
5
,
6
1
9
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
:
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
F
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
(
1
)
-
-
-
7,
7
3
3
,
3
3
3
4,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
-
11
,
7
3
3
,
3
3
3
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
E
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
45
9
,
8
4
3
45
9
,
8
4
3
-
Al
l
o
c
a
t
e
t
o
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
(4
5
9
,
8
4
3
)
(4
5
9
,
8
4
3
)
Al
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
E
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
37
,
5
9
9
29
,
3
0
2
6,
2
2
2
16
7
,
9
5
2
12
0
,
6
3
6
60
,
1
6
3
42
1
,
8
7
6
-
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
37
,
5
9
9
29
,
3
0
2
6,
2
2
2
7,
9
0
1
,
2
8
5
4,
1
2
0
,
6
3
6
60
,
1
6
3
12
,
1
5
5
,
2
0
9
-
Ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
:
Te
m
p
S
a
l
a
r
i
e
s
/
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
70
,
7
0
4
70
,
7
0
4
11
8
,
0
0
0
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
2
7
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
12
6
,
7
5
5
15
0
,
0
0
0
27
6
,
7
5
5
37
4
,
5
0
4
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
37
,
4
7
6
37
,
4
7
6
95
,
0
0
0
Ot
h
e
r
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
3,
6
9
1
3,
6
9
1
15
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
H
I
L
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Lo
a
n
t
o
H
I
L
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
2,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
H
I
L
-
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
72
0
,
2
2
0
72
0
,
2
2
0
72
0
,
2
2
0
To
t
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
-
12
6
,
7
5
5
-
4,
4
7
0
,
2
2
0
-
11
1
,
8
7
1
2,
1
0
8
,
8
4
6
2,
3
2
2
,
7
2
4
FY
2
0
1
3
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
l
e
s
s
E
x
p
37
,
5
9
9
(9
7
,
4
5
3
)
6,
2
2
2
3,
4
3
1
,
0
6
5
4,
1
2
0
,
6
3
6
(5
1
,
7
0
8
)
10
,
0
4
6
,
3
6
3
(2
,
3
2
2
,
7
2
4
)
Ne
t
t
o
t
a
l
0
3
/
3
1
/
1
3
2,
6
1
2
,
4
1
3
2,
0
3
5
,
9
3
7
43
2
,
3
4
0
11
,
6
6
9
,
3
3
2
8,
3
8
1
,
8
0
9
4,
1
8
0
,
1
5
1
31
,
9
1
1
,
9
8
2
Fu
t
u
r
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
f
r
o
m
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
:
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
8
-
1
s
t
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
7,
7
3
3
,
3
3
3
4,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
07/25/2011 108-408
Council Member Shepherd asked whether wireless antennae could be
installed on traffic lights.
Mr. Marshall stated that he did not believe that the City would allow
installation on traffic lights due to safety concerns.
Council Member Shepherd asked how wireless antennae differed from traffic
cameras.
Mr. Marshall stated that wireless antennae were fairly large and heavy, and
could potentially interfere with the traffic signal.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent
17. Stanford University Medical Center Community Benefits Discussion and
Appointment of City Representatives to Joint Committee for
Community Health and Safety Programs.
Council Member Klein advised that he would not participate in the Item, as
his wife was a member of the faculty at Stanford University.
Deputy City Manager, Steve Emslie, explained that the Staff Report provided
a summary of the schedule of payments to the City resulting from approval
of the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Development Agreement
in June 2011. He stated that the first payment was due at the time of initial
permit, estimated for summer 2011. The last two payments were due when
the hospital’s foundation permit was pulled in January 2012, and upon
occupancy of the first hospital project some time in 2018. He noted that the
payments were to be divided into three major categories of funds: the
Sustainability Fund ($12,000,000), the Neighborhood Infrastructure Fund
($23,200,000), and the Community Health and Safety Fund ($4,000,000).
He stated that approximately $20,000,000 of the Neighborhood
Infrastructure Fund was uncommitted, and could be used at Council’s
discretion for projects that supported neighborhood infrastructure and other
infrastructure needs of the City. He remarked that Council had designated
$2,000,000 from the Community Health and Safety Fund to go to Project
Safety Net, and that Staff would return after Council’s August break with a
Budget Amendment Ordinance and a job description for the creation of a
Project Safety Net Coordinator position in the Community Services
Department. He stated that Staff’s recommendation was for Council to utilize
the Finance Committee in determining the allocation of the funds. He
explained that the Finance Committee was well equipped to facilitate
conversations within the context of the City’s budgetary priorities and
Capital Improvement Projects.
Mr. Keene stated that there was no particular urgency regarding the issue.
He stated that considering the amount of money that would be needed for
Attachment C
Excerpt minutes from 7/25/11 City Council minutes
07/25/2011 108-409
Project Safety Net, the $2,000,000 allocation was not an extraordinary sum.
He explained that only a portion of the $2,000,000 would be allocated to the
new Project Safety Net Coordinator staff position. He stated that one of the
reasons that Staff had placed the Item on the Agenda was so that Council
could receive an update on the status of the Project Safety Net Coordinator
position.
Council Member Price observed that although the Staff report stated that the
Finance Committee had recommended the designation of $2,000,000 from
the Community Health and Safety Fund toward Project Safety Net, the
Policies and Services Committee P&S had also reviewed the Item and made
a similar recommendation. She asked that Staff correct the information in
the Staff Report to include the P&S Committee. She asked whether the
purpose of the Joint Stanford/City Committee for Community Health and
Safety Programs was to develop procedures for the utilization of the funds.
Mr. Keene stated that Council Member Price was correct, and added that
Council may want to use the Joint Committee as a model for the assessment
of allocations across all of the Funds. He acknowledged that Council may not
use the same appointment technique for each committee, but emphasized
the need to establish an allocation process and criteria would be more critical
as Council began to make decisions regarding some of the larger Funds.
Council Member Price agreed that Council would need an organized approach
to defining the policy priorities that would determine the allocation of funds.
She stated that although the Staff recommendation was rather broad, it was
important to present Council the opportunity to discuss those issues. She
emphasized that there was a lot of money at stake, and that it would need
to be handled in a careful and responsible manner. She stated that Project
Safety Net was an extremely important project, and that she looked forward
to discussing it further.
Mr. Keene stated that Staff sought direction from Council regarding how to
create a process for allocation of the Community Benefit funds. He explained
that Staff was not yet ready to present specific alternatives, but that with
some direction they could return to Council with a more refined proposal.
Council Member Shepherd stated that the strategic planning and vision work
that had already been done by the Project Safety Net group was extremely
valuable. She asked whether Staff intended to spread out the $2,400,000
fiscal neutrality payment over a number of years.
Mr. Keene stated that the plan for the money was to place it in a savings
account and allow the interest to grow to a point which could guarantee
fiscal neutrality.
07/25/2011 108-410
Council Member Shepherd asked whether Council Member Klein’s
participation in determining allocation of funds which had already been
received from Stanford would represent a conflict of interest.
City Attorney, Molly Stump, stated that Council Member Klein should not
participate in the Joint Committee for Community Health and Safety
Programs.
Council Member Shepherd stated that Council had been asked to offer
direction to Staff regarding allocation of Community Benefit funds, and
asked whether Council Member Klein would be allowed to participate at
some point.
Ms. Stump replied that Council Member Klein’s participation could be further
discussed as the project continued, but that he should not participate at the
present time.
Council Member Shepherd stated that the funds received from Stanford
University should not be used for general purposes, such as balancing the
annual budget.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh
to accept Staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor to appoint two
Council Members to the Joint Stanford/City Committee for Community
Health and Safety Programs and provide Staff direction regarding the
recommended process for expending Community Benefit funds.
Vice Mayor Yeh agreed with Council Member Shepherd that the money
should not be used to compensate for budgetary deficits within a given fiscal
year, but to establish permanent Funds from which the community could
benefit for years to come.
Council Member Scharff expressed support for the Motion. He stated that the
money should be used in a transformative way to do something positive for
the community of Palo Alto. He stated that Council should focus on only the
highest impact projects, which would require a great deal of input from the
community. He commented that Council should consult the Infrastructure
Blue Ribbon Task Force for their input regarding projects that could be
extremely transformative to the City’s infrastructure. The Council needed to
use the money on long-term rather than short-term projects, and that the
emphasis should be placed on fiscally sustainable projects.
Council Member Burt expressed support for the Motion, but asked for
clarification regarding the Joint Committee. He asked whether, once formed,
the Joint Committee would be advisory to one of the standing committees or
to Council.
07/25/2011 108-411
Mr. Keene replied that the Joint Committee would be advisory to Council. He
stated that most likely, the Joint Committee would seek explicit policy
direction from Council prior to making any commitments.
Council Member Burt stated that it was important to avoid
misunderstandings regarding the delegation of authority. He expressed
concerns regarding the misconception by some that Project Safety Net Staff
would determine how to spend the funds, and asked that any
misunderstandings be addressed as soon as possible. He stated that in order
to avoid a false sense of authority over final decision making, it was
necessary to have open communication and to be very clear from the outset
about where the authority would reside. He stated that two of the Funds
were primarily policy oriented, and so should be sent to the P&S Committee.
He stated that he would like to hear from the other Council Members
regarding which committees should review the Fund allocations.
Mr. Keene explained that Staff was still in the very initial stages of the plan,
but that they had included Finance Committee review in order to connect the
projects to the budget cycle. He assured Council that conversations
regarding Project Safety Net programs had been focused on how to create
endowment funding that would leverage other money to remain sustainable.
He indicated that during Fall 2011, Council might want to move forward with
development of some guiding values and principles regarding the use of the
funds.
Council Member Holman suggested that any advisory committee’s formed to
consider the allocation of funds from either the Sustainability Fund or the
Neighborhood Infrastructure Fund should include different Council Members
than the Joint Committee for Community Health and Safety Programs. She
stated that Mr. Keene had indicated that the Joint Committee would seek
explicit policy directions from Council prior to making any commitments, and
inquired as to what types of commitments the two Council Members would
make.
Mr. Keene stated that his comments were intended to convey that efforts
should be made to avoid a situation in which the Joint Committee Members
made commitments without explicit direction from Council. He stated that
Staff had recommended the Joint Committee because it was specifically
prescribed by the SUMC Development Agreement. He stated that he had
assumed that Council would prefer not to delegate full authority to the two
Council Members appointed to the Joint Committee, but rather to give them
direction prior to making any commitments.
Council Member Holman asked why two Council Members would be making
commitments, and not the Council as a whole.
07/25/2011 108-412
Mr. Keene stated that Council should be making the final decisions, and that
the two Joint Committee Members would need to receive direction from
Council.
Council Member Burt clarified that the Joint Committee for Community
Health and Safety Programs was the only committee specifically referenced
in the SUMC Development Agreement.
Council Member Holman stated that the Joint Committee had been described
as an advisory body, and that she had been unclear as to the intent of Mr.
Keene’s comments. She stated that having received clarification, she would
support the Motion.
Mayor Espinosa stated that he would like to see Staff provide a timeline, a
process, and a list of responsibilities for both the Joint Committee and for
the other two Funds. He would like to see those materials presented for
review not long after Council’s return from the Aug ust break so that
everyone was clear early on about how the process would work. He stated
that the issues presented a great deal of overlap, and should be reviewed by
both the Finance and the P&S Committees. He asserted that prior committee
review would allow Council to engage in a broader conversation, and agreed
that community input would be very important moving forward.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Klein not participating, Schmid absent
18. Resolution 9194 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending Section 1401 of the Merit System Rules and
Regulations to Incorporate a Side Letter with SEIU Local 521 to Extend
the Term of the Memorandum of Agreement for One Additional Year,
Through June 30, 2012, and Add a Provision for a Flexible Spending
Arrangement.”
City Manager, James Keene, stated that the proposal would extend the SEIU
Local 521 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) until June 30, 2012. If
approved, Staff would begin negotiation at the end of the calendar year for
the 2012 MOA. He commented that Staff would have placed the Item on the
Consent Calendar, but that the 2010 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Report had specifically recommended that all cities in the County place labor
agreements on the Action Agenda to improve transparency.
Acting Assistant Director Human Resources, Marcie Scott, stated that the
MOA would apply to 582 full-time equivalent employees working in nearly
every City Department. She explained that in late October 2009, the City
and SEIU were at impasse and could not agree on a wage and benefit
package. As a result, Council implemented significant changes to
compensation and made structural changes to pension and medical benefits.
She explained that the changes included increased employee pension
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page1of8
Special Meeting
May 6, 2013
Review of Guiding Principles for Stanford University Medical Center Fund
Allocations and Allocation of $2 Million to Project Safety Net
James Keene, City Manager wished to update the Council and community on
the status of Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Development
Agreement funds, to review guidelines suggested by Staff, and to follow up
on two potential funding requests. Staff recommended the Council approve
a $2 million allocation to Project Safety Net. A total of $4 million in the
Community Health and Safety Programs category had to be spent within a
ten-year period. Both the Policy and Services Committee and the Finance
Committee approved recommendations to allocate $2 million for Project
Safety Net. The $2 million amount for Project Safety Net was included in the
Adopted Budget. Staff requested the Council provide input or action on the
Guiding Principles for the use of funds.
David Ramberg, Assistant Director Administrative Services, reported
Stanford University owed the City a total of $44.2 million under the SUMC
Development Agreement. As of the end of March 2013, the City received
$32.5 million from Stanford University. To date the City spent or loaned a
total of $4.9 million, leaving a balance of approximately $29.3 million
including $1.8 million in interest earnings. The City would receive $7.7
million in the category of Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and
Affordable Housing in 2016. The City would receive $4 million in the
Sustainability Programs category. The Council approved a $374,000
expenditure from the category Linkage from Downtown through Palo Alto
Intermodal Transit Station to Quarry/El Camino Real Intersection for the 27
University Avenue Project. In addition, the Council approved funding of
$150,000 for that project from the Infrastructure, Sustainable
Neighborhoods and Affordable Housing category. From the Community
Health and Safety Programs category, the Council spent $139,000 for
Project Safety Net. The majority of funds expended from the Infrastructure,
Sustainable Neighborhoods and Affordable Housing category supported the
Stevenson House and Maybell-Clemo projects.
Attachment B
DRAFTEXCERPTMINUTES
Page2of8
CityCouncilMeeting
DraftExcerptMinutes:5/6/13
Mr. Keene added that generally the Council had discretion to expend SUMC
funds. Funds in the two Linkage categories were required to be spent by
2016; therefore, Staff included those amounts in the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). He anticipated establishing a joint committee composed of
Stanford University and City representatives to consider and review funding
proposals for the $4 million in the Community Health and Safety Programs
category. The joint committee would make recommendations to the Council,
and the Council would make the final decision regarding allocation of those
funds. Funds in the Community Health and Safety Programs category had to
be expended over a ten-year period from the date of the Development
Agreement. In the Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and
Affordable Housing category, $1.7 million was devoted to affordable housing.
Expenditure of remaining funds was within the Council's discretion.
Mr. Ramberg indicated in the Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and
Affordable Housing category, $4.3 million was spent or loaned. As required
by the Development Agreement, $1.7 million was loaned to the Stevenson
House and Maybell-Clemo projects. A short-term loan for the remainder of
the Maybell-Clemo project was approved in March 2013 for a two-year
period. The City received approximately $1.1 million in housing in-lieu fees,
which would partially repay those loans. Additional in-lieu fees would repay
the loans as funds were received. Staff suggested an additional $1.5 million
could be set aside for affordable housing. With regard to Guiding Principles,
Staff proposed a review package consisting of a clear accounting of
transactions, review of prior decisions, and review of guidelines. Proposed
allocations would be presented to the Finance Committee as a package, and
then the Finance Committee would make recommendations to the Council.
From a prior Council discussion, Staff noted comments regarding not using
SUMC funds for budget deficits, funds were one-time in nature, and using
funds for transformative projects. Staff provided endowment management
concepts to assist the Council in its discussion. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2014
Proposed Budget would contain allocations for Project Safety Net and for the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. These allocations were
proposals only.
Mr. Keene noted the heart of the conversation concerned policy guidelines
for allocating SUMC funds. The City Council should strive to be wise
stewards of funding, and allocate it to provide the most impact. The
suggested Guiding Principles included not using funds for ongoing expenses
or for balancing the budget, leveraging funds for matching grants,
accomplishing many projects to provide lasting impact, and safeguarding the
principle. Endowment concepts were suggested to assist the Council. Staff
recommended that all funding proposals be vetted through the Finance
DRAFTEXCERPTMINUTES
Page3of8
CityCouncilMeeting
DraftExcerptMinutes:5/6/13
Committee, with the Finance Committee making recommendations to the
Council.
Josh Walker urged the Council to consider allocating more SUMC funds to
future affordable housing projects in order to maintain diversity. As the
Council considered policy direction, it should consider Palo Alto Housing
Corporation's request to adjust the $1.5 million loan for the Maybell-Clemo
project to a long-term loan.
Stephanie Munoz felt the City of Palo Alto needed more low-income housing;
however, Stanford University had the only available land. Stanford
University should house its low-income employees on Stanford University
land.
Council Member Berman assumed transformative projects would require
significant amounts of money; however, an endowment concept did not
advocate spending significant amounts of money. He wanted to understand
how the City could achieve both goals.
Mr. Keene suggested the endowment concept be viewed as an overlay for
the Council to move slowly in making funding decisions. Because the
Council would be besieged with funding requests, it should slowly determine
which requests provided transformative projects.
Council Member Berman believed the endowment concept created a
safeguard. He wanted the Council to have the flexibility to fund projects.
Council Member Schmid believed it was important to determine the process
first. The One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program presented certain guidelines
and principles which were not necessarily the same as the City Guiding
Principles. By using OBAG as a justification for projects, the City would not
fund projects in the long-term interest of the City. The original idea for the
27 University Avenue project was to construct a bridge on Quarry Road to
connect to Stanford Hospital. However, funds were spent on a different kind
of planning. He wished to ensure a consistent method was utilized to
generate ideas. Stanford Hospital provided funds to the City for public
access to the Stanford Medical School library and for public health subsidies;
yet, those were not mentioned. He asked who was responsible for
generating and initiating spending proposals that were in the interests of
Palo Alto.
Mr. Keene did not wish to imply that potential OBAG funding was the default
approach in determining which projects were funded. The Council should
have a process for considering supplemental funding. With respect to the
DRAFTEXCERPTMINUTES
Page4of8
CityCouncilMeeting
DraftExcerptMinutes:5/6/13
linkage issue, the majority of funding was related to particular linkage
pieces. Stanford Hospital Staff provided ideas related to health issues, and
Staff would present those ideas at a later time. A range of needs
assessments and identified deficiencies were available for Council
consideration. Staff did not have a specific timeline for presenting those
needs to the Council.
Council Member Schmid wanted to have a range of options focused on
community needs.
Council Member Klein inquired about the status of OBAG requests for
funding.
Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official, reported the Adobe
Creek/Highway 101 Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge project was recommended for
funding. The requested amount was $4 million.
Council Member Klein asked if the City had to provide matching funds.
Mr. Rodriguez indicated the estimated cost of the Bridge was approximately
$9.5 million. The City secured $4 million from the Stanford-Palo Alto Trail
Program, committed to funding internally the design phase, and spent
approximately $500,000 for the feasibility and environmental assessment.
No fund source was identified for $1 million.
Council Member Klein inquired whether the project was fully funded.
Mr. Rodriguez replied yes.
Council Member Klein asked if any projects were rejected.
Mr. Rodriguez stated no City projects were rejected; however, the program
was oversubscribed. Some projects were rejected because they did not
meet program qualifications.
Council Member Klein asked if other City projects had a chance of receiving
funding.
Mr. Rodriguez noted the City's request for transit mall improvements did not
score well.
Council Member Klein felt the endowment concept was inconsistent with the
Council's intention of spending SUMC funds on impactful projects.
DRAFTEXCERPTMINUTES
Page5of8
CityCouncilMeeting
DraftExcerptMinutes:5/6/13
Endowments were meant to be a permanent source of funding for ongoing
expenses.
Mr. Keene requested the Council provide a Motion removing the endowment
portion from the Guiding Principles.
Council Member Klein inquired whether $260,000 in the FY 2014 Proposed
Budget for Project Safety Net was in addition to or a part of the $2 million
amount.
Mr. Keene stated it was part of the $2 million amount.
Council Member Klein hoped the Council would consider allocating the
remainder of funds in the Community Health and Safety Programs category
to programs for other age groups. Youth were important, but so were the
elderly and those aged 21-65. The language at the bottom of page 7
regarding OBAG grants was misleading, because Staff did not expect to
receive $25 million. He asked if Staff had projects in mind for the proposed
$1.5 million for affordable housing.
Curtis Williams, Director Planning and Community Environment, reported
$1.5 million could serve as a transition for many projects. For example, it
could supplement cash flow for some projects. Staff did not anticipate using
the funds for only one project. Rather, Staff proposed reserving funds for a
transition period for a project.
Council Member Klein inquired about the amount of development impact
fees, in addition to $5.4 million, Staff anticipated collecting.
Mr. Keene noted the $5.4 million amount was not part of the SUMC funds.
Mr. Williams would return with that information.
Council Member Klein inquired about Staff's reasoning for preserving
development impact fees until the end of the project to help address
remaining mitigations.
Mr. Ramberg reported other funds were set aside; therefore, Staff would not
necessarily need to use development impact fees at a later time. The
Project Operating Deficit category covered unanticipated costs.
Council Member Klein suggested Staff review the use of development impact
fees.
DRAFTEXCERPTMINUTES
Page6of8
CityCouncilMeeting
DraftExcerptMinutes:5/6/13
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd
to refer this item to the Policy and Services Committee to develop formal
Guiding Principles and an approval process for the use of Stanford University
Medical Center Development Agreement funds. Furthermore, to authorize
the use of $2 million from such funds for Project Safety Net.
Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to eliminate proposed Guiding Principle
Number 8 from Policy and Services Committee review.
Council Member Klein preferred not to restrict the Policy and Services
Committee discussion.
Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the Motion was for the Policy and
Services Committee to draft Guiding Principles outside of Staff's
recommendations.
Council Member Klein suggested the Policy and Services Committee could
use or not use suggested language.
Vice Mayor Shepherd clarified that the Motion was for the Policy and
Services Committee to draft Guiding Principles with Staff input but without
restrictions. She inquired whether the Council would review Staff's
recommendation for the $173 million from Stanford University.
Mr. Keene indicated one of the largest pieces was related to the purchase of
Go Passes and other transportation demand management (TDM)
requirements as part of the project.
Vice Mayor Shepherd was interested in the in-lieu fee for housing.
Mr. Williams noted $1.7 million of the Infrastructure, Sustainable
Neighborhoods and Affordable Housing amount was devoted to housing.
Remaining funding could be used for affordable housing or other projects.
Vice Mayor Shepherd agreed with Council Member Klein's comments
regarding endowment, and preferred to spend funds for capital
improvements. Reserving funds for the future did not allow for needed
incremental improvements. She asked if a proposal for additional shuttles
would be appropriate under the Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods
and Affordable Housing category or Climate Change and Sustainability
category.
Mr. Keene felt either of those areas would be appropriate.
DRAFTEXCERPTMINUTES
Page7of8
CityCouncilMeeting
DraftExcerptMinutes:5/6/13
Vice Mayor Shepherd requested Staff and the Policy and Services Committee
consider sophisticated transit management.
Council Member Holman stated the expenditure of funds should reflect the
City's values and Guiding Principles. The Motion was to develop formal
Guiding Principles and an approval process for the use of SUMC funds. She
inquired whether funding proposals would still be reviewed by the Finance
Committee.
Council Member Klein explained that the Motion was to create an approval
process. Each particular project would be presented to the Finance
Committee for review.
Council Member Holman wanted Finance Committee review of proposals to
be part of the Policy and Services Committee discussion.
Council Member Klein understood it would be part of the discussion. The
Policy and Service Committee's responsibility was to recommend one
approval process.
Council Member Holman believed one result of the discussion would be
ratings, rankings, and identification of community needs.
Council Member Price supported the Motion. Project Safety Net was a
critical program within the City. She disagreed with comments regarding
endowments, because there were methods for limiting the lifespan of an
endowment. She inquired whether Staff would return with
recommendations for use of the $1.5 million proposed to be set aside for
affordable housing.
Mr. Keene suggested the Council receive the Policy and Services Committee
recommendations for Guiding Principles before answering that question.
Important to note was that Staff made the request.
Council Member Price stated the Policy and Services Committee would make
recommendations regarding the process and Guiding Principles while Staff
developed other facets for affordable housing.
Mr. Keene believed the Council would be interested in having potential uses
for funding to frame the discussion about Guiding Principles. The Finance
Committee would determine whether a proposal met the Guiding Principles.
Council Member Price inquired whether a potential joint committee would be
composed of Staff and Stanford University employees.
DRAFTEXCERPTMINUTES
Page8of8
CityCouncilMeeting
DraftExcerptMinutes:5/6/13
Mr. Keene responded yes.
Council Member Burt supported the Motion. Proposed Guiding Principle
Number 2 should be deleted, because the Council discussed it. He
encouraged the Policy and Services Committee to consider spending only the
amount of interest earned annually. The bulk of funds would be spent for
infrastructure projects resulting from impacts created by the hospital. He
hoped other resources were available for expanding the shuttle system.
Perhaps the shuttle system could be expanded through Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) matching funds, employer participation, a
cooperative approach, or a TDM program. With respect to proposed Guiding
Principle Number 4, he preferred not to set the precedent of a super
majority vote.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved to add to
Guiding Principles approval process for gathering ideas from Staff and
Council.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Klein felt that was part of the Motion.
Council Member Price reported PAUSD recently discussed funding for the
shuttle system.
Mayor Scharff preferred SUMC funds be spent on projects with a life of 30 or
more years and on projects that provided a large impact. Having a thorough
vetting process was important.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Ac
t
i
o
n
Ju
n
1
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Ma
r
-
A
p
r
JA
N
JU
L
Y
DE
C
De
c
2
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
.
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
in
g
U
s
e
o
f
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
s
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
in
g
U
s
e
o
f
F
u
n
d
s
1.
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
s
u
s
e
o
f
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
s
t
w
ic
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y
,
o
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
F
a
l
l
a
n
d
o
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
S
p
r
i
n
g
.
2.
D
u
r
i
n
g
e
a
c
h
c
y
c
l
e
,
s
t
a
f
f
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
w
i
l
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
io
n
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
.
3.
S
t
a
f
f
w
i
l
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
,
w
e
i
g
h
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
g
g
e
s
ti
o
n
s
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
t
h
e
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
.
4.
T
h
e
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
w
i
l
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
,
a
n
d
ma
k
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
.
5.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
w
i
l
l
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
t
h
e
F
i
n
a
n
ce
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
nd
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
in
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
t
h
e
us
e
o
f
f
u
n
d
s
.
Ju
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
3
-
D
R
A
F
T
St
a
f
f
Sp
r
i
n
g
Fa
l
l
Au
g
-
D
e
c
Ja
n
De
c
Ap
r
Ju
l
Oc
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Ac
t
i
o
n
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
St
a
f
f
FINAL MINUTES
Page 8 of 11
Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting
Final Minutes: 06/25/13
Council Member Price assumed the Item would include discussion of
programs, approaches, and resources.
Mr. Keene noted he would not be available for any August meetings after
August 5, 2013.
2. Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement Funds
Guiding Principles and Approval Process.
James Keene, City Manager understood the Council wished to establish
Guiding Principles to inform expenditure of Stanford University Medical
Center Development Agreement (SUMCDA) Funds. He felt the Item should
be a conversation for the Committee, rather than Staff making a
recommendation.
David Ramberg, Assistant Director Administrative Services reported the total
amount received from Stanford University in the six categories was $32.5
million. The City spent or committed $4.9 million of the $32.5 million that
was allotted. When Occupancy permits were issued for the Stanford
University Medical Center project, the City would receive an additional $11.7
million. Staff proposed scenarios of spending $30 million in 2014; $44
million in 2017; $51 million in 2023; $2 million per year over 10 years; $3
million per year over 10 years; and $6 million per year over 10 years.
Council comments indicated projects should have a lasting impact and funds
were one-time in nature. Staff envisioned the Council providing input
regarding projects twice a year outside the budget process.
Mr. Keene questioned the effectiveness of spending a specific amount each
year for 10 years. Council considerations of projects outside the budget
process allowed Staff to research and analyze information more readily. He
preferred to spend the funds on worthwhile projects sooner, rather than
later.
Chair Kniss felt it was financially responsible to fund projects now, rather
than trying to increase the amount of funds through interest earnings.
Council Member Price believed a refined master list should be informed by
considerations such as alternate funding sources, effects of a recession on
costs and operational and maintenance costs of projects. Community Health
and Safety funds supported programmatic projects.
Mr. Keene agreed that programs could leverage Community Health and
Safety funds to obtain sustained funding.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 9 of 11
Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting
Final Minutes: 06/25/13
Council Member Price noted that the Community Health and Safety funds
were restricted funds. She suggested projects for Community Health and
Safety funds be presented to the Policy and Services Committee
(Committee) rather than the Finance Committee. She liked the idea of
spending funds incrementally.
Malinda Mitchell, Peninsula Healthcare Connections Board Member indicated
Peninsula Healthcare Connections submitted a proposal for funds and
requested the Committee consider utilizing funds for services for the
homeless. She thought that with additional services, much of the homeless
problem could be eliminated.
Chair Kniss inquired whether Peninsula Healthcare Connections worked with
frequent users of healthcare services.
Ms. Mitchell explained that the program allowed homeless and frequent
users to establish a primary care base.
Council Member Klein preferred that the Council prepare a master list of
projects. He inquired whether Staff could handle the workload if the Council
spent all funds in one year.
Mr. Keene reported that handling the work load would depend on whether
the Council implemented one project or many projects and on the
complexity of the project(s). The Council needed to incorporate production
as well as construction and operational costs of projects.
Council Member Klein felt the key element was developing a master list. He
suggested that the Council modify the Infrastructure Committee master list
to have a master list of projects to be funded by SUMCDA Funds and
perhaps have a revenue measure. He also thought the Council could set
aside funds for unforeseen projects. Council consideration of projects
needed to be part of the budget process because the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) was part of the budget process.
Mr. Keene did not want to use SUMCDA Funds for typical CIP projects; he
wanted to use them for transformative projects.
Council Member Klein did not believe that would be a problem if the master
list was fully developed and most of the money was committed.
Council Member Price assumed the Council would receive periodic updates
regarding projects funded with SUMCDA Funds.
FINAL MINUTES
Page 10 of 11
Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting
Final Minutes: 06/25/13
Mr. Ramberg noted the fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget included information
regarding SUMCDA Funds. Considering projects for SUMCDA Funds separate
from the budget allowed for careful deliberation.
Mr. Keene indicated SUMCDA Funds could be used to supplement CIP funds.
Council Member Price inquired whether the Committee supported having a
parallel but separate track for Community Health and Safety funds.
Chair Kniss and Council Member Klein supported that concept.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Chair Kniss that the
restricted funds for Community Health and Safety category of the Stanford
University Medical Center budget be reviewed by the Policy and Services
Committee.
Council Member Price explained that the process for Community Health and
Safety funds would be parallel to the process for the remaining SUMCDA
Funds.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Holman absent
Council Member Price added that the Committee for the Community Health
and Safety funds was embedded in the process.
Chair Kniss inquired about the difference between guiding questions three
and four.
Mr. Keene explained that the difference was spending funds in chunks or
evenly over a number of years. The question was whether the Council
preferred to allocate all funds at one time or over time.
Chair Kniss recommended utilizing a master list of projects with the most
lasting effect and spending all funds within five to ten years.
MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Price
that once the City Council is in receipt of the Infrastructure Committee
report, the Council should develop a ranked master list of projects to use for
the Stanford University Medical Center funds, and each year thereafter as
part of the budget process; the Finance Committee and Council shall review
the status of Stanford University Medical Center funds and projects on the
master list for possible revision, until such time that the funds are
exhausted.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Holman absent
FINAL MINUTES
Page 11 of 11
Special Policy and Services Committee Meeting
Final Minutes: 06/25/13
Council Member Price stated the Motion provided a clear process and
reflected the Committee's discussion.
Chair Kniss felt Council review of the master list should be part of the budget
process, and inquired whether all funds would be spent within ten years.
Council Member Klein thought it could be added to the Motion that all funds
were to be fully expended within ten years.
Council Member Price assumed that the good qualities of the process would
apply to the Community Health and Safety process as well.
Mr. Keene indicated the process for the SUMCDA Funds would be similar to
the CIP process. He thought strategic issues could shape the master list.
Chair Kniss suggested Community Health and Safety funds be utilized as
matching funds.
Mr. Keene reported that by late summer or early fall 2013, the
Infrastructure Committee report and the SUMCDA master list should
converge, enabling Staff to present the process to the Council in August
2013.
FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
Chair Kniss announced that the Policy and Services Committee would meet
again in August 2013.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3970)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/9/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Renaming of Main Library
Title: Adoption of a Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Renaming the Main Library as the Rinconada Library
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Library
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the Resolution to change the name of Main Library to
“Rinconada Library” as recommended by the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) and supported
by the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA).
Background
The LAC followed up on an initial suggestion by Councilmember Klein to consider changing the
name of Main Library, located at 1213 Newell Road, to coincide with the library renovation
project. Following discussions held on August 23 and September 27, 2012, the LAC moved to
recommend to City Council that the facility at 1213 Newell Road be renamed “Rinconada
Library.” The motion passed, 5-0.
Pursuant to the City’s Policy and Procedures 1-15 for Naming City-Owned Land and Facilities,
staff conveyed the name suggestion to PAHA. The PAHA board met on June 12, 2013 and
discussed the proposed renaming of the Main Library, and agreed that “the proposed new
name (Rinconada) is historically appropriate for the library on Newell Road and will support its
adoption.”
Discussion
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Because the new Mitchell Park Library will be larger than Main Library, the title of “Main,”
which denotes a function, not a location, person, or other description, is no longer accurate.
Following discussions over two meetings, including information from Historian Steve Staiger,
and reports prepared for the Commission’s review outlining the choices for consideration, the
LAC recommends renaming the Main Library to “Rinconada Library.”
The name Rinconada comes from the Spanish for “elbow” or “inside corner.” The land upon
which the original Palo Alto town was developed was originally part of the Rancho Rinconada
del Arroyo de San Francisquito land grant. The Park name came from a contest held by the
Chamber of Commerce to rename the City's Waterworks Park in the mid-1920's. Other names
considered included Newell, Embarcadero, and Community Center (the neighborhood in which
the library is located). The name “Rinconada Library” was selected because of geographic
location/adjacency to Rinconada Park, Pool, and Fire Station. Other library branch names relate
to geography and/or location with the exception of Children’s Library. That name lets the users
know that it has a specific audience and function. While Mitchell Park is named for a person,
the library and community center are named for their relationship within the park, not for the
person himself.
Public Works plans to have a signage package ready for SJ Amoroso in October 2013. They then
need time to get subcontractor quotes, execute the subcontract, prepare shop drawings for
approval, obtain the materials, and then fabricate the signs. That process can take 6 to 9
months (especially if specialty materials with long lead times are involved). Group 4 needs to
know the name for the design in progress, which will be included in the package. The length of
the proposed name will affect sign dimensions and therefore locations available for sign
placement.
The Community Services Department received bids on August 20, 2013, for the Lucie Stern and
Rinconada Park Signage Project, which includes wayfinding signage to the library site. To ensure
that this is done in a timely manner and within the bid costs, any changes would need to be
conveyed as soon as possible. Delays for both projects could result in additional charges,
though the exact amount is unclear.
For public safety dispatching, the name change does not create confusion with other facilities
and/or public resources.
This change would take effect following the Measure N renovation of the facility.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Policy Implications
Although Policy 1-15 specifies that the LAC should consider a recommendation by the PAHA,
here the LAC initiated the name change, and the PAHA concurred. As no purpose would be
served by returning the issue to the LAC, the item is now before Council for action. No other
policy implications result from this change.
Should the Council decide to pursue renaming the library for a person of historical interest,
they would need to override the policy requirements, declining the recommendation from the
LAC as well as the endorsement by PAHA.
Resource Impact
There will be minor impacts to costs related to print materials, though these are used less
frequently than in the past. Changing the name from Main to Rinconada will require staff time
as it relates to web-based information and other promotional materials, though again, it is
expected that this will be relatively minimal. Signage for the renovated building is included in
the Measure N budget and these changes can be incorporated at this time.
Environmental Review (If Applicable)
This does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, no
environmental assessment is needed.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution for Renaming the Main Library as the Rinconada Library
(PDF)
Attachment B: August 23, 2012 Library Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes and
Packet Information (PDF)
Attachment C: September 27, 2012 Library Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes and
Packet Information (PDF)
Attachment D: June 13, 2013 Email Correspondence from Steve Staiger, Historian, Palo
Alto Historical Association (PDF)
NOT YET APPROVED
Resolution No. ________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Renaming the Main
Library as the Rinconada Library
R E C I T A L S
A. The facility known as the Main Library, at 1213 Newell Road, is currently named for
the role it played when it was planned in 1957; and
B. The name “Main Library” is no longer descriptive of the function played by the
facility at 1213 Newell Road; and
C. The Library Advisory Commission considered a variety of alternative names in
consultation with Historian Steve Staiger and the Palo Alto Historical Association;
and
D. After due consideration, the Library Advisory Commission recommended the name
“Rinconada Library” in light of the facility’s geographic proximity to Rinconada Park,
Pool, and Fire Station, and to integrate the library to that area;
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The facility at 1213 Newell Road currently known as the “Main Library”
shall be renamed the “Rinconada Library,” to better reflect its relationship to other libraries
throughout the City and its function as a neighborhood resource.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
_________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Community Services
_____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
APPROVED
MINUTES
Library Advisory Commission (LAC)
August 23,2012
Downtown Library Community Room
270 Forest Avenue
7:00 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Leonardo Hochberg, Eileen Landauer, Bob Moss,
Theivanai Palaniappan, Mary Beth Train
Tolulope Akinola, Noel Bakhtian Commissioners Absent:
Staff Present: Monique Ie Conge, Evelyn Cheng
Council Liaison: Greg Schmid
CALL TO ORDER -Palaniappan called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -None
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS -None
BUSINESS
1. Approval of draft minutes of Regular Meeting on July 26,2012
• Without corrections, Train moved to approve minutes of Regular Meeting
on July 26,2012. Moss seconded. Minutes were approved unanimously.
2. Economic Impact of eBooks
• Ie Conge presented basic data for the collection development and use of
eBooks, started in Palo Alto in 2007, and the economic impact of providing
such in the Library, from the customers' view and on staffs ability to
provide services, and how to achieve greater success in the future.
• Additional documents were provided/referenced: e.g. American Library
Association's report on eBook Business Models for Public Libraries
(August, 2012); Library Journal's "eBooks Choices and the Soul of
Librarianship -the Digital Shift" (July 2012); Pew report "Libraries,
Patrons, and eBooks" (http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/06/22I1ibraries-
patrons-and-e-books/)
1
• Discussion followed, with members of the LAC asking
questions/clarification about the use of eBooks and the impact on libraries.
• Ie Conge said the Library offers access to four vendor databases for
online readable eBooks and one for downloadable ones. A comparison of
costs by vendor, including budgetary and statistical information can be
provided for continued discussion at the next LAC meeting in September.
3. Draft Library Statistics for FY2012
• Ie Conge prepared a draft of the statistics the Library has to date
regarding circulation, attendance, programs, and services, for the fiscal
year covering 2011-2012.
• Ie Conge added that the draft will not be considered complete until the
library submits its annual data to the California State Library and collection
counts, budgetary information, and other statistics will be included in that
final report.
• FY2011/12 highlights increase in customer use of library facilities,
materials and many services, in part due to the re-openings of the
renovated College Terrace Library in November 2010 and Downtown
Library in July 2011; increase in program activity with the new 60-seat
community meeting room at Downtown Library; and additional volunteer
opportunities at both renovated branches. Overall checkouts of library
materials increased 5.6%, branch visits increased 8.6%.
• Graphs comparing checkouts and visits at each branch library in the last
eight fiscal years (FY2005-2012) were also provided, to show the impact
of the various branch closings and re-openings during that time. In 2015,
the Library would have a full year of having all branches open and expects
to show significant impact on Palo Alto.
• Commissioners commended staff for increasing the number of programs
and new library cardholders, and asked questions/clarification about the
various data collected.
• Schmid said it would be helpful to include 2009 statistics since all Palo
Alto libraries were open that year and use that as a standard for
comparison. Ie Conge said she will have these available at the
September meeting.
• Palaniappan asked about meeting room reservations at Downtown Library
and allowing customers more flexibility to make reservations. Currently,
the public can make reservations three days in advance. Ie Conge said
she will have staff look into changing the policy.
2
• Hochberg asked if it would be possible to collect the data use at each
library branch and include this in the Library's annual data collection;
Ie Conge said she will check with the City's IT department.
• leConge also provided two weeks of use statistics on Freega/ and
Discover and Go, the Library's most recently-added online services.
(Freegal is a new music download service ; Discover and Go provides
free and discount passes to a wide variety of Bay Area museums and
other cultural destinations)
4. Possible Name Change for Main Library
• Ie Conge prepared materials related to the history of the naming of
Main Library as requested by the LAC at the July 2012 meeting.
Clipping files from 1955 and 1958 were i~cluded , showing in essence
that the Main Library was named for its function at the time.
• Discussion followed, with members of the LAC giving
comments/suggestions for possible name change for the library and
asking questions about origin of some names (e.g. Rinconada, Newell,
Embarcadero, neighborhood name of Community Center), the
process, if any, for naming City-owned land and facilities, and how this
was handled in the past.
• Ie Conge said she will find out from Steve Staiger, local historian and
librarian , where some of the names come from , and invite him to the
September meeting to answer additional historic questions from the
Commission.
• Moss said since the names of other branches in Palo Alto are location-
related, it would make sense to keep that approach.
• Ie Conge will put together a list of names with their historical
perspective for further discussion at the September meeting. As part
of the discussion, the Commissioners agreed that it would be helpful to
get a better understanding of the Rinconada "campus" idea and the
corresponding signage plan to help inform their decision regarding
choice of names.
5. LAC Priorities
a) LAC ByLaws (member: Moss)
Moss provided a revised draft of the proposed revisions to the LAC
ByLaws, incorporating the comments/recommendations from the
City Attorney's Office.
3
Commissioners asked for clarification on Section 6 -Agendas,
specifically on the preparation of agenda items, i.e. if other
Commissioners can provide input/suggestion outside the public
meeting.
- A clean copy of the LAC ByLaws will be provided at the next meeting
for the LAC's final review and adoption, and the City Attorney's
clarification on Section 6.
b) Community Relations/Advocacy (members:Train, Bakhtian)
-Train presented the subcommittee's updated presentation
template/talking points that can be used as a tool to promote library
awareness and the role of the Commission to the community, including
sample elevator pitches.
Members of the LAC gave feedback and asked questions about
various slides in the presentation, and agreed to continue their
review/discussion at the next meeting in September.
Since Bakhtian has resigned from the Commission and is moving to
another state, Hochberg offered to help Train revise the presentation
template.
c) Finance (members: Landauer, Palaniappan)
Landauer gave a brief update of the subcommittee's research work
and web browsing. She also met with staff to discuss plans and
directions for services, technology and staffing when Mitchell Park
opens.
Landauer added that she has an idea on how the subcommittee can
move ahead but will need to discuss this first with Palaniappan to see if
this is the right path to pursue, as well as with Ie Conge to see if their
plan fits within the overall long-term vision of the library.
Discussion to continue at the next LAC meeting in September.
d) Virtual Library (members: Akinola, Hochberg)
Hocberg said the subcommittee intends to work with staff on the mock
up of the virtual branch soon.
LIBRARY DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Ie Conge provided a written report (included in packet) on recent activities of
interest in August, and made special mention of the following events:
4
-August 27, An Evening with Tomi Reichenta/, 7 p.m., Downtown
Library. Reichental is a Holocaust survivor and will share the story of
his past.
November 2-4,2012 California Library Association (CLA) Annual
Conference, San Jose, CA, with Jonathan Reichental as CLA Master
Speaker.
OTHER REPORTS
Commissioner reports and questions:
1. Moss gave a brief background on Cable Co-op's "Nine Libraries Project" in
2004 and a status update on the grant awarded to Palo Alto Library, where
public dollars are being used effectively for the purchase of technical furniture
and equipment in libraries.
2. Moss said the Friends of the Palo Alto Library (FOPAl) Board did not meet in
July; Train attended the Palo Alto Library Foundation (PAlF) Board meeting
held on August 14.
Council Liaison Report:
Schmid said he uses the Library's services and resources to entertain his
grandchildren when they visit and/or go on long trips.
COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Marissa Moss, author and daughter of Commissioner Moss, will be participating
in the Oshman Family Jewish Community Center's Litquake (literary festival)
event on August 26.
Hochberg said he was pleased to see more children using the kids' area at
Downtown Library and cannot wait until Mitchell Park Library opens.
AGENDA for meeting on September 27,2012:
The items suggested for the meeting are:
• Continuing discussion: Economic impact of eBooks
• Continuing discussion: Possible name change for Main Library
• Information on Google Cloud Print
• Presentation on Axis 360
• Updates from lAC Subcommittees
Train moved to adjourn.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:38 p.m.
5
LOBRARY
PALO ALTO CITY
August 16, 2012
TO: Library Advisory Commission
FROM: Monique Ie Conge, Library Director
RE: Main Library, Naming Information
At the July 2012 Library Advisory Commission meeting, I was asked to
prepare material related to the history of the naming of Main Library in
preparation for a discussion on the matter. At the January 2012 joint
meeting with the City Council, it was suggested that perhaps changing
the name could be considered in the near future, coinciding the building
construction projects and I believe this was suggested by Council member
Klein earlier than that. This was mentioned again by Ned Himmel at the
July 2012 LAC meeting. This information is presented with the assistance of
Kathy Shields and Anita Delaney, both Senior Librarians at Main Library,
and Steve Staiger, local historian and librarian.
In essence, Steve Staiger ascertained from his clipping files that Main
Library came about its name without much thought or discussion. It seems
that it was named for its function at the time. The two articles attached
reference the "main library" and the "Main Library." Apparently, the
original Carnegie library was the main library in Palo Alto. Then, the city
built a new larger facility, which was to act as the new main library.
One interesting side note is that a planning consultant for the library
thought that one large library would meet the Palo Alto community
needs. He also thought the library should be built with the population of
85,000 in mind, though made no formal recommendation.
An October 1957 report prepared by the City Manager's Office, titled
"Library Facilities in the Downtown Palo Alto Area" likewise calls the
Carnegie building the main library and discusses the new planned facility,
to be called a main library, with the Carnegie building to become the
"downtown" library. This information is likewise conveyed in Palo Alto and
Its Libraries: A Long-Time Love Affair, by Tom Wyman. These documents
will be available at the August LAC meeting.
Please let me know if you require any additional information.
APPROVED
MINUTES
Library Advisory Commission (LAC)
September 27, 2012
Downtown Library Community Room
270 Forest Avenue
7:00 p.m .
Commissioners Present: Leonardo Hochberg , Eileen Landauer, Bob Moss,
Theivanai Palaniappan, Mary Beth Train
Tolulope Akinola, Noel Bakhtian Commissioners Absent:
Staff Present:
Council Liaison:
Monique Ie Conge, Evelyn Cheng, Greg Betts
Greg Schmid
CALL TO ORDER -Palaniappan called the meeting to order at 7:22 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -A member of the public spoke about his idea to
have library used as incubator space, tapping into the City's vibrant network.
AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, DELETIONS -Item marked as "7e" in the
LAC packet should go with "7d".
BUSINESS
1. Approval of draft minutes of Regular Meeting on August 23,2012.
• Without corrections , Hochberg moved to approve minutes of Regular
Meeting on August 23,2012. Train seconded. Minutes were approved
unanimously.
2. Continuing Discussion : Possible name change for Main
• Following the August 2012 LAC meeting , Ie Conge invited Steve Staiger,
local historian, and Greg Betts, Director, Community Services Department
(CSD), to the meeting to provide additional information that would be
useful in the LAC discussion regarding choice of names for the library.
• Staiger provided a historical perspective of some of the possible names
for Main Library , their meaning, origin and/or historic nature of the name,
e.g . Rinconada, Newell, Embarcadero and Community Center.
• Betts gave a brief discussion on the intent of CSD's Rinconada signage
plan and way-finding program, with the increasing awareness of
Rinconada Park as a kid-centric campus. Betts said after consideration of
several names, the direction is heading to branding the area as
"Rinconada Cultural Park" but the process requires numerous steps,
including the review/approval by the different Boards and Commission
(e.g. Architectural Review Board and the Historic Review Board).
• Discussion followed, with members of the LAC providing comments and
asking questions about project timeframe, placement of signage, and how
best to integrate the Main Library and Art Center to the area, as well as
possible names the Commission should consider for renaming the facility.
• Landauer presented a file she received from an individual while asking the
community about their opinion on a new name for the Main Library.
Included in the file were names of Palo Alto neighborhoods and fire
stations at parks, and a proposed solution to have the remodeled facility
be integral to Rinconada Park.
• Commissioners agreed that the name "Rinconada" has historical value, is
consistent with the area and would tie in well.
• MOTION: Moss moved, Train seconded
"The LAC recommends to City Council, when Main Library's
renovation is complete, to rename the facility 'Rinconada
Library' ."
• Discussion followed, with Commissioners expressing their preference to
keep the Motion to renaming the facility only and to leave the effective
date unspecified to give it more flexibility.
• AMENDMENT: Landauer moved, Train seconded
Removing from the Motion "when Main Library's renovation is
complete"
Amendment Passed: 4-1 (Moss opposing)
MOTION, as Amended, passed, 5-0.
• Ie Conge said the City has a policy for naming city-owned land and
facilities, which establishes criteria to guide Commissions in
recommending names to the Council for approval. "The commission shall
conduct a public hearing, confirm that the recommended name meets the
criteria of appropriate significance, select recommendation(s) provided by
the Historical Association, and shall forward its recommendation to the
City Council." (Policy and Procedures 1-15/MGR)
2
• Staff will confirm with the City Clerk's Office on next steps to move the
LAC's recommendation forward.
3. Presentation on Axis 360 -Amy Glaza, Baker & Taylor
• Ie Conge announced that Agenda item no. 3 will be re-scheduled since
presenter, Amy Glaza of Baker & Taylor, was unable to come to the
meeting.
4. Additional Information: Draft Library Statistics for FY2012
• Following Councilmember Schmid's suggestion at the August meeting,
staff prepared updated statistics for FY2009, FY2011 and FY2012.
FY2009 is the last year that all five Palo Alto branch libraries were open.
• Commissioners appreciate seeing the numbers and noted that customer
visits and checkout of materials held up very well even when libraries
closed. However, reference and database searches as well as public PC
sessions have gone down.
• Ie Conge said that going forward, statistical information on basic upper
level elements (e.g. circulation, visitor counts, program attendance) will be
provided to the LAC on a quarterly basis. Statistical highlights are posted
on the Library's website and will be included in the City's new Open Data
platform soon.
5. Continuing Discussion: Economic Impact of eBooks
• To broaden the discussion of eBooks and economic impacts, staff
provided a comparison of eBook costs versus book costs, and developed
comments regarding actions and future thinking about eBooks, as well as
articles of interest.
• Discussion followed, with members of the LAC providing comments,
asking clarification and questions about costs/pricing, advantages of
providing eBooks, and limits to checkouts. Commissioners noted the high
cost of purchasing eBooks as compared to book costs.
• Ie Conge said that there are changes on a day-to-day basis and staff will
continue to keep the LAC informed and updated on eBooks and its impact
on libraries.
6. 2012 LAC's Joint Meeting with City Council
• The LAC agreed to schedule their joint meeting with City Council at the
start of 2013 when new Council members are on board and libraries are
set to close and/or open.
3
• Staff will check with the City Clerk's Office on available dates in the
January/February timeframe and advise the Commissioners.
• Priority setting for the joint meeting with City Council will be discussed at
the next LAC meeting.
• Hochberg said several years ago, the LAC Chair and Vice Chair had an
informal dialogue with Council Members Elect on library issues -this was
part of the Commission's outreach activities which he felt was effective
and helpful.
7. 2012 LAC Priorities
• The subcommittees presented thejr final update/report to close out their
work, following the 6-month term for special committees and to be
consistent with the policy and procedures established by City Council.
Community Relations/Advocacy (members: Train, Bakhtian)
-The LAC Advocacy template was revised, incorporating the comments
and recommendations from the Commissioners, and Train will provide
the final draft at the October meeting.
Finance (Landauer, Palaniappan)
-The focus was narrowed to evaluating options for pilots at Mitchell
Park to highlight and assist with planning for staffing and funding
issues at the time all branches are open. The subcommittee
recommends when Mitchell Park and Temporary Main open, staff
should continue to evaluate and pilot services that may have minimal
funding impacts by either utilizing volunteers or by tapping into private
funding sources.
Virtual Library (members: Akinola, Hochberg)
-Hochberg and Akinola will continue to interact with staff and work on
finalizing the identification of issues before moving forward with
establishing a special committee.
ByLaws (member: Moss)
-After final review of the ByLaws
MOTION: Moss moved, Hochberg seconded
"the LAC adopt the ByLaws as presented."
Motion passed, 5-0.
• 2013 LAC Priorities. Commissioners agreed to table this item for the
October meeting.
LIBRARY DIRECTOR'S REPORT
4
Ie Conge provided a written report (included in packet) on recent library activities
of interest in September, as well as follow-up on items previously
discussed/requested by the LAC, which include
Request for Information (RFI) process before selecting an
Integrated Library System (llS) will start in January 2013.
Google Cloud Print is available at the Mitchell Park Library, for up
to 15 pages per Google account per day. Google provides all the
necessary supplies.
LiquidSpace reservations have been extended to 7 days in
advance.
-Wifi data use cannot be tracked currently, but may be possible
when city-wide upgrades to a standardized system is completed.
OTHER REPORTS
Commissioner reports and questions:
• Moss expressed his concern about the construction progress report for
Mitchell Park Library and the media broadcasting system at Downtown
Library which is still not fully functional.
• Moss attended the September 12 Friends of the Palo Alto Library (FOPAl)
Board meeting; Train announced that the Library Foundation Board did not
meet this month, a retreat is planned early next year.
Council Liaison Report:
Schmid addressed Moss' concern about the status of the Mitchell Park
construction project and mentioned some of the highlights in Staff Report #3125
(Mitchell Park Construction Contract Bi-Monthly Report).
COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
• Ie Conge said the City Clerk's Office is asking the LAC's help in recruiting
applicants interested in serving in one unexpired term ending January 31,
2014 (Bakhtian's).
• Library has a new subscription service called Credo Reference which is a
great resource for students working on special projects. Topic pages pull
together links to Palo Alto library books, full text magazine articles and news
and images to complement projects.
AGENDA for meeting on October 25,2012:
The items suggested for the meeting are:
• 2012-13 LAC Priorities
5
• Presentation on Axis 360
• Joint Meeting with City Council
Hochberg moved to adjourn.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:37 p.m.
6
LOBRARY
PALO ALTO CITY
September 13, 2012
TO: Library Advisory Commission
FROM: Monique Ie Conge, Library Director
RE: Naming Information, Main Library
Following up on the August 2012 LAC meeting, I've asked Steve Staiger to
find some answers for you based on your question, regarding possible
names for Main Library. Here are his notes:
Rinconada comes from the Spanish for elbow or inside corner. The land
upon which the original Palo Alto town was developed was originally part
of the Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito land grant. The
Park name came from a contest held by the Chamber of Commerce to
rename the City's Waterworks Park in the mid 1920's.
Newell is named for Dr. Newell, an early resident of the area, who bought
land in the 1860's from the Soto/Greer family. His home is today the oldest
home in Palo Alto, located on Edgewood near Newell Road (Zuckerberg
is the current owner).
Embarcadero Road (rough Spanish of "road to landing") is the name for
the path that led to the small boat landing on San Francisquito Creek
where Capt. John Greer sailed in the early 1850's and found his love,
Maria Soto). Present day Newell Road was once part of the
Embarcadero as it turned left and led to the landing located just
downstream of the present-day Newell Bridge.
Community Center: I'm not sure of how this name came about, but my
guess is that Carol Blitzer of the Palo Alto Weekly may have had
something to do with it. Prior to the Weekly's series of articles on various
P A neighborhoods there were neighborhoods without accepted names.
In order to cover the entire community, Carol gave names to
neighborhoods that did not have common or officially accepted names.
This may be one of those names of 15 -20 years ago. The area was
originally called Alba Park back in the first decade(s) of the 20th century
when that was the name of the subdivision being promoted just outside
the original town of Palo Alto.
Cheng, Evelyn
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Staiger, Steve
Thursday, June 13, 2013 1:45 PM
Cheng, Evelyn
rename of Main Library
The Palo Alto Historical Association board met yesterday and discussed the proposed renaming ofthe Main Library. The
board agreed that the proposed new name (Rinconada) is historically appropriate for the library on Newell Road and will
support its adoption.
Steve Staiger
Palo Alto Historical Association
Landmarks and Streets Committee, chair
1
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4041)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/9/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability
Summary Title: Modifications to PaloAltoGreen Program
Title: Finance Committee Recommendation that the City Council Adopt a
Resolution Suspending PaloAltoGreen's Full Needs Program for All Electric
Customers and Reducing PaloAltoGreen's Commercial Electric Block Rate by
Repealing Rate Schedule E-1-G and Amending Rate Schedules E-2-G, E-4-G, E-
7-G and E-18-G, and Directing Staff to Develop a PaloAltoGreen Gas Program
and a Plan for Accumulated PaloAltoGreen Revenues
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff, the Utilities Advisory Commission, and the Finance Committee recommend that the City
Council:
1. Approve the attached resolution suspending the PaloAltoGreen Full Needs Program for
all electric customers and reducing rates for PaloAltoGreen’s Commercial Customer
Block Program to $2 per 1,000 kWh block, or 0.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (₵/kWh);
2. Direct staff to develop a PaloAltoGreen Gas Program to provide an opportunity for
participants to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions related to their natural
gas usage, to be implemented by July 2014; and
3. Direct staff to return with a recommendation on how to allocate accumulated revenues,
if any, associated with the PaloAltoGreen program by June 2014.
Summary
The PaloAltoGreen (PAG) program provides customers an opportunity to purchase renewable
energy equivalent to 100% of their electric usage. The program was launched in 2003 and by
2008, PAG had the highest participation rate of any voluntary green rate program in the
country. The City continues to receive national recognition as a green leader for the program.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The PAG Program offers two voluntary rate options. Under the Full Needs Program, which is
available to all electric customers, participants elect to pay a premium of 1.5 ₵/kWh on their full
electric use to receive 100 percent renewable resources. Larger commercial customers may
purchase blocks of renewable resources under the Commercial Customer Block Program in
specified quantities at a rate of $15 per 1,000 kWh block (1.5 ₵/kWh).
Modifications to PAG are necessary to accommodate the City’s growing Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS) and implementation of the Carbon Neutral Plan, under which the electric supply
portfolio is carbon neutral as of 2013. Due to these two major changes to the underlying
electric supply portfolio, customers may be less motivated to voluntarily elect to “green up”
their energy usage to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Further, PAG rates need to be
modified to reflect the significant decrease in the cost for renewable energy certificates (RECs)
which are procured to meet PAG needs. At current rates, revenues exceed the costs of
administering, marketing and procuring RECs, and as of the end of calendar year 2012, the
estimated accumulated net revenue associated with PAG was approximately $600,000.
During the process of assessing modifications to PAG, many local solar program ideas were
examined and determined to be beneficial and in support of the community’s desire to
promote local solar. These programs merit further development, but many do not fit well
within the current PAG program structure. Staff will develop an overall local solar strategy
under which these programs will be evaluated and potentially developed. Opportunities to tap
into PAG participant’s desire to promote local sustainability will be further considered in the
context of the local solar strategy. Through this process, staff will also examine the options for
utilizing or returning the accumulated net revenues associated with PAG.
Finally, the development of a PAG Gas program would provide participants an option to
eliminate the GHG emissions associated with their use of natural gas. If directed by Council,
staff will develop a detailed program design for a program that could be implemented by July
2014. A PAG gas program could be substantially similar in construct to the current PAG electric
program, allowing participants to voluntarily pay a premium to “green up” all or a portion of
their natural gas usage.
Committee Review and Recommendation
At its August 20, 2013 meeting, the Finance Committee discussed the options to modify PAG.
The staff report to the Finance Committee (Attachment C) outlines the alternatives, including
the recommendation from the Utilities Advisory Commission.
After discussion, the Finance Committee voted unanimously (3-0 with Council Member Berman
absent) to recommend Council:
1. Approve a resolution:
a. Suspending the PaloAltoGreen Program’s Full Needs program for all electric
customers; and
City of Palo Alto Page 3
b. Reducing rates for PaloAltoGreen’s Commercial Customer Block Program to $2 per
1,000 kWh block, or 0.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (₵/kWh);
2. Direct Staff to develop a PAG Gas program and to be implemented by July 2014; and
3. Direct staff to develop a recommendation for how to allocate accumulated revenues
associated with the PaloAltoGreen program by March 2014.
The draft minutes of the Finance Committee’s August 20, 2013 meeting are provided as
Attachment D.
Resource Impact
Approval of the recommendation to suspend collection of revenue from PAG full needs
participants and to reduce the rate for the commercial block renewable purchases to 0.2₵/kWh
will result in reduced PAG revenues for FY 2014. The FY 2014 budget accounted for expenses
related to REC purchases and hiring of a third party administrator. No additional staff resources
are anticipated to carry out the revisions to the PAG program.
No additional staff resources are associated with the development of a PAG Gas program. Any
resource impacts from such a program will be defined when a recommendation for that
program is provided for Council consideration.
Policy Impact
Approval of the modifications to the PAG Program and the directive to develop a PAG Gas
Program is consistent with the Utilities’ Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) and the Gas
Utility Long-term Plan (GULP); supports the Council-approved 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan’s
environmental sustainability objective; and is consistent with the City’s Climate Protection Plan.
Environmental Impact
Modifying, suspending, or terminating the PAG Program will reduce the amount of REC
purchases from that needed for the original program, which will reduce the level of support
provided by program participants for the development and financial health of the renewable
energy industry. If the Commercial Customer Block program continues, RECs will continue to
be purchased on behalf of those customers. With respect to GHG emissions, in calendar year
2012, the reduction in GHG emissions associated with the program was 30,233 metric tons.
However, even though the electric supply portfolio is carbon neutral as of calendar year 2013,
GHG emission counting protocols do not allow RECs to provide “negative GHG emissions”.
The environmental impacts associated with implementing a PAG Gas program will be
determined during the development of that program.
Modifying, suspending, or terminating the PAG Program does not meet the California
Environmental Quality Act‘s (CEQA) definition of a “project” under California Public Resources
Code Sec. 21065, thus no environmental review is required.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Next Steps
If Council approves the recommendation, staff will make the necessary changes to suspend the
Full Needs option and reduce the rate for the Commercial Customer Block program. Regardless
of Council’s decision, current PAG customers will be informed of any changes to the program
and have the option to opt out of the program (as they do at any time). Staff will evaluate the
need to hire a new PAG contractor to administer, market and verify the program to meet
certification protocols and to possibly assist with the development and marketing of a PAG Gas
Program.
If directed by Council, staff will continue to develop the PAG Gas program design elements and
return to the UAC by December 2013 with a recommendation and program design details. In
addition, staff will return with a recommendation on how to manage the accumulated
revenues, if any, associated with the PaloAltoGreen program by June 2014.
Last, staff is in the process of developing an overarching Palo Alto local solar plan and strategies
to meet the community’s interest to develop solar locally. A draft plan is expected to be ready
for UAC review in December 2013 and Finance Committee review in December 2013 or January
2014.
Attachments:
Attachment A - RESO Approving Suspension of PAG Full Needs and Modification to Block
Rate (PDF)
Attachment B - E-2G, E-4G, E-7G, E-18G (PDF)
Attachment C - Final Staff Report ID 4001_Modifications to PaloAltoGreen Program
(PDF)
Attachment D - Draft Minutes of the August 20, 2013 Finance Committee Meeting
(PDF)
ATTACHMENT A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
250113 sdl 6051942
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Suspending
PaloAltoGreen’s Full Needs Program for All Electric Customers and
Reducing PaloAltoGreen’s Commercial Electric Block Rate by
Repealing Rate Schedule E-1-G and Amending Rate Schedules E-2-G,
E-4-G, E-7-G and E-18-G
A. In an effort to provide City of Palo Alto Utilities (“City”) electric customers the
option to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with their electricity use, in
2003 the City launched the PaloAltoGreen Program.
B. City electric customers can opt in to the PaloAltoGreen Program in two ways.
The “Full Needs” option allows all customers to receive renewable energy equivalent to 100
percent of their needs in exchange for paying an additional 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour (“kWh”)
assessed on their full load. The “Commercial Customer Block” rate gives commercial customers
the option to receive renewable energy in blocks of 1,000kWh in exchange for paying an
additional 1.5 cents per 1,000 kWh.
C. Approximately 20 percent of the City’s electric utilities customers participate in
PaloAltoGreen, representing approximately 8 percent of the City’s electric load and making the
PaloAltoGreen Program one of the most successful green energy programs in the United States.
D. In March 2011, the Council unanimously approved the Long-term Electric
Acquisition Plan (LEAP), a strategic planning document focused on how the City’s Utilities
Department (CPAU) can successfully balance environmental and economic sustainability as it
provides electric service to CPAU customers. Council approved an update to the LEAP in April
2012 (Resolution 9241). As part of LEAP Climate Protection Strategy #5, Council directed staff
to evaluate PaloAltoGreen program design and recommend modifications, as appropriate,
including constructing PaloAltoGreen to assist in meeting Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”)
goals.
E. In March 2013, the Council unanimously approved the Carbon Neutral Plan
(Resolution 9322) directing staff to achieve carbon neutrality for the electric portfolio by 2013
through a combination of hydroelectric resources, long-term renewable resources and short-
term renewable energy resources and/or renewable energy certificates (“RECs”). The Carbon
Neutral Plan also included direction to redesign PaloAltoGreen in the context of achieving
carbon neutrality for the electric supply portfolio.
F. The City’s increasing RPS and the adoption of the Carbon Neutral Plan require an
evaluation of the continued effectiveness of PaloAltoGreen as currently implemented.
PaloAltoGreen participants no longer need to participate in the program to eliminate the
greenhouse gas emissions associated with their electric usage, as much of the City’s electric
portfolio is now renewable.
ATTACHMENT A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
250113 sdl 6051942
G. At the July 31, 2013 Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) meeting, staff
presented alternatives to redesign PaloAltoGreen, and the UAC voted unanimously (six in favor
and one absent) to recommend that the Council suspend PaloAltoGreen’s Full Needs program
for all electric customers and reduce PaloAltoGreen’s commercial electric block ratefrom 1.5
cents per 1,000 kWh to 0.2 cents per 1,000 kWh.
H. On August 20, 2013, the Finance Committee also voted unanimously to
recommend that the Council suspend PaloAltoGreen’s Full Needs program for all electric
customers and reduce PaloAltoGreen’s commercial electric block rate from 1.5 cents per 1,000
kWh to 0.2 cents per 1,000 kWh.
I. On September 9, 2013, this Council did, on the motion of Council Member ____,
seconded by Council Member ____, by a vote of ____, temporarily suspend PaloAltoGreen’s
Full Needs program for all electric customers and reduce PaloAltoGreen’s commercial electric
block rate to $2 per 1,000 kWh block, or 0.2 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule
E-1-G (Residential Green Power Electric Service) is hereby repealed effective as of September
10, 2013, until further action of the Council of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule
E-2-G (Small Commercial Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as attached
and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-2-G, as amended, shall become effective September
10, 2013.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule
E-4-G (Medium Commercial Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as
attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-4-G, as amended, shall become effective
September 10, 2013.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule
E-7-G (Large Commercial Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as attached
and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-7-G, as amended, shall become effective September
10, 2013.
SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate Schedule
E-18-G (Municipal Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as attached and
incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-18-G, as amended, shall become effective September 10,
2013.
ATTACHMENT A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
250113 sdl 6051942
SECTION 6. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution suspending PaloAltoGreen’s
residential rates and reducing PaloAltoGreen’s commercial rates is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21065
because such action does not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Sec. 21065(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
SMALL COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-2-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-10-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-2-G-1 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-2-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-dDemand Mmetered electric service for small commercial
Ccustomers and Mmaster-metered multi-family facilities receiving retail energy services
from the City of Palo Alto Utilities under the Palo Alto Green Programplan. Palo Alto Green
provides for either the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs) to match 100%
of the energy usage at the facility every month, or for the purchase of 1000 kilowatt-hour
(kWh) blocks. These REC purchases support the production of renewable energy, increase
the financial value of power from renewal sources, and create a transparent and sustainable
market that encourages new development of wind and solar power.
B. TERRITORY:
This rate schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides electric service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES:
1. The 100% Renewable/ Full Green option was suspended by City Council on 9-9-2013:
Per kilowatt-hour (kWh) Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits
Palo Alto
Green Total
Summer Period $0.08219 $0.05505 $0.00321 $0.0150 $0.15545
Winter Period 0.07406 0.04934 0.00321 0.0150 0.14161
2. (1000 kWh block option):
Per kilowatt-hour (kWh) Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits
Total
Summer Period $0.08219 $0.05505 $0.00321 $0.14045
Winter Period 0.07406 0.04934 0.00321 0.12661
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
SMALL COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-2-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-10-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-2-G-2 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-2-G-2
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a Ccustomer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated
under Section C.
2. Seasonal Rate Changes
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from
November 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use in both the Summer and
Winter Periods, usage will be prorated based upon the number of days in each seasonal
period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
3. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center.
4. Maximum Demand Meter
Whenever the monthly use of energy has exceeded 8,000 kWh for three consecutive months,
a maximum Ddemand Mmeter will be installed as promptly as is practicable and thereafter
continued in service until the monthly use of energy has fallen below 6,000 kWh for twelve
consecutive months, whereupon, at the option of the City, it may be removed.
The maximum Ddemand in any month will be the maximum average power in kilowatts
taken during any 15-minute interval in the month, provided that in case the load is
intermittent or subject to violent fluctuations, the City may use a 5-minute interval. A
thermal-type Ddemand Mmeter which does not reset after a definite time interval may be
used at the City's option.
The billing Ddemand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be the actual
maximum Ddemand in kilowatts for the current month. An exception is that the billing
Ddemand for Ccustomers with Thermal Energy Storage (TES) will be based upon the actual
maximum Ddemand of such Ccustomers between the hours of noon and 6 pm on weekdays.
SMALL COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-2-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-10-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-2-G-3 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-2-G-3
{End}
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-510-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-1 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to Demand Mmetered Ssecondary Electric Service for Customers with a
Maximum Demand below 1,000 kilowatts (kW) who receive power under the Palo Alto Green
Programplan. This schedule applies to three-phase Electric Service and may include Service to
Mmaster-metered multi-family facilities or other facilities requiring Demand-Mmetered Services, as
determined by the City.
B. TERRITORY:
The rate schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides Electric Service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES: 1. The 100% Renewable/ Full Green option was suspended by City Council on 9-9-2013
2. (1000 kWh block option):
Commodity Distribution Public Benefits Total
Summer Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $5.31 $15.23 $20.54
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.06083 0.01767 0.00321 0.08171
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
Winter Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $4.80 $9.04 $13.84
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.05281 0.01716 0.00321 0.07318
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
(100% Renewable Green option):
Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits
Palo
Alto
Green Total
Summer Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $5.31 $15.23 $20.54
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.06083 0.01767 0.00321 0.0150 0.09671
Winter Period
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-510-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-2 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-2
Demand Charge (per kW) $4.80 $9.04 $13.84
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.05281 0.01716 0.00321 0.0150 0.08818
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges, and/or taxes. On a Customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated
under Section C.
2. Seasonal Rate Changes
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from
November 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use both in the Summer and the
Winter Periods, the usage will be prorated based on the number of days in each seasonal
period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
3. Maximum Demand Meter
Whenever the monthly use of energy has exceeded 8,000 kilowatt-hours for three
consecutive months, a Maximum Demand mMeter will be installed as promptly as is
practicable and thereafter continued in Service until the monthly use of energy has dropped
below 6,000 kilowatt-hours for twelve consecutive months, whereupon, at the option of the
City, it may be removed.
The Maximum Demand in any month will be the maximum average power in kilowatts taken
during any 15-minute interval in the month, provided that in case the load is intermittent or
subject to violent fluctuations, the City may use a 5-minute interval. A thermal-type Demand
Mmeter, which does not reset after a definite time interval, may be used at the City's option.
The Billing Demand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be the actual
Maximum Demand in kilowatts for the current month. An exception is that the Billing
Demand for Customers with Thermal Energy Storage (TES) will be based upon the actual
Maximum Demand of such Customers between the hours of noon and 6 PM on weekdays.
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-510-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-3 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-3
4. Power Factor
For new or existing Customers whose Demand is expected to exceed or has exceeded 300
kilowatts for three consecutive months, the City has the option of installing applicable
Mmetering to calculate a Power Factor. The City may remove such Mmetering from the
Service of a Customer whose Demand has dropped below 200 kilowatts for four consecutive
months.
When such Mmetering is installed, the monthly Electric bill will include a “Power Factor
Adjustment”, if applicable. The adjustment will be applied to a Customer’s bill prior to the
computation of any primary voltage discount. The Power Factor Adjustment is applied by
increasing the total energy and Demand charges for any month by 0.25 percent or (1/4) for
each one percent (1%) that the monthly Power Factor of the Customer’s load was less than
95%.
The monthly Power Factor is the average Power Factor based on the ratio of kilowatt-hours
to kilovolt-ampere hours consumed during the month. Where time-of-day Mmetering is
installed, the monthly Power Factor shall be the Power Factor coincident with the Customer's
Maximum Demand.
5. Changing Rate Schedules
Customers may request a rate schedule change at any time to any applicable full-service rate
schedule as is applicable to their kilowatt-Demand and kilowatt-hour usage profile.
6. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center. Customers may request at any time, in writing, a
change to the number of blocks they wish to purchase under the Palo Alto Green
planProgram.
Palo Alto Green provides for either the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs)
to match 100% of the energy usage at the facility every month, or for the purchase of 1000
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-510-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-4 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-4
kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks. These REC purchases support the production of renewable
energy, increase the financial value of power from renewal sources, and creates a transparent
and sustainable market that encourages new development of wind and solar.
7. Primary Voltage Discount
Where delivery is made at the same voltage as that of the line from which the Service is
supplied, a discount of 2.5 percent for available line voltages above 2 kilovolts will be
allowed provided the City is not required to supply Service at a particular line voltage where
it has, or will install, ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally or better suited
to the Customer's electrical requirements. The City retains the right to change its line voltage
at any time after providing reasonable advance notice to any Customer receiving a discount
hereunder and affected by such change. The Customer then has the option to change the
system so as to receive Service at the new line voltage or to accept Service (without voltage
discount) through transformers to be supplied by the City subject to a maximum kilovolt-
ampere size limitation.
8. Standby Charge
a. Applicability: The standby charge, subject to the exemptions in subsection D(8)(e),
applies to Customers that have a non-utility generation source interconnected on the
Customer’s side of the City’s revenue Mmeter and that occasionally require backup
power from the City due to non-operation of the non-utility generation source.
b. Standby Charges:
Commodity Distribution Total Standby Charge (per kW of Reserved Capacity)
Summer Period $0.69 $15.23 $15.92
Winter Period $0.63 $9.04 $9.67
c. Meters:. A separate Mmeter is required for each non-utility generation source.
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-510-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-5 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-5
d. Calculation of Maximum Demand Credit.:
(1) In the event the Customer’s Maximum Demand (as defined in Section D.3)
occurs when one or more of the non-utility generators on the Customer’s side of the
City’s revenue Mmeter are not operating, the Maximum Demand will be reduced by
the sum of the Maximum Generation of those non-utility generators, but in no event
shall the Customer’s Maximum Demand be reduced below zero.
(2) If the non-utility generation source does not operate for an entire billing cycle,
the standby charge does not apply and the Customer shall not receive the Maximum
Demand credit described in this Section.
e. Exemptions:.
(1) The standby charge shall not apply to backup generators designed to operate only
in the event of an interruption in utility Service and which are not used to offset
Customer electricity purchases.
(2) The standby charge shall not apply if the Customer meets the definition of an
“Eligible Customer-generator” as defined in California Public Utilities Code Section
2827(b)(4) , as amended.
(3) The applicability of these exemptions shall be determined at the discretion of the
Utilities Director.
{End}
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-510-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-1 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to Demand Mmetered Service for large commercial Customers who choose
Service under the Palo Alto Green Programplan. A Customer may qualify for this rate schedule if
the Customer’s Maximum Demand is at least 1,000KW per month per site, who have sustained this
Demand level at least 3 consecutive months during the last twelve months
B. TERRITORY:
The rate schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides Electric Service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES:
1. The 100% Renewable/ Full Green option was suspended by City Council on 9-9-2013
2. (1000 kWh block option):
Commodity Distribution Public Benefits Total
Summer Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $6.42 $12.55 $18.97
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.05562 0.01825 0.00321 0.07808
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
Winter Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $5.50 $6.04 $11.54
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.04990 0.01898 0.00321 0.07209
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00 (100% renewable green option):
Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits
Palo Alto
Green Total
Summer Period
Demand Charge ( per kW) $6.42 $12.55 $18.97
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.05562 0.01825 0.00321 0.0150 0.09308
Winter Period
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-510-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-2 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-2
Demand Charge (per kW) $5.50 $6.04 $11.54
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.04990 0.01898 0.00321 0.0150 0.08709
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Charges
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a Customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated
under Section C.
2. Seasonal Rate Changes
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from
November 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use both in the Summer and the
Winter Periods, the usage will be prorated based on the number of days in each seasonal
period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
3. Maximum Demand Meter
Whenever the monthly use of energy has exceeded 8,000 kilowatt-hours for three
consecutive months, a Maximum Demand mMeter will be installed as promptly as is
practicable and thereafter continued in Service until the monthly use of energy has dropped
below 6,000 kilowatt-hours for twelve consecutive months, whereupon, at the option of the
City, it may be removed.
The Maximum Demand in any month will be the maximum average power in kilowatts taken
during any 15-minute interval in the month, provided that in case the load is intermittent or
subject to violent fluctuations, the City may use a 5-minute interval. A thermal-type Demand
Mmeter which does not reset after a definite time interval may be used at the City's option.
The Billing Demand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be the actual
Maximum Demand in kilowatts for the current month. An exception is that the Billing
Demand for Customers with Thermal Energy Storage (TES) will be based upon the actual
Maximum Demand of such Customers between the hours of noon and 6 PM on weekdays.
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-510-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-3 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-3
4. Request for Service
Qualifying Customers may request Service under this schedule for more than one Aaccount
or one Mmeter if the Aaccounts are at one site. A site shall be defined as one or more utility
Aaccounts serving contiguous parcels of land with no intervening public right-of-ways (e.g.
streets) and have a common billing address.
5. Power Factor
For new or existing Customers whose Demand is expected to exceed or has exceeded 300
kilowatts for three consecutive months, the City has the option of installing applicable
Mmetering to calculate a Power Factor. The City may remove such Mmetering from the
Service of a Customer whose Demand has dropped below 200 kilowatts for four consecutive
months.
When such Mmetering is installed, the monthly Electric bill shall include a “Power Factor
Adjustment”, if applicable. The adjustment shall be applied to a Customer’s bill prior to the
computation of any primary voltage discount. The Power Factor Adjustment is applied by
increasing the total energy and Demand charges for any month by 0.25 percent or (1/4) for
each one percent (1%) that the monthly Power Factor of the Customer’s load was less than
95%.
The monthly Power Factor is the average Power Factor based on the ratio of kilowatt-hours
to kilovolt-ampere hours consumed during the month. Where time-of-day Mmetering is
installed, the monthly Power Factor shall be the Power Factor coincident with the Customer's
Maximum Demand.
6. Changing Rate Schedules
Customers may request a rate schedule change at any time to any applicable full service rate
schedule as is applicable to their kilowatt-Demand and kilowatt-hour usage profile
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-510-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-4 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-4
7. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center. Customers may request at any time, in writing, a
change to the number of blocks they wish to purchase under the Palo Alto Green
planProgram.
Palo Alto Green provides for either the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs)
to match 100% of the energy usage at the facility every month, or for the purchase of 1000
kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks. These REC purchases support the production of renewable
energy, increase the financial value of power from renewal sources, and creates a transparent
and sustainable market that encourages new development of wind and solar.
8. Primary Voltage Discount
Where delivery is made at the same voltage as that of the line from which the Service is
supplied, a discount of 2 1/2 percent for available line voltages above 2 kilovolts will be
allowed; provided, however, the City is not required to supply Service at a qualified line
voltage where it has, or will install, ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally
or better suited to the Customer's Electrical requirements. The City retains the right to
change its line voltage at any time after providing reasonable advance notice to any Customer
receiving a discount hereunder and affected by such change. The Customer then has the
option to change the system so as to receive Service at the new line voltage or to accept
Service (without voltage discount) through transformers to be supplied by the City subject to
a maximum kilovolt-ampere size limitation.
9. Standby Charge
a. Applicability: The standby charge, subject to the exemptions in subsection D(9)(e),
applies to Customers that have a non-utility generation source interconnected on the
Customer’s side of the City’s revenue Mmeter and that occasionally require backup
power from the City due to non-operation of the non-utility generation source.
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-510-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-5 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-5
b. Standby Charges:
Commodity Distribution Total Standby Charge (per kW of Reserved Capacity)
Summer Period $0.84 $12.55 $13.39
Winter Period $0.72 $6.04 $6.76
c. Meters:. A separate Mmeter is required for each non-utility generation source.
d. Calculation of Maximum Demand Credit:.
(1) In the event the Customer’s Maximum Demand (as defined in Section D.3)
occurs when one or more of the non-utility generators on the Customer’s side of the
City’s revenue Mmeter are not operating, the Maximum Demand will be reduced by
the sum of the Maximum Generation of those non-utility generators, but in no event
shall the Customer’s Maximum Demand be reduced below zero.
(2) If the non-utility generation source does not operate for an entire billing cycle,
the standby charge does not apply and the Customer shall not receive the Maximum
Demand credit described in this Section.
e. Exemptions:.
(1) The standby charge shall not apply to backup generators designed to operate only
in the event of an interruption in utility Service and which are not used to offset
Customer electricity purchases.
(2) The standby charge shall not apply if the Customer meets the definition of an
“Eligible Customer-generator” as defined in California Public Utilities Code Section
2827(b)(4) , as amended.
(3) The applicability of these exemptions shall be determined at the discretion of the
Utilities Director.
{End}
MUNICIPAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-18-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-10-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-18-G-1 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-18-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to service for buildings and facilities owned and/or operated by the City of
Palo Alto receiving power under the Palo Alto Green Programplan.
B. TERRITORY:
This rate schedule applies anywhere the City of Palo Alto provides electric service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES:
1. (The 100% Rrenewable/ Full gGreen option was suspended by City Council on 9-9-2013):
Per kilowatt-hour
(kWh) Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits
Palo
Alto
Green Total
Summer Period $0.06686 $0.04472 $0.00321 $0.0150 $0.12979
Winter Period 0.05369 0.03559 0.00321 0.0150 0.10749
2. (1000 kWh block option):
Per kilowatt-hour
(kWh) Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits Total
Summer Period $0.06686 $0.04472 $0.00321 $0.11479
Winter Period 0.05369 0.03559 0.00321 0.09249
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a Ccustomer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate cost components as
calculated under Section C.
MUNICIPAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-18-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-10-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-18-G-2 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-18-G-2
2. Seasonal Rate Changes
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from
November 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use both in the Summer and the
Winter periods, the usage will be prorated based on the number of days in each seasonal
period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
3. Power Factor
For new or existing Ccustomers whose Ddemand is expected to exceed or has exceeded 300
kilowatts for three consecutive months, the City has the option to install applicable
Mmetering to calculate a power factor. The City may remove such Mmetering from the
service of a Ccustomer whose Ddemand has been below 200 kilowatts for four consecutive
months.
When such Mmetering is installed, the monthly electric bill shall include a “power factor
penalty”, if applicable. The penalty adjustment shall be applied to a Ccustomer’s bill prior to
the computation of any primary voltage discount. The power factor penalty is applied by
increasing the total energy and Ddemand charges for any month by 0.25 percent (0.25%) for
each one percent (1%) that the monthly power factor of the Ccustomer’s load was less than
95%.
The monthly power factor is the average power factor based on the ratio of kilowatt hours to
kilovolt-ampere hours consumed during the month. Where time-of-day Mmetering is
installed, the monthly power factor shall be the power factor coincident with the Ccustomer's
maximum Ddemand.
4. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center. Customers may request at any time, in writing, a
change to the number of blocks they wish to purchase under the Palo Alto Green
Programplan.
Palo Alto Green provides for either the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs)
to match 100% of the energy usage at the facility every month, or for the purchase of 1000
MUNICIPAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-18-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-10-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-18-G-3 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-18-G-3
kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks. These REC purchases support the production of renewable
energy, increase the financial value of power from renewal sources, and create a transparent
and sustainable market that encourages new development of wind and solar power.
5. Primary Voltage Discount
Where delivery is made at the same voltage as that of the line from which the service is
supplied, a discount of 2 1/2 percent for available line voltages above 2 kilovolts will be
allowed provided the City is not required to supply service at a particular line voltage where
it has, or will install, ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally or better suited
to the Ccustomer's electrical requirements. The City retains the right to change its line
voltage at any time after providing reasonable advance notice to any Ccustomer receiving a
discount hereunder and affected by such change. The Ccustomer then has the option to
change his system so as to receive service at the new line voltage or to accept service
(without voltage discount) through transformers to be supplied by the City subject to a
maximum kilovolt-ampere (kVA) size limitation.
{End}
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4001)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/20/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability
Summary Title: Modifications to PaloAltoGreen Program
Title: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the City Council
Adopt a Resolution Approving Modifications to the PaloAltoGreen Program
and Associated Electric Rate Schedules and Directing Staff to Develop a
PaloAltoGreen Gas Program
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff requests that the Finance Committee recommend that Council adopt one of the following
resolutions:
1. A resolution terminating the PaloAltoGreen Program (Attachment A);
2. A resolution (Attachment B):
a. Suspending the PaloAltoGreen Program’s Full Needs program for all electric
customers; and
b. Reducing rates for PaloAltoGreen’s Commercial Customer Block Program to $2 per
1,000 kWh block, or 0.2 cents per kilowatt-hour (₵/kWh); or
3. A resolution (Attachment D) decreasing the PaloAltoGreen Program’s rates for
residential and commercial electric customers, while continuing to provide all
customers the option to purchase 100% renewable energy:
a. Full Needs Rate Decrease: rate premium of 0.2₵/kWh levied on the full electric
requirements of a customer to purchase renewable energy certificates (RECs) for the
large hydroelectric supply portion of the City’s supply mix.
b. Commercial Customer Blocks Rate Decrease: purchase rate of $2 per 1,000 kWh
block, or 0.2₵/kWh.
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommends that the Council approve Option #2
above to suspend the PaloAltoGreen Program’s Full Needs program and to maintain the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
PaloAltoGreen Program’s Commercial Customer Block Program with a price of $2 per 1,000
kWh block, or 0.2₵/kWh.
Additionally, staff and the UAC recommend that the Finance Committee recommend that the
Council direct staff to develop a PaloAltoGreen Gas Program to provide an opportunity for
participants to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions related to their natural gas usage,
to be implemented by July 2014.
Finally, staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend that the Council direct staff
to return with a recommendation by March 2014 on how to allocate surplus revenues, if any,
associated with the PaloAltoGreen program.
Summary
The PaloAltoGreen (PAG) program provides customers an opportunity to purchase renewable
energy equivalent to 100% of their electric usage. The program was launched in 2003 and by
2008, PAG had the highest participation rate of any voluntary green rate program in the
country. The City continues to receive national recognition as a green leader for the program.
However, there are two primary issues with continuing PAG as designed. The first is that the
City’s electric supply portfolio is carbon neutral as of 2013. This means that residents and
businesses do not need to participate in PAG to eliminate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
associated with their electric usage. This fact removes one of the motivating forces for
participation in the program. The second issue is that the City’s renewable (“green”) supplies
make up a large part of the standard electric portfolio. Since PAG participants pay to green up
all of their supply needs their contributions “green up” some resources that are already
renewable. However, PAG participants do receive a different energy supply mix than the
City’s standard default electric supply portfolio as PAG is supplied by 100% California solar
energy since the start of 2013.
One solution to these issues is to eliminate the PAG program for the electric portfolio. The City
could use the opportunity to further celebrate the decision to establish a fully carbon neutral
electric portfolio and move on to addressing other sustainability issues and means to reduce
GHG emissions. Alternatively, changes to the PAG program could be implemented as soon as
possible to continue the successful PAG program and brand. Changes to the electric program
could be made such that participants would only be paying to green up the non-renewable
(hydro) resources in the portfolio. The price for the proposed program could also drop
significantly from the current price.
This modification to the PAG program would continue to provide a 100% renewable energy
option to meet the community’s desire for a superior product over the City’s standard energy
product that, while carbon neutral, does not contain 100% qualified renewable resources1 as
defined by the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). The program would continue to be
backed by the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) to offset the City’s large
1 To qualify as eligible for California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), a generation facility must use one or
more of the following renewable resources or fuels: Biofuels, small (<30 MW) hydro, geothermal, ocean waves,
photovoltaic, solar thermal electric, and wind.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
hydroelectric supply, which accounts for about half of the City’s electric supply mix in average
hydro conditions, and which, while non-carbon-emitting, is not defined as “renewable” under
the State’s adopted definition. In addition, the non-residential program option to purchase
RECs in blocks to meet a portion of the participant’s load would continue, but at the new lower
price.
Another option is to retain only the “block purchase” part of the electric PAG program.
Commercial customers as well as multi-family customers participate in this program to achieve
and maintain LEED certification and to receive recognition from the Environmental Protection
Agency’s Green Power Partnership Program. The Full Needs component of the PAG program
could then either be terminated or suspended. Changes to PAG for the Electric Fund can be
implemented as early as September 2013 if approvals are expedited.
The UAC considered the options provided to modify or terminate PAG and voted not to
terminate, but rather to suspend, the PAG’s Full Needs program, and to continue the
Commercial Customer Block PAG program with a reduced price. This option allows for more
time to decide what to do with the PAG Full Needs program. These options could include
terminating the program, replacing the program with a PAG Gas program, or revising the
program in some way, including as a community solar donation program.
In addition, staff proposes developing a PaloAltoGreen Gas program that would provide
participants with an option to eliminate the carbon footprint associated with their use of
natural gas. The UAC supports the development of a PaloAltoGreen Gas program. If directed
by Council, staff will return to the UAC and Council with a detailed program design for a
PaloAltoGreen Gas program so that it can be implemented by July 2014.
Many local solar program ideas were examined and determined to be beneficial. Staff
determined that these programs merit further development and introduction as new programs,
but that they do not fit the PaloAltoGreen program well and more time is needed for program
design. Staff is developing an overall local solar strategy under which these programs would be
evaluated and potentially developed. Staff plans to provide this plan to the UAC by the end of
2013 and to the Finance Committee and Council in early 2014.
Background
Recognizing the community’s desire to go beyond standard requirements for renewable supply,
CPAU customers have had the option to voluntarily pay more to receive 100% renewable
electricity since 2003. Through the PAG program, CPAU provides customers renewable energy
for 100% of their electric usage at a rate premium of 1.5 cents/kWh. Larger businesses can
purchase RECs in blocks of 1,000 kWh for $15 for any portion of their needs.
Participation rates in the program are the highest for similar programs throughout the nation,
earning CPAU recognition and many awards. Many municipal utilities, including those operated
by the Cities of Alameda and Santa Clara, have copied CPAU’s successful program. The success
of the program is attributed to the ability to provide a direct benefit to participants in the form
of reduced GHG emissions equivalent to all or a portion of their electricity consumption in a
simple and convenient manner. In 2012, approximately 20% of CPAU’s customers participated
City of Palo Alto Page 4
in PAG representing 8% of the City’s total electric usage. Through program participation, PAG
participants reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30,224 tons2 in 2012 alone. Table 1
summarizes participation in the PAG program since 2003.
Table 1: PAG Participation
Number of Customers % of CPAU Customers % of Total City Load
Residential Non-Res Residential Non-Res Residential Non-Res Total
2003 1,762 52 7.2% 1.7% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4%
2004 2,903 104 11.8% 3.5% 1.6% 0.5% 2.2%
2005 3,626 112 14.8% 3.7% 2.3% 0.9% 3.2%
2006 4,415 158 21.0% 2.6% 2.7% 1.1% 3.9%
2007 5,413 188 23.0% 4.8% 2.7% 1.8% 4.6%
2008 5,748 222 23.3% 5.8% 3.9% 1.9% 5.8%
2009 5,849 246 23.0% 6.3% 4.1% 2.8% 6.9%
2010 6,102 243 24.2% 5.8% 4.6% 2.9% 7.5%
2011 5,440 231 21.1% 6.2% 4.2% 3.7% 7.9%
2012 5,162 210 20.1% 5.4% 4.0% 4.1% 8.1%
Participating in PAG allows CPAU’s commercial customers (including City facilities) to achieve
environmental recognition and certifications in line with their own corporate sustainability
goals, including participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Green Power
Partnership Program and the US Green Building Council Leadership in Energy & Environmental
Design (USGBC LEED) Program3.
From the launch of the program through 2012, CPAU purchased RECs for PAG from a
combination of 97.5% wind resources and 2.5% local solar energy. For the first eight years of
the program, the costs of RECs and PAG program marketing were nearly equal to the revenues
received from PAG participants. Due to lower than projected REC costs, cumulative revenues
have exceeded overall program costs through 2012 by about $630,000. Further, beginning in
2012, the market price for RECs declined significantly, resulting in much lower REC purchase
costs. This reduction in cost allowed CPAU to transition the program to 100% California-
sourced solar energy for 2013 while maintaining positive net revenue for the program. Table 2
below depicts the history of revenues and expenses (including staff costs) for the PAG program.
2 Based on the 2005 baseline emission factor of 879 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per MWh and
PAG participation at 75,805 MWh in 2012.
3 EPA Green Power Partnership Program details can be seen at: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/index.htm.
USGBC LEED Program details can be seen at: http://www.usgbc.org/leed.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Table 2: PAG Revenue and Expense History
Calendar
Year
Revenue
Collected
Total
Expenses
Net
Revenue
Cumulative
Net Revenue
2003 $61,006 $299,995 -$238,989 -$238,989
2004 $310,959 $489,747 -$178,788 -$417,778
2005 $458,445 $478,776 -$20,331 -$438,108
2006 $567,534 $510,418 $57,116 -$380,993
2007 $679,438 $685,947 -$6,509 -$387,502
2008 $836,263 $709,573 $126,690 -$260,812
2009 $1,003,707 $922,828 $80,879 -$179,933
2010 $1,066,259 $1,036,130 $30,129 -$149,804
2011 $1,132,337 $903,925 $228,412 $78,608
2012 $1,064,595 $513,719 $550,876 $629,484
2013* $520,000 $320,000 $200,000 $829,484
*Estimate for January through June 2013
The City Council recognized the need to modify the current PAG program due to the increasing
percentage of renewable resources in the City’s standard electric supply portfolio. In 2013,
long-term contracts for renewable energy are expected to supply about 21% of the City’s
needs. The City has executed additional long-term contracts that are expected to supply about
half of the City’s needs by 2017.
As part of the process to redesign PAG, staff provided a thorough assessment of alternatives to
the UAC in December 2012 and to Council on February 11, 2013 (Staff Report #3386).
Members of the UAC and City Council expressed the most interest in either a community solar
program or a bio-gas option. After talking with members of the community and surveying
current PAG participants, staff returned to the UAC in April 2013 with a two part
recommendation. First, staff proposed transitioning PAG to a solar donation program by 2014,
which would allow customers to donate funds to support the development of solar
photovoltaic systems at the site of Palo Alto community-based organizations, such as schools.
Secondly, staff proposed developing a new program to be implemented by January 2015 that
would allow participating customers to “green” their natural gas purchases through the use of
environmental offsets or the purchase of commercially-available biogas.
The discussion at the April 2013 UAC meeting centered on the need to design a program with
environmental benefits through reduced GHG emissions. While general support was expressed
for community solar, many questions arose about overall plans to develop solar locally. The
UAC provided general support for both recommended program offerings; however had many
City of Palo Alto Page 6
questions about the implementation. As such, the following motions were made and carried by
the UAC:
1. Recommend that Council approve a redesign of the PAG Program to support a
community solar program to be implemented beginning January 2014, after staff
returns to the UAC with program design details or options for further discussion; and
2. Recommend that Council direct staff to develop a PAG Gas Program to provide an
opportunity for participants to reduce or eliminate GHG emissions from natural gas
usage for Council consideration to be implemented beginning January 2015 and that
staff return to the UAC with program design details and options for further discussion.
Excerpted minutes of the UAC’s April 3, 2013 meeting are provided as Attachment H.
Subsequently, the Chair of the UAC appointed an ad-hoc subcommittee comprising two UAC
members to assist staff in evaluating PAG alternatives.
Evaluation of Alternatives
Staff met with the UAC subcommittee to discuss program alternatives, including the following
options for PAG:
1. Retire the Program
2. Modify the Program to provide 100% eligible renewable resources
3. Community Solar program(s)
4. PaloAltoGreen Gas program
5. Fuel Switching program
6. Electric Vehicle incentives
Staff and the subcommittee assessed each alternative according to the following objectives:
Participants must get value from participating either in the form of direct GHG
reductions or satisfaction in providing community benefits and value.
Program must offer benefits to Commercial customers who participate in PAG to meet
requirements set by EPA Green Power Partnership Program or USGBC LEED Program.
Program must provide environmental benefit (i.e., GHG emission reductions which go
“above and beyond”).
Program must be easy to implement and implementable with current resources.
Program costs can be recovered and will not be subsidized by non-participants.
To be marketable, the program must be simple and easy to explain, reasonably priced,
and transparent to participants.
Program must be available to all customers.
Program must be implementable by January 2014.
A description of each alternative and their corresponding merits is included in Attachment F. A
brief summary of these alternatives follows.
1. Retire the Program
The major reasons that residents and businesses participate in PAG are to receive renewable
energy for their electric needs and to reduce the carbon footprint associated with their electric
City of Palo Alto Page 7
consumption. As of 2013, these reasons are no longer as compelling since the default electric
supply is carbon neutral and consists of renewable resources and large hydroelectric resources.
One option is to declare victory and retire the PAG program, recognizing that the program has
served its purpose.
However, when the UAC reviewed PAG program options, including retiring the program, in
December 2012, the idea of retiring the program was strongly opposed by at least one UAC
Commissioner who indicated that the PaloAltoGreen “brand” was too valuable to simply retire
and that it would waste over 10-years of built up goodwill and willingness on the part of the
community to fund environmental programs. When the Council reviewed PAG program
options at a study session in February 2013, similar sentiment was expressed by some.
In addition, the program has value for the larger commercial customers who buy blocks of
renewable energy through the PAG program to achieve LEED certification and/or to receive
corporate recognition through the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Green Power
Partnership Program.
2. Modified Program to Provide 100% Eligible Renewable Resources
A modified PAG program recognizes the significant renewable resources in the default electric
supply portfolio. The program would green up only the large hydroelectric resources that are
not eligible renewables by California’s definition. The program would be structured like the
current program and, therefore, is implementable immediately (as soon as changes are
approved).
3. Community Solar Program Options
There are many possible designs for community solar programs, which would fund local solar
installations. One option is a donation program whereby participants contribute funds toward
building PV systems or solar hot water heating systems on community buildings such as schools
or other community and/or nonprofit facilities. In another option, participants would pay for a
share of the cost of a larger system that would be installed on a local building. This would be
valuable for customers who may not be good candidates for solar PV on their own homes or
businesses (due to shading, orientation, or other roof issues) and could be cheaper per KW
installed due to economies of scale. Alternately, participants could provide up-front funding
for the cost of a PV system that would be installed on a local building and in return receive
income derived from the sale of the energy produced from the system.
4. PaloAltoGreen Gas Program Options
This program would be similar to the current electric program, but would allow participants to
“green up” their natural gas usage instead of their electric usage. The gas usage would be
greened up with purchases of either biogas or environmental offsets. This program option
would not be ready for implementation by January 2014 due to the need to work through the
policy issues around the use of environmental offsets and the need to create a new gas rate
option in the billing system.
5. Fuel Switching Program
In this program, participants would contribute to a fund to offer rebates or other incentives to
encourage customers to replace gas-using appliances with electric-using appliances.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
6. Electric Vehicle incentives
In this program, participants would contribute to a fund to provide incentives to encourage
customers to replace gasoline-using vehicles with Electric Vehicles (EVs).
The UAC subcommittee and staff agreed that programs to provide incentives for fuel switching
and EVs were not good fits for PAG as the participants would not necessarily directly receive
anything for their contributions. In addition, those programs do not have a strong nexus
between a participant’s electric or gas usage and some of the program’s resulting impacts.
Additionally, the UAC subcommittee assessed the merits of terminating the PAG program at the
end of 2013. Doing so would allow the City to declare victory in having received national
recognition for the nation’s top voluntary green program and staff resources could be allocated
to the development of a PAG Gas program and/or other worthwhile projects. The UAC
subcommittee concluded that participation and environmental benefits could still be achieved
through PAG and that the continuity and name recognition are important factors in the success
of the City’s overall sustainability goals.
The subcommittee further recognized that a key objective for continuing to offer PAG should be
to maintain current participation levels and to be able to implement a revised program by
January 2014. The subcommittee generally supported community solar programs constructed
either as donations to schools or as programs for customers who can’t benefit from current
solar programs (i.e. those with homes without good solar access). However, those programs do
not fit well with the current PAG structure whereby participants make no term commitment
and can enter and exit the program at any time. In addition, there is insufficient time to
complete the design of a community solar program, including identifying any upgrades needed
to the billing system, in order to be able to launch a program by January 2014.
At its July 31, 2013 meeting, the UAC considered the options for the PAG program modifications
and voted unanimously to recommend that Council continue PAG’s Commercial Customer Block
program at a reduced rate of 0.2 ₵/kWh and suspend PAG’s Full Needs program until a
replacement program is designed.
Discussion
Need to Redesign the PAG Program
Participants in the current program are paying to “green up” with RECs the standard electric
supply portfolio. However, starting in 2013, the standard portfolio is carbon neutral, and
consists of long-term renewable resources, long-term hydroelectric resources, and short-term
renewables (using REC purchases) such that participants are greening up already green or
carbon-free hydroelectric resources. This fact is the primary reason that the program needs to
cease or be redesigned. In addition, program revenues exceed program costs so, at a
minimum, the price to participate could be reduced.
One of the primary conclusions staff reached after the assessment and discussions with the
subcommittee was that many of the community solar options examined are worth pursuing,
and while these programs don’t fit the PAG program objectives and constraints, they could be
City of Palo Alto Page 9
pursued separately from PAG. Finally, these programs would not be ready to roll out by
January 2014.
Local Solar Strategy
In addition, the City Manager has requested an overall solar strategy for the City. Staff has
started to develop this umbrella strategy, which will identify all potential programs to increase
penetration of local solar energy installations. The components of the solar strategy will
include recommendations for new programs to be implemented in the future. It will also
include a discussion of market segments and how each can be reached to further a goal to
maximize locally sited solar energy systems. As such, staff will evaluate community solar
programs in the larger context of the City’s overall solar strategy. Staff will return to the UAC
and Council with the overall Palo Alto solar plan by the end of 2013. Table 3 below shows a
preliminary outline of the local solar strategy.
Table 3: Elements of Overall Local Solar Strategy
Market Segment Program Program Beneficiary
Home and building
owners with good
solar access who use
energy generated on-
site
Existing program – PV Partners, in which
CPAU pays a rebate and allows for net
metering
Participants benefit from net
metering, reducing their
utility bills.
Building owners with
roof space or parking
lots that could be
used to site solar
systems
Existing program – Palo Alto CLEAN
(feed-in tariff) program, in which CPAU
pays for the solar energy produced
Building owners receive
revenue from a roof or
parking lot lease.
CPAU receives the renewable
energy for RPS requirements.
Community members
who support schools
Potential new program – Community
Solar Donation program, in which either
solar PV or solar hot water heating
systems are “crowd funded” from
community members
Participants support schools
and receive community
goodwill.
Schools receive free systems
and will experience reduced
utility bills.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Market Segment Program Program Beneficiary
Home and building
owners who do not
have good solar
access, renters,
building tenants, or
others who want to
use the solar energy
generated to offset
their utility bills.
Potential new program – Community
Solar Share program, in which
participants receive a share of the energy
produced by a new solar energy system
in proportion to their investment.
Participants benefit from
“virtual net metering”.
Under virtual net metering,
the owner of the solar system
tracks the energy production
per individual share of the
system and the utility would
credit participants' energy
bills for their portion of solar
production just as they would
for individually-metered
systems.
Home and building
owners who do not
have good solar
access, renters,
building tenants, or
others who want to
receive the value from
the solar energy
generated.
Potential new program – Community
Solar Investment program, in which
participants receive a share of the
payments from energy produced by the
system in proportion to their investment.
Participants receive revenue
from sale of renewable
energy for their investment.
Building owners receive
revenue from a roof or
parking lot lease.
CPAU receives the renewable
energy for RPS requirements.
City-owned facilities
and parking garages
and surface parking
lots.
There are many ways that the City can
install solar on city-owned facilities,
including issuing RFPs for developers to
install systems on specific sites. The City
may elect to own and operate the solar
installations or purchase the energy from
a third-party using a power purchase
agreement (PPA). A plan containing an
assessment of whether or not and how
solar could be installed on each facility
would need to be developed. Separate
discussions would be held with the
parking districts to gauge their interest in
program participation.
The City would benefit from
receiving revenue from a roof
or parking lot lease and
reduced utility bills.
Alternatives
Staff recommends that PAG be either eliminated, suspended or revised as soon as possible to
recognize the renewable resources in the standard portfolio and provide a marketable
consumer and business product. Staff also recommends that it further develop a PAG Gas
program to be launched by July 2014. Continuing a modified program provides CPAU
City of Palo Alto Page 11
customers a choice in electric supply products to meet their own environmental objectives
conveniently and at a reasonable price. Introducing a PAG Gas Program would result in greater
reductions in GHG emissions.
PAG – Participant’s Full Needs
The PAG program could be modified so that RECs would be purchased to cover only the large
hydroelectric portion of the City’s electric supply mix, as opposed to the entire supply mix as
the current program does. Green-e certifiable RECs generated in the Western Electric
Coordinating Council (WECC)4 would still be procured for the program. The amount of RECs
needed may vary from 35 to 60% depending on hydroelectric conditions. Figure 1 illustrates
the PAG participants’ supply mix under various hydroelectric conditions and shows that the
RECs that would need to be purchased are equivalent to the hydroelectric generation in the
portfolio.
Figure 1: PAG Supply Mix to Achieve 100% Renewables
Alternatively, the Full Needs program option could be suspended temporarily allowing staff
sufficient time to develop an alternative product to meet participants’ environmental
objectives. Suspension of the program would cease further collection of revenues associated
with the PAG rate premium and no additional RECs would be procured for the Full Needs
program. This option allows for more time to decide what to do with the PAG Full Needs
program. These options could include terminating the program, replacing the program with a
PAG Gas program, or revising the program in some way, including as a community solar
donation program. When these options are examined in more detail, Council could also decide
what to do with the extra funds that have been collected from the program participants.
4 WECC is the Regional Entity responsible for coordinating and promoting electric system reliability in the Western
Interconnection. WECC's service territory extends from Canada to Mexico, including the provinces of Alberta and
British Columbia, the northern portion of Baja California, Mexico, and all or portions of the 14 Western states
between.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
PAG – Renewable Blocks (Participant’s Partial Needs)
Currently, many non-residential PAG participants elect to purchase renewable energy in blocks
of 1,000 kWh at a fixed rate of $15 per block. This option allows participants to procure custom
quantities to meet their own sustainability objectives. Many businesses currently participate in
the EPA’s Green Power Partnership program, which has specific eligibility requirements.
Attachment G is the brochure for EPA’s Green Power Partnership programs. The requirements
for businesses to be designated a Green Power Partner or member of the Green Power
Leadership Club are contained in the brochure and are shown below in Table 4 below. One of
the key requirements for participation in the Green Power Partnership programs is that
businesses voluntarily purchase green power above what their utility provides as a standard
product. As stated in the EPA’s Green Power Partnership requirements brochure
(http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/documents/gpp_partnership_reqs.pdf): “EPA recognizes
only voluntary green power purchases and on-site generation that increase Partners’ green
power use above mandatory requirements, such as state renewable portfolio standards (RPS),
mandates placed on utilities, or load-serving entities or consent decrees. All green power use
counted by the GPP must be incremental to what the Partner would have bought absent
proactive green power procurement.” The PaloAltoGreen program complies with these
requirements.
The City has been a Green Power Partner since 2006 and is in the Green Power Leadership Club
for buying PAG blocks for 50% of the energy usage of all of its facilities.
Table 4: EPA Green Power Partnership Program Requirements
As with the current program, the 100% renewable energy procured with RECs for the block PAG
program would meet the requirements of the EPA’s Green Power Partnership programs so that
City of Palo Alto Page 13
participants would still be eligible to receive the EPA Green Power Partner or Green Power
Leadership Club designation, depending upon how many blocks they purchase. The new PAG
renewable block program would continue, but the price could be reduced to reflect lower
administrative and REC costs.
As with the Full Needs program, Green-e certifiable RECs within the WECC region would be
procured. Staff would also ensure that the RECs procured for the block rate also meet EPA’s
Green Power Partnership program requirements, LEED requirements, and any other renewable
resource eligibility requirements.
Both the PAG “full needs” and “renewable blocks” products could be implemented immediately
using existing resources and within the constraints of CPAU’s billing system. Table 5 is summary
of the two PAG renewable energy products.
Table 5: Modified PAG Program Options
Full Needs Commercial Customer Blocks
Participation
Goals
All customers eligible
target residential & small commercial
4% of electric load
All customers on E2, E4, E7, E18 rate
schedules
target large commercial, City and public
facilities
3% of electric load
Benefit/Value RECs purchased for the amount
equivalent to large hydroelectric
resource portion of CPAU’s supply mix
support renewable energy projects
RECs support renewable energy projects
Allows continued participation in EPA’s
Green Power Partner Programs
Participation useful for achieving LEED
certification
Participants’
Supply Mix/
Power Content
Label
100% Qualifying Renewable
Amount of RECs depends on portion
of supply met by large hydroelectric
resources.
Depends on the number of REC blocks
purchased relative to participant’s load.
Balance of supply met by CPAU’s supply
mix
Supply Source Green-e certified or certifiable RECs
purchased within the WECC
Green-e certified or certifiable RECs
purchased within the WECC
Meets EPA’s eligibility requirements
Rate Green rate premium of 0.2 ₵/kWh, on
100% of customer load
$2 per 1000 kWh block
Bill Impact $0.81 per month for median
residential customer usage
Depends on number of renewable
blocks purchased
Administration &
Implementation
Administration, marketing and verification done by contractor
REC procurement done in-house
Enrollment Existing PAG participants would continue in program, but may leave at any time
New participants could sign up at any time
Net Revenue Estimates for Continuing a Modified PAG Program
As shown in Table 2, since 2008 the PAG program has operated with positive net revenue,
therefore recovering all program expenses. The expenses are based on actual REC purchases,
actual invoices from the City’s third-party contractor, and an estimation of staff time and
City of Palo Alto Page 14
overhead. Since the start of the program the contractor provided program marketing and
administration and prepared information for the annual auditing for the program. In addition,
the contractor provided the RECs for the program until 2006. Starting in 2007, City staff took
over procuring RECs, requiring more City resources, but allowing for competitive procurement
of the RECs.
If the PAG program were modified as described, staff anticipates lower costs associated with
the third-party marketing and administration services and no start-up expenses. The estimated
expenses for a modified PAG are about $350,000 per year. This estimate assumes the
following:
Participation level of 7% of total electric load (same as expected for CY 2013);
Reduced administrative and marketing expenses from CY 2013;
Average hydroelectric conditions; and
REC cost of 0.2 ₵/kWh
A breakdown of the revenue and expenses are shown in Table 6 if both the Full Needs and the
Commercial Block programs were continued and changes were implemented as of October 1,
2013.
Table 6: Estimated PAG Net Revenue for Calendar Years 2013 and 2014 for Modified Program
Current
Program (no
changes)
If price changed to
0.5 ₵/kWh starting
October 1, 2013
If price changed to
0.2 ₵/kWh starting
October 1, 2013
CY 2013 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2013 CY 2014
PAG Retail Revenue $1,050,000 $875,000 $350,000 $825,000 $140,000
Expenses:
Vendor Admin/Marketing $245,000 $200,000 $150,000 $200,000 $150,000
Staff costs/Overhead $135,000 $125,000 $100,000 $125,000 $100,000
REC Purchases $270,000 $225,000 $100,000 $225,000 $100,000
Total Expenses: $650,000 $550,000 $350,000 $550,000 $350,000
Net Revenue: $400,000 $325,000 $0 $330,000 -$210,000
The break-even price for a modified program is about 0.5 ₵/kWh, but there are significant
cumulative net revenues from the current program that can be applied to future expenses. If
the program were changed as described, staff recommends a PAG premium of 0.2 ₵/kWh for
both products. For the Full Needs product, the charge will be assessed on the entire usage of
the customer, but RECs will only be purchased for the hydroelectric portion of the usage. For
the block product, RECs are purchased for the number of blocks selected. There are higher
administrative costs per customer for the smaller customers on the Full Needs product. The
non-residential participants who choose to purchase the RECs in blocks are significantly larger
City of Palo Alto Page 15
and the administrative cost per kWh is lower for that product because the quantity of RECs for
this program is known ahead of time and doesn’t fluctuate with usage
Net Revenue is very sensitive to REC prices and is also sensitive to participation levels, other
expenses and hydroelectric conditions. Table 7 illustrates net revenue under various scenarios
with a program price of 0.2 ₵/kWh. The Table shows that net revenue can be as low as
negative $640,000 per year (under high administrative and REC costs and wet hydroelectric
conditions where more RECs are needed). To the extent costs exceed revenues, the
accumulated net revenue from the current PAG program is sufficient to cover costs.
Table 7: Annual Modified PAG Program Net Revenue Scenarios (with price at 0.2 ₵/kWh)
Scenario Avg. Hydro Dry Hydro Wet Hydro
Expected Administrative, Marketing and REC Costs
Revenues $140,000 $140,000 $140,000
Expenses $350,000 $330,000 $355,000
Net Revenue -$210,000 -$190,000 -$215,000
Higher Administrative, Marketing and REC Costs
Revenues $140,000 $140,000 $140,000
Expenses $720,000 $680,000 $780,000
Net Revenue -$580,000 -$540,000 -$640,000
Higher Participation & Expected Administrative, Marketing and REC Costs
Revenues $180,000 $180,000 $180,000
Expenses $400,000 $380,000 $410,000
Net Revenue -$220,000 -$200,000 - $230,000
If Council chooses to suspend or terminate the PAG program, and if there are excess cumulative
net revenues (total revenues minus total costs) after the current PAG program is retired, staff
would allocate those funds in keeping with Council-approved program goals. Options include
procuring more renewable energy, RECs or offsets to support renewable energy projects or to
reduce community GHG emissions, or making other expenditures in keeping with the overall
goals of the program. Returning the accumulated net revenues to participants is also possible,
but could be administratively costly and would not result in a significant refund for individual
participants.
PAG Program Net Revenue Estimates if Full Needs Option Suspended
If the Full Needs option were suspended at the end of September 2013, and the rate premium
for the Block program reduced to 0.2 ₵/kWh ($2 per 1,000 kWh), then the net revenue for CY
City of Palo Alto Page 16
2013 would drop to $321,000 as shown in Table 8. Further, if this option is implemented, staff
would recommend not hiring a third party administrator and administrative costs would be
limited to procuring RECs and communicating to existing participants on the block rate option.
Table 8: Estimated Annual Net Revenue if Full Needs program is Suspended
(and Block Program Price Changed to 0.2 ₵/kWh starting October 1, 2013)
CY 2013 CY 2014
PAG Retail Revenue $801,500 $60,000
Expenses:
Vendor Admin/Marketing $115,000 $0
Staff costs/Overhead $95,000 $25,000
REC Purchases $270,000 $60,000
Total Expenses: $480,000 $85,000
Net Revenue: $321,500 -$25,000
Bill Impact
At a rate of 0.2 ₵/kWh, the PAG premium for the median residential customer is less than one
dollar per month. Table 9 shows the monthly bill impact with a 0.2₵/kWh PAG premium for
participants with different usage levels compared to the current premium. If the Full Needs
option is suspended, there will be no monthly bill impact since the rate premium will be zero.
Table 9: PAG Estimated Residential Monthly Cost
Monthly Electric
Consumption
(kWh)
Monthly Bill
without PAG
rate premium
Current PAG rate
premium (@1.5 ₵/kWh)
Proposed PAG rate
premium (@0.2 ₵/kWh)
$/month % $/month %
407 $42.50 $6.10 14.4% $0.81 1.9%
650 $76.33 $9.75 12.8% $1.30 1.7%
1,000 $137.23 $15.00 10.9% $2.00 1.5%
PaloAltoGreen Gas Program
A PAG Gas Program would serve to meet the community’s desire to support further reductions
in GHG emissions and to achieve these reductions in connection with their own carbon
footprint. At the April 2013 UAC meeting, staff proposed that it develop a PAG Gas Program for
implementation by January 2015 to allow time to design an acceptable program and ensure
that all internal and billing systems could be modified to enable it to be implemented. At this
time, staff proposes to speed the program implementation up so that it could be introduced by
July 2014.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
As discussed with the UAC in April 2013, staff evaluated two ways in which to achieve GHG
reductions through a green gas program, including through 1) direct support of biogas; and 2)
purchase of environmental offsets.
Preliminary analysis showed the additional cost for 100% biogas purchases for a median
residential customer is too high for customers to accept, especially with added costs for
program administration. The analysis showed that a PAG Gas program backed by purchasing
environmental offsets is less expensive than purchasing biogas and could be implemented in a
relatively short amount of time. The impact on participants’ bills will depend on the type of
environmental offset procured which can vary widely depending on offset program,
certification, protocol and project source.
For offsets approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and not certified for AB32
compliance, the current price is about $15 per metric ton (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e). Since one therm of natural gas produces 0.0053 tons of CO2e, offsets costing $15/ton
add a cost of 7.9₵/therm. If program administration and marketing costs are added, the
premium for a PAG Gas program could be about 12₵/therm. The increased monthly cost for a
residential gas customer at 12₵/therm is shown in Table 10.
Table 10: Residential Natural Gas Bill Impact with Environmental Offsets
Gas Usage
(therms/month)
Current
Monthly bill *
Monthly bill
with a premium
of 12₵/therm
Increased monthly bill with
a premium of 12₵/therm
$/month %
10 $18.27 $19.47 $1.20 6.6%
18 (summer median) $24.99 $27.15 $2.16 8.6%
25 $33.44 $36.44 $3.00 9.0%
30 $35.06 $38.66 $3.60 10.3%
54 (winter median) $55.20 $61.68 $6.48 11.7%
100 $114.42 $126.42 $12.00 10.5%
* Assumes gas commodity cost of 40 ₵/therm
If the participation rate for a PaloAltoGreen Gas program is 20% of residential customers and
5% of non-residential customers (as it was for the electric PAG program in 2012), then about
10% of the City’s natural gas usage (about 3 million therms/year) would be covered with
environmental offsets, resulting in a reduction of GHG emissions totaling 16,000 metric tons.
If directed by Council, staff will finalize the program design including seeking UAC and Finance
Committee recommendation and Council approval of the PAG Gas rate and the types of offsets
allowed to be used for the program. Following that, staff will establish the necessary
agreements to procure offsets, hire a third party administrator and marketer, develop program
materials, recommend rate premiums and make the necessary modifications to CPAU’s billing
system to allow for the implementation of the PAG Gas Program by as early as July 2014.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Commission Review and Recommendation
At the July 31, 2013 UAC meeting, staff requested that the UAC recommend that Council
approve one of the following three options to be implemented as soon as possible:
1. Terminate PAG;
2. Terminate PAG’s Full Needs program, but maintain the Commercial Customer Block
Program and reduce the price to 0.2 ₵/kWh; or
3. Approve changes to PAG with two rate options:
a. Full Needs: rate premium of 0.2 ₵/kWh levied on the full electric requirements of a
customer to purchase renewable energy certificates (RECs) for the large
hydroelectric supply portion of the City’s supply mix; and
b. Commercial Customer Blocks: Purchase rate of $2 per 1,000 kWh block.
In addition, staff recommended that the UAC recommend that Council direct staff to develop a
PaloAltoGreen Gas Program to be implemented by July 2014.
The draft notes from the UAC’s lengthy discussion regarding the merits of each alternative
presented are provided in Attachment I. There was almost no support for terminating the
program altogether and the Commission was split on the proposal for the Full Needs program
option to green up only the hydro portion of the supply mix. Rather than terminate, the UAC
supported suspending the Full Needs program until a satisfactory replacement can be found.
Ultimately the UAC voted unanimously to recommend that Council:
1. Suspend the Full Needs option of the PAG program;
2. Continue the Commercial Customer Block program with a rate premium of 0.2 ₵/kWh;
and
3. Direct staff to develop a PaloAltoGreen Gas Program to be implemented by July 2014.
Resource Impact
Approval of the UAC’s recommendation to suspend collection of revenue from PAG full need
participants and to reduce the rate for the block renewable purchases to 0.2₵/kWh will result in
reduced PAG revenues for FY 2014. The FY 2014 budget accounted for expenses related to REC
purchases and hiring of a third party administrator. No additional staff resources are
anticipated to carry out the revisions to the PAG program.
Termination of the program would cease all revenues and expenses for the PAG program
effective the date of program termination.
No additional staff resources are associated with the development of a PAG Gas program. Any
resource impacts from such a program will be defined when a recommendation for that
program is available for Council consideration.
Policy Impact
Approval of the modifications to the PAG Program and the directive to develop a PAG Gas
Program is consistent with the Council-approved LEAP Objectives; Strategies and
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Implementation Plan; supports the Council-approved 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan’s
environmental sustainability objective; and is consistent with the City’s Climate Protection Plan.
Environmental Impact
Modifying, suspending, or terminating the PAG Program will reduce the amount of RECs
purchases made, which will reduce the level of support provided by program participants for
the development and financial health of the renewable energy industry. If the Commercial
Customer Block program continues, RECs will continue to be purchased on behalf of those
customers. With respect to GHG emissions, in calendar year 2012, the reduction in GHG
emissions associated with the program was 30,233 metric tons. However, given that the
electric supply portfolio is carbon neutral starting in calendar year 2013, GHG emission counting
protocols do not allow RECs to provide “negative GHG emissions”.
The environmental impacts associated with implementing a PAG Gas program will be
determined during the development stage of that program.
Modifying, suspending, or terminating the PAG Program does not meet the California
Environmental Quality Act‘s (CEQA) definition of a “project” under California Public Resources
Code Sec. 21065, thus no environmental review is required.
Next Steps
If the Finance Committee supports the UAC and staff’s recommendation, the modifications can
be implemented as soon as they are approved by Council, which is expected to be in September
2013. Regardless of Council’s decision, current PAG customers will be informed of any changes
to the program and have the option to opt out of the program (as they do at any time). Staff
will evaluate the need to hire a new PAG contractor to administer, market and verify the
program to meet certification protocols and to possibly assist with the development and
marketing of a PaloAltoGreen Gas Program.
If directed by Council, staff will continue to develop the PAG Gas program design elements and
return to the UAC in December 2013 with a recommendation and program design details.
Last, staff is in the process of developing an overarching Palo Alto local solar plan and strategies
to meet the community’s interest to develop solar locally. A draft plan is expected to be ready
for UAC review in December 2013 and Finance Committee review in December 2013 or January
2014.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution Approving Termination of PAG (PDF)
Attachment B: Resolution Approving Suspension of PAG Full Needs and Modification to
Block Rate (PDF)
Attachment C: Modified Rate Schedules E-2G, E-4G, E-7G, E-18G for Block Purchases
(PDF)
Attachment D: Resolution Approving Modifications to PAG Full Needs and Modification
to Block Rate (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Attachment E: Modified Rate Schedules E-1G, E-2G, E-4G, E-7G, E-18G for Option to
Full Needs and Block Purchases (PDF)
Attachment F: PaloAltoGreen Redesign analysis (PDF)
Attachment G: EPA Green Power Partnership Brochure (PDF)
Attachment H: Excerpted Final UAC Minutes of April 3, 2013 Meeting (PDF)
Attachment I: Excerpted Draft UAC Minutes of July 31, 2013 Special Meeting (PDF)
ATTACHMENT A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
130813 dm 6051929
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Terminating the
PaloAltoGreen Program Effective _____ and Repealing Rate
Schedules E-1-G, E-2-G, E-4-G, E-7-G and E-18-G
A. In an effort to provide City of Palo Alto Utilities (“City”) electric customers the
option to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with their electricity use, in
2003 the City launched the PaloAltoGreen Program;
B. City electric customers can opt in to the PaloAltoGreen Program in two ways.
The “Full Needs” option allows all customers to receive renewable energy equivalent to 100
percent of their needs in exchange for paying an additional 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour (“kWh”)
assessed on their full load. The “Commercial Customer Block” rate gives commercial customers
the option to receive renewable energy in blocks of 1,000kWh in exchange for paying an
additional 1.5 cents per 1,000 kWh;
C. Approximately 20 percent of the City’s electric utilities customers participate in
PaloAltoGreen, representing approximately 8 percent of the City’s electric load and making the
PaloAltoGreen Program one of the most successful green energy programs in the United States;
D. In March 2011, the Council unanimously approved the Long-term Electric
Acquisition Plan (LEAP), a strategic planning document focused on how the City’s Utilities
Department (CPAU) can successfully balance environmental and economic sustainability as it
provides electric service to CPAU customers. Council approved an update to the LEAP in April
2012 (Resolution 9241). As part of LEAP Climate Protection Strategy #5, Council directed staff
to evaluate PaloAltoGreen program design and recommend modifications, as appropriate,
including constructing PaloAltoGreen to assist in meeting Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”)
goals.
E. In March 2013, the Council unanimously approved the Carbon Neutral Plan
(Resolution 9322) directing staff to achieve carbon neutrality for the electric portfolio by 2013
through a combination of hydroelectric resources, long-term renewable resources and short-
term renewable energy resources and/or renewable energy certificates (“RECs”). The Carbon
Neutral Plan also included direction to redesign PaloAltoGreen in the context of achieving
carbon neutrality for the electric supply portfolio.
F. The City’s increasing RPS and the adoption of the Carbon Neutral Plan require an
evaluation of the continued effectiveness of PaloAltoGreen as currently implemented.
PaloAltoGreen participants no longer need to participate in the program to eliminate the
greenhouse gas emissions associated with their electric usage, as much of the City’s electric
portfolio is now renewable.
ATTACHMENT A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
130813 dm 6051929
G. At the July 31, 2013 Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) meeting, staff
presented alternatives to redesign PaloAltoGreen, and the UAC voted unanimously (six in favor
and one absent) to recommend that the Council suspend the PaloAltoGreen Full Needs
program for all customers and reduce the Commercial Customer Block rate from 1.5 cents per
1,000 kWh to 0.2 cents per 1,000 kWh.
H. On August 20, 2013, the Finance Committee voted _________________________ to
_______ effective ______________.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule E-1-G (Residential Green Power Electric Service) is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule E-2-G (Small Commercial Green Power Electric Service) is hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule E-4-G (Medium Commercial Green Power Electric Service) is hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule E-7-G (Large Commercial Green Power Electric Service) is hereby repealed.
SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility
Rate Schedule E-18-G (Municipal Green Power Electric Service) is hereby repealed.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
ATTACHMENT A
* NOT YET APPROVED *
130813 dm 6051929
SECTION 6. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution repealing
PaloAltoGreen’s electric rates is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
because repeal of these rates does not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to California
Public Resources Code Sec. 21065(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
ATTACHMENT B
* NOT YET APPROVED *
130813 dm 6051930
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Suspending
PaloAltoGreen’s Full Needs Program for All Electric Customers and
Reducing Rates for PaloAltoGreen’s Commercial Electric Customers
by Repealing Rate Schedule E-1-G and Amending Rate Schedules E-2-
G, E-4-G, E-7-G and E-18-G
A. In an effort to provide City of Palo Alto Utilities (“City”) electric customers the
option to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with their electricity use, in
2003 the City launched the PaloAltoGreen Program.
B. City electric customers can opt in to the PaloAltoGreen Program in two ways.
The “Full Needs” option allows all customers to receive renewable energy equivalent to 100
percent of their needs in exchange for paying an additional 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour (“kWh”)
assessed on their full load. The “Commercial Customer Block” rate gives commercial customers
the option to receive renewable energy in blocks of 1,000kWh in exchange for paying an
additional 1.5 cents per 1,000 kWh.
C. Approximately 20 percent of the City’s electric utilities customers participate in
PaloAltoGreen, representing approximately 8 percent of the City’s electric load and making the
PaloAltoGreen Program one of the most successful green energy programs in the United States.
D. In March 2011, the Council unanimously approved the Long-term Electric
Acquisition Plan (LEAP), a strategic planning document focused on how the City’s Utilities
Department (CPAU) can successfully balance environmental and economic sustainability as it
provides electric service to CPAU customers. Council approved an update to the LEAP in April
2012 (Resolution 9241). As part of LEAP Climate Protection Strategy #5, Council directed staff
to evaluate PaloAltoGreen program design and recommend modifications, as appropriate,
including constructing PaloAltoGreen to assist in meeting Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”)
goals.
E. In March 2013, the Council unanimously approved the Carbon Neutral Plan
(Resolution 9322) directing staff to achieve carbon neutrality for the electric portfolio by 2013
through a combination of hydroelectric resources, long-term renewable resources and short-
term renewable energy resources and/or renewable energy certificates (“RECs”). The Carbon
Neutral Plan also included direction to redesign PaloAltoGreen in the context of achieving
carbon neutrality for the electric supply portfolio.
F. The City’s increasing RPS and the adoption of the Carbon Neutral Plan require an
evaluation of the continued effectiveness of PaloAltoGreen as currently implemented.
PaloAltoGreen participants no longer need to participate in the program to eliminate the
greenhouse gas emissions associated with their electric usage, as much of the City’s electric
portfolio is now renewable.
ATTACHMENT B
* NOT YET APPROVED *
130813 dm 6051930
G. At the July 31, 2013 Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) meeting, staff
presented alternatives to redesign PaloAltoGreen, and the UAC voted unanimously (six in favor
and one absent) to recommend that the Council suspend the PaloAltoGreen Full Needs
program for all customers and reduce the Commercial Customer Block rate from 1.5 cents per
1,000 kWh to 0.2 cents per 1,000 kWh.
H. On August 20, 2013, the Finance Committee voted ________________________
to _________________ effective ______________.
I. On September 16, 2013, this Council did, on the motion of Council Member
____, seconded by Council Member ____, by a vote of ____, temporarily suspend
PaloAltoGreen’s Full Needs program for all customers and reduced PaloAltoGreen’s
Commercial Customer Block rate to $2 per 1,000 kWh block, or 0.2 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate
Schedule E-1-G (Residential Green Power Electric Service) is hereby repealed effective as of
September 19, 2013, until further action of the Council of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate
Schedule E-2-G (Small Commercial Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as
attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-2-G, as amended, shall become effective
September 16, 2013.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate
Schedule E-4-G (Medium Commercial Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read
as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-4-G, as amended, shall become effective
September 16, 2013.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate
Schedule E-7-G (Large Commercial Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as
attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-7-G, as amended, shall become effective
September 16, 2013.
SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate
Schedule E-18-G (Municipal Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as
attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-18-G, as amended, shall become effective
September 16, 2013.
SECTION 6. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution suspending
PaloAltoGreen’s residential rates and reducing PaloAltoGreen’s commercial rates is not subject
ATTACHMENT B
* NOT YET APPROVED *
130813 dm 6051930
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources
Code Sec. 21065 because such action does not meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to
California Public Resources Code Sec. 21065(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
SMALL COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-2-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-16-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-2-G-1 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-2-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-demand metered electric service for small commercial
customers and master-metered multi-family facilities receiving retail energy services from
the City of Palo Alto Utilities under the Palo Alto Green plan. Palo Alto Green provides for
either the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs) to match 100% of the energy
usage at the facility every month, or for the purchase of 1000 kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks.
These REC purchases support the production of renewable energy, increase the financial
value of power from renewal sources, and create a transparent and sustainable market that
encourages new development of wind and solar power.
B. TERRITORY:
This rate schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides electric service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES:
1. The 100% Renewable/ Full Green option was Suspended by City Council on 9-16-2013):
Per kilowatt-hour (kWh) Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits
Palo Alto
Green Total
Summer Period $0.08219 $0.05505 $0.00321 $0.0150 $0.15545
Winter Period 0.07406 0.04934 0.00321 0.0150 0.14161
2. (1000 kWh block option):
Per kilowatt-hour (kWh) Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits
Total
Summer Period $0.08219 $0.05505 $0.00321 $0.14045
Winter Period 0.07406 0.04934 0.00321 0.12661
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
SMALL COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-2-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-16-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-2-G-2 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-2-G-2
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated
under Section C.
2. Seasonal Rate Changes
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from
November 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use in both the Summer and
Winter Periods, usage will be prorated based upon the number of days in each seasonal
period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
3. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center.
4. Maximum Demand Meter
Whenever the monthly use of energy has exceeded 8,000 kWh for three consecutive months,
a maximum demand meter will be installed as promptly as is practicable and thereafter
continued in service until the monthly use of energy has fallen below 6,000 kWh for twelve
consecutive months, whereupon, at the option of the City, it may be removed.
The maximum demand in any month will be the maximum average power in kilowatts taken
during any 15-minute interval in the month provided that in case the load is intermittent or
subject to violent fluctuations, the City may use a 5-minute interval. A thermal-type demand
meter which does not reset after a definite time interval may be used at the City's option.
The billing demand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be the actual
maximum demand in kilowatts for the current month. An exception is that the billing
demand for customers with Thermal Energy Storage (TES) will be based upon the actual
maximum demand of such customers between the hours of noon and 6 pm on weekdays.
{End}
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-1 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to Demand metered secondary Electric Service for Customers with a
Maximum Demand below 1,000 kilowatts (kW) who receive power under the Palo Alto Green plan.
This schedule applies to three-phase Electric Service and may include Service to master-metered
multi-family facilities or other facilities requiring Demand-metered Services, as determined by the
City.
B. TERRITORY:
The rate schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides Electric Service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES: 1. The 100% Renewable/ Full Green option was Suspended by City Council on 9-16-2013) 2. (1000 kWh block option):
Commodity Distribution Public Benefits Total
Summer Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $5.31 $15.23 $20.54
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.06083 0.01767 0.00321 0.08171
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
Winter Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $4.80 $9.04 $13.84
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.05281 0.01716 0.00321 0.07318
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00 (100% Renewable Green option):
Commodity Distribution Public Benefits
Palo Alto Green Total
Summer Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $5.31 $15.23 $20.54
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.06083 0.01767 0.00321 0.0150 0.09671
Winter Period
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-2 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-2
Demand Charge (per kW) $4.80 $9.04 $13.84
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.05281 0.01716 0.00321 0.0150 0.08818
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges, and/or taxes. On a Customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated
under Section C.
2. Seasonal Rate Changes
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from
November 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use both in the Summer and the
Winter Periods, the usage will be prorated based on the number of days in each seasonal
period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
3. Maximum Demand Meter
Whenever the monthly use of energy has exceeded 8,000 kilowatt-hours for three
consecutive months, a Maximum Demand meter will be installed as promptly as is
practicable and thereafter continued in Service until the monthly use of energy has dropped
below 6,000 kilowatt-hours for twelve consecutive months, whereupon, at the option of the
City, it may be removed.
The Maximum Demand in any month will be the maximum average power in kilowatts taken
during any 15-minute interval in the month provided that in case the load is intermittent or
subject to violent fluctuations, the City may use a 5-minute interval. A thermal-type Demand
meter, which does not reset after a definite time interval, may be used at the City's option.
The Billing Demand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be the actual
Maximum Demand in kilowatts for the current month. An exception is that the Billing
Demand for Customers with Thermal Energy Storage (TES) will be based upon the actual
Maximum Demand of such Customers between the hours of noon and 6 PM on weekdays.
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-3 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-3
4. Power Factor
For new or existing Customers whose Demand is expected to exceed or has exceeded 300
kilowatts for three consecutive months, the City has the option of installing applicable
metering to calculate a Power Factor. The City may remove such metering from the Service
of a Customer whose Demand has dropped below 200 kilowatts for four consecutive months.
When such metering is installed, the monthly Electric bill will include a “Power Factor
Adjustment”, if applicable. The adjustment will be applied to a Customer’s bill prior to the
computation of any primary voltage discount. The Power Factor Adjustment is applied by
increasing the total energy and Demand charges for any month by 0.25 percent or (1/4) for
each one percent (1%) that the monthly Power Factor of the Customer’s load was less than
95%.
The monthly Power Factor is the average Power Factor based on the ratio of kilowatt-hours
to kilovolt-ampere hours consumed during the month. Where time-of-day metering is
installed, the monthly Power Factor shall be the Power Factor coincident with the Customer's
Maximum Demand.
5. Changing Rate Schedules
Customers may request a rate schedule change at any time to any applicable full-service rate
schedule as is applicable to their kilowatt-Demand and kilowatt-hour usage profile.
6. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center. Customers may request at any time, in writing, a
change to the number of blocks they wish to purchase under the Palo Alto Green plan.
Palo Alto Green provides for either the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs)
to match 100% of the energy usage at the facility every month, or for the purchase of 1000
kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks. These REC purchases support the production of renewable
energy, increase the financial value of power from renewal sources, and creates a transparent
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-4 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-4
and sustainable market that encourages new development of wind and solar.
7. Primary Voltage Discount
Where delivery is made at the same voltage as that of the line from which the Service is
supplied, a discount of 2.5 percent for available line voltages above 2 kilovolts will be
allowed provided the City is not required to supply Service at a particular line voltage where
it has, or will install, ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally or better suited
to the Customer's electrical requirements. The City retains the right to change its line voltage
at any time after providing reasonable advance notice to any Customer receiving a discount
hereunder and affected by such change. The Customer then has the option to change the
system so as to receive Service at the new line voltage or to accept Service (without voltage
discount) through transformers to be supplied by the City subject to a maximum kilovolt-
ampere size limitation.
8. Standby Charge
a. Applicability: The standby charge, subject to the exemptions in subsection D(8)(e),
applies to Customers that have a non-utility generation source interconnected on the
Customer’s side of the City’s revenue meter and that occasionally require backup
power from the City due to non-operation of the non-utility generation source.
b. Standby Charges:
Commodity Distribution Total
Standby Charge (per kW of
Reserved Capacity)
Summer Period $0.69 $15.23 $15.92
Winter Period $0.63 $9.04 $9.67
c. Meters. A separate meter is required for each non-utility generation source.
d. Calculation of Maximum Demand Credit.
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-5 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-5
(1) In the event the Customer’s Maximum Demand (as defined in Section D.3)
occurs when one or more of the non-utility generators on the Customer’s side of the
City’s revenue meter are not operating, the Maximum Demand will be reduced by the
sum of the Maximum Generation of those non-utility generators, but in no event shall
the Customer’s Maximum Demand be reduced below zero.
(2) If the non-utility generation source does not operate for an entire billing cycle,
the standby charge does not apply and the Customer shall not receive the Maximum
Demand credit described in this Section.
e. Exemptions.
(1) The standby charge shall not apply to backup generators designed to operate only
in the event of an interruption in utility Service and which are not used to offset
Customer electricity purchases.
(2) The standby charge shall not apply if the Customer meets the definition of an
“Eligible Customer-generator” as defined in California Public Utilities Code Section
2827(b)(4) , as amended.
(3) The applicability of these exemptions shall be determined at the discretion of the
Utilities Director.
{End}
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-1 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to Demand metered Service for large commercial Customers who choose
Service under the Palo Alto Green plan. A Customer may qualify for this rate schedule if the
Customer’s Maximum Demand is at least 1,000KW per month per site, who have sustained this
Demand level at least 3 consecutive months during the last twelve months
B. TERRITORY:
The rate schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides Electric Service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES:
1. The 100% Renewable/ Full Green option was Suspended by City Council on 9-16-2013)
2. (1000 kWh block option):
Commodity Distribution Public Benefits Total
Summer Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $6.42 $12.55 $18.97
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.05562 0.01825 0.00321 0.07808
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
Winter Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $5.50 $6.04 $11.54
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.04990 0.01898 0.00321 0.07209
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00 (100% renewable green option):
Commodity Distribution Public Benefits Palo Alto Green Total
Summer Period
Demand Charge ( per kW) $6.42 $12.55 $18.97
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.05562 0.01825 0.00321 0.0150 0.09308
Winter Period
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-2 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-2
Demand Charge (per kW) $5.50 $6.04 $11.54
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.04990 0.01898 0.00321 0.0150 0.08709
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Charges
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a Customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated
under Section C.
2. Seasonal Rate Changes
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from
November 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use both in the Summer and the
Winter Periods, the usage will be prorated based on the number of days in each seasonal
period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
3. Maximum Demand Meter
Whenever the monthly use of energy has exceeded 8,000 kilowatt-hours for three
consecutive months, a Maximum Demand meter will be installed as promptly as is
practicable and thereafter continued in Service until the monthly use of energy has dropped
below 6,000 kilowatt-hours for twelve consecutive months, whereupon, at the option of the
City, it may be removed.
The Maximum Demand in any month will be the maximum average power in kilowatts taken
during any 15-minute interval in the month provided that in case the load is intermittent or
subject to violent fluctuations, the City may use a 5-minute interval. A thermal-type Demand
meter which does not reset after a definite time interval may be used at the City's option.
The Billing Demand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be the actual
Maximum Demand in kilowatts for the current month. An exception is that the Billing
Demand for Customers with Thermal Energy Storage (TES) will be based upon the actual
Maximum Demand of such Customers between the hours of noon and 6 PM on weekdays.
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-3 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-3
4. Request for Service
Qualifying Customers may request Service under this schedule for more than one account or
one meter if the accounts are at one site. A site shall be defined as one or more utility
accounts serving contiguous parcels of land with no intervening public right-of-ways (e.g.
streets) and have a common billing address.
5. Power Factor
For new or existing Customers whose Demand is expected to exceed or has exceeded 300
kilowatts for three consecutive months, the City has the option of installing applicable
metering to calculate a Power Factor. The City may remove such metering from the Service
of a Customer whose Demand has dropped below 200 kilowatts for four consecutive months.
When such metering is installed, the monthly Electric bill shall include a “Power Factor
Adjustment”, if applicable. The adjustment shall be applied to a Customer’s bill prior to the
computation of any primary voltage discount. The Power Factor Adjustment is applied by
increasing the total energy and Demand charges for any month by 0.25 percent or (1/4) for
each one percent (1%) that the monthly Power Factor of the Customer’s load was less than
95%.
The monthly Power Factor is the average Power Factor based on the ratio of kilowatt-hours
to kilovolt-ampere hours consumed during the month. Where time-of-day metering is
installed, the monthly Power Factor shall be the Power Factor coincident with the Customer's
Maximum Demand.
6. Changing Rate Schedules
Customers may request a rate schedule change at any time to any applicable full service rate
schedule as is applicable to their kilowatt-Demand and kilowatt-hour usage profile
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-4 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-4
7. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center. Customers may request at any time, in writing, a
change to the number of blocks they wish to purchase under the Palo Alto Green plan.
Palo Alto Green provides for either the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs)
to match 100% of the energy usage at the facility every month, or for the purchase of 1000
kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks. These REC purchases support the production of renewable
energy, increase the financial value of power from renewal sources, and creates a transparent
and sustainable market that encourages new development of wind and solar.
8. Primary Voltage Discount
Where delivery is made at the same voltage as that of the line from which the Service is
supplied, a discount of 2 1/2 percent for available line voltages above 2 kilovolts will be
allowed; provided, however, the City is not required to supply Service at a qualified line
voltage where it has, or will install, ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally
or better suited to the Customer's Electrical requirements. The City retains the right to
change its line voltage at any time after providing reasonable advance notice to any Customer
receiving a discount hereunder and affected by such change. The Customer then has the
option to change the system so as to receive Service at the new line voltage or to accept
Service (without voltage discount) through transformers to be supplied by the City subject to
a maximum kilovolt-ampere size limitation.
9. Standby Charge
a. Applicability: The standby charge, subject to the exemptions in subsection D(9)(e),
applies to Customers that have a non-utility generation source interconnected on the
Customer’s side of the City’s revenue meter and that occasionally require backup
power from the City due to non-operation of the non-utility generation source.
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-5 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-5
b. Standby Charges:
Commodity Distribution Total Standby Charge (per kW of Reserved Capacity)
Summer Period $0.84 $12.55 $13.39
Winter Period $0.72 $6.04 $6.76
c. Meters. A separate meter is required for each non-utility generation source.
d. Calculation of Maximum Demand Credit.
(1) In the event the Customer’s Maximum Demand (as defined in Section D.3)
occurs when one or more of the non-utility generators on the Customer’s side of the
City’s revenue meter are not operating, the Maximum Demand will be reduced by the
sum of the Maximum Generation of those non-utility generators, but in no event shall
the Customer’s Maximum Demand be reduced below zero.
(2) If the non-utility generation source does not operate for an entire billing cycle,
the standby charge does not apply and the Customer shall not receive the Maximum
Demand credit described in this Section.
e. Exemptions.
(1) The standby charge shall not apply to backup generators designed to operate only
in the event of an interruption in utility Service and which are not used to offset
Customer electricity purchases.
(2) The standby charge shall not apply if the Customer meets the definition of an
“Eligible Customer-generator” as defined in California Public Utilities Code Section
2827(b)(4) , as amended.
(3) The applicability of these exemptions shall be determined at the discretion of the
Utilities Director.
{End}
MUNICIPAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-18-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-16-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-18-G-1 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-18-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to service for buildings and facilities owned and/or operated by the City of
Palo Alto receiving power under the Palo Alto Green plan.
B. TERRITORY:
This rate schedule applies anywhere the City of Palo Alto provides electric service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES:
1. (The 100% Rrenewable/ Full gGreen option was Suspended by City Council on 9-16-2013):
Per kilowatt-hour
(kWh) Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits
Palo
Alto
Green Total
Summer Period $0.06686 $0.04472 $0.00321 $0.0150 $0.12979
Winter Period 0.05369 0.03559 0.00321 0.0150 0.10749
2. (1000 kWh block option):
Per kilowatt-hour
(kWh) Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits Total
Summer Period $0.06686 $0.04472 $0.00321 $0.11479
Winter Period 0.05369 0.03559 0.00321 0.09249
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block 215.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate cost components as
calculated under Section C.
MUNICIPAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-18-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-16-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-18-G-2 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-18-G-2
2. Seasonal Rate Changes
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from
November 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use both in the Summer and the
Winter periods, the usage will be prorated based on the number of days in each seasonal
period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
3. Power Factor
For new or existing customers whose demand is expected to exceed or has exceeded 300
kilowatts for three consecutive months, the City has the option to install applicable metering
to calculate a power factor. The City may remove such metering from the service of a
customer whose demand has been below 200 kilowatts for four consecutive months.
When such metering is installed, the monthly electric bill shall include a “power factor
penalty”, if applicable. The penalty adjustment shall be applied to a customer’s bill prior to
the computation of any primary voltage discount. The power factor penalty is applied by
increasing the total energy and demand charges for any month by 0.25 percent (0.25%) for
each one percent (1%) that the monthly power factor of the customer’s load was less than
95%.
The monthly power factor is the average power factor based on the ratio of kilowatt hours to
kilovolt-ampere hours consumed during the month. Where time-of-day metering is installed,
the monthly power factor shall be the power factor coincident with the customer's maximum
demand.
4. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center. Customers may request at any time, in writing, a
change to the number of blocks they wish to purchase under the Palo Alto Green plan.
Palo Alto Green provides for either the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs)
to match 100% of the energy usage at the facility every month, or for the purchase of 1000
kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks. These REC purchases support the production of renewable
energy, increase the financial value of power from renewal sources, and create a transparent
MUNICIPAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-18-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-16-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-18-G-3 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-18-G-3
and sustainable market that encourages new development of wind and solar power.
5. Primary Voltage Discount
Where delivery is made at the same voltage as that of the line from which the service is
supplied, a discount of 2 1/2 percent for available line voltages above 2 kilovolts will be
allowed provided the City is not required to supply service at a particular line voltage where
it has, or will install, ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally or better suited
to the customer's electrical requirements. The City retains the right to change its line voltage
at any time after providing reasonable advance notice to any customer receiving a discount
hereunder and affected by such change. The customer then has the option to change his
system so as to receive service at the new line voltage or to accept service (without voltage
discount) through transformers to be supplied by the City subject to a maximum kilovolt-
ampere (kVA) size limitation.
{End}
ATTACHMENT D
* NOT YET APPROVED *
130813 dm 6051931
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Decreasing the
PaloAltoGreen Program’s Rates for Residential and Commercial
Electric Customers Effective _____ by Amending Rate Schedules E-1-
G, E-2-G, E-4-G, E-7-G and E-18-G
A. In an effort to provide City of Palo Alto Utilities (“City”) electric customers the
option to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with their electricity use, in
2003 the City launched the PaloAltoGreen Program.
B. City electric customers can opt in to the PaloAltoGreen Program in two ways.
The “Full Needs” option allows all customers to receive renewable energy equivalent to 100
percent of their needs in exchange for paying an additional 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour (“kWh”)
assessed on their full load. The “Commercial Customer Block” rate gives commercial customers
the option to receive renewable energy in blocks of 1,000kWh in exchange for paying an
additional 1.5 cents per 1,000 kWh.
C. Approximately 20 percent of the City’s electric utilities customers participate in
PaloAltoGreen, representing approximately 8 percent of the City’s electric load and making the
PaloAltoGreen Program one of the most successful green energy programs in the United States.
D. In March 2011, the Council unanimously approved the Long-term Electric
Acquisition Plan (LEAP), a strategic planning document focused on how the City’s Utilities
Department (CPAU) can successfully balance environmental and economic sustainability as it
provides electric service to CPAU customers. Council approved an update to the LEAP in April
2012 (Resolution 9241). As part of LEAP Climate Protection Strategy #5, Council directed staff
to evaluate PaloAltoGreen program design and recommend modifications, as appropriate,
including constructing PaloAltoGreen to assist in meeting Renewable Portfolio Standard (“RPS”)
goals.
E. In March 2013, the Council unanimously approved the Carbon Neutral Plan
(Resolution 9322) directing staff to achieve carbon neutrality for the electric portfolio by 2013
through a combination of hydroelectric resources, long-term renewable resources and short-
term renewable energy resources and/or renewable energy certificates (“RECs”). The Carbon
Neutral Plan also included direction to redesign PaloAltoGreen in the context of achieving
carbon neutrality for the electric supply portfolio.
F. The City’s increasing RPS and the adoption of the Carbon Neutral Plan require an
evaluation of the continued effectiveness of PaloAltoGreen as currently implemented.
PaloAltoGreen participants no longer need to participate in the program to eliminate the
greenhouse gas emissions associated with their electric usage, as much of the City’s electric
portfolio is now renewable.
ATTACHMENT D
* NOT YET APPROVED *
130813 dm 6051931
G. At the July 31, 2013 Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) meeting, staff
presented alternatives to redesign PaloAltoGreen, and the UAC voted unanimously (six in favor
and one absent) to recommend that the Council suspend the PaloAltoGreen Full Needs
program and reduce the Commercial Customer Block rate from 1.5 cents per 1,000 kWh to 0.2
cents per 1,000 kWh.
H. On August 20, 2013, the Finance Committee voted ________________________
to _______________ effective ______________.
I. On September 16, 2013, this Council did, on the motion of Council Member
____, seconded by Council Member ____, by a vote of ____, decrease PaloAltoGreen’s rates for
both residential and commercial customers.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate
Schedule E-1-G (Residential Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as
attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-1-G, as amended, shall become effective
September 16, 2013.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate
Schedule E-2-G (Small Commercial Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as
attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-2-G, as amended, shall become effective
September 16, 2013.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate
Schedule E-4-G (Medium Commercial Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read
as attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-4-G, as amended, shall become effective
September 16, 2013.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate
Schedule E-7-G (Large Commercial Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as
attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-7-G, as amended, shall become effective
September 16, 2013.
SECTION 5. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Utility Rate
Schedule E-18-G (Municipal Green Power Electric Service) is hereby amended to read as
attached and incorporated. Utility Rate Schedule E-18-G, as amended, shall become effective
September 16, 2013.
//
//
ATTACHMENT D
* NOT YET APPROVED *
130813 dm 6051931
SECTION 6. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution decreasing
PaloAltoGreen’s electric rates are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec. 21065 because such action does not
meet the definition of a “project” pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec.
21065(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
RESIDENTIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-1-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-016-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-1-G-1 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-1-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to separately metered single-family residential dwellings receiving
retail energy services from the City of Palo Alto Utilities under the Palo Alto Green plan.
Palo Alto Green provides for the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs) to
match 100% of the energy usage at the premises every month. These REC purchases support
the production of renewable energy, increase the financial value of power from renewal
sources, and create a transparent and sustainable market that encourages new development of
wind and solar power.
B. TERRITORY:
This rate schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides electric service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES:
Per kilowatt-hour
(kWh)
Commodity
Distribution
Public
Benefits
Palo Alto
Green
Total
Tier 1 usage $0.05448 $0.03755 $0.00321 $0.002150 $0.11024
Tier 2 usage
100%-200% of Tier 1 0.07654 0.05045 0.00321 0.002150 0.14520
Tier 3 usage
Over 200% of Tier 1 0.10349 0.06729 0.00321 0.002150 0.18899
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated
under Section C.
RESIDENTIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-1-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-016-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-1-G-2 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-1-G-2
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 electricity usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 10 kWh per day,
prorated by meter reading days of service. As an example, for a 30-day bill, the Tier 1 level
would be 300 kWh. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and
Regulation 11.
3. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center.
{End}
SMALL COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-2-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-16-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-2-G-1 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-2-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-demand metered electric service for small commercial
customers and master-metered multi-family facilities receiving retail energy services from
the City of Palo Alto Utilities under the Palo Alto Green plan. Palo Alto Green provides for
either the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs) to match 100% of the energy
usage at the facility every month, or for the purchase of 1000 kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks.
These REC purchases support the production of renewable energy, increase the financial
value of power from renewal sources, and create a transparent and sustainable market that
encourages new development of wind and solar power.
B. TERRITORY:
This rate schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides electric service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES:
1. 100% Renewable/Full Green option:
Per kilowatt-hour (kWh) Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits
Palo Alto
Green Total
Summer Period $0.08219 $0.05505 $0.00321 $0.002150 $0.15545
Winter Period 0.07406 0.04934 0.00321 0.002150 0.14161
2. (1000 kWh block option):
Per kilowatt-hour (kWh) Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits
Total
Summer Period $0.08219 $0.05505 $0.00321 $0.14045
Winter Period 0.07406 0.04934 0.00321 0.12661
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
SMALL COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-2-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-16-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-2-G-2 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-2-G-2
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated
under Section C.
2. Seasonal Rate Changes
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from
November 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use in both the Summer and
Winter Periods, usage will be prorated based upon the number of days in each seasonal
period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
3. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center.
4. Maximum Demand Meter
Whenever the monthly use of energy has exceeded 8,000 kWh for three consecutive months,
a maximum demand meter will be installed as promptly as is practicable and thereafter
continued in service until the monthly use of energy has fallen below 6,000 kWh for twelve
consecutive months, whereupon, at the option of the City, it may be removed.
The maximum demand in any month will be the maximum average power in kilowatts taken
during any 15-minute interval in the month provided that in case the load is intermittent or
subject to violent fluctuations, the City may use a 5-minute interval. A thermal-type demand
meter which does not reset after a definite time interval may be used at the City's option.
The billing demand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be the actual
maximum demand in kilowatts for the current month. An exception is that the billing
demand for customers with Thermal Energy Storage (TES) will be based upon the actual
maximum demand of such customers between the hours of noon and 6 pm on weekdays.
{End}
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-1 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to Demand metered secondary Electric Service for Customers with a
Maximum Demand below 1,000 kilowatts (kW) who receive power under the Palo Alto Green plan.
This schedule applies to three-phase Electric Service and may include Service to master-metered
multi-family facilities or other facilities requiring Demand-metered Services, as determined by the
City.
B. TERRITORY:
The rate schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides Electric Service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES: 1. (100% Renewable/ Full Green option):
Commodity Distribution Public Benefits
Palo Alto Green Total
Summer Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $5.31 $15.23 $20.54
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.06083 0.01767 0.00321 0.002150 0.09671
Winter Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $4.80 $9.04 $13.84
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.05281 0.01716 0.00321 0.002150 0.08818 2. (1000 kWh block option):
Commodity Distribution Public Benefits Total
Summer Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $5.31 $15.23 $20.54
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.06083 0.01767 0.00321 0.08171
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
Winter Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $4.80 $9.04 $13.84
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.05281 0.01716 0.00321 0.07318
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-2 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-2
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges, and/or taxes. On a Customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated
under Section C.
2. Seasonal Rate Changes
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from
November 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use both in the Summer and the
Winter Periods, the usage will be prorated based on the number of days in each seasonal
period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
3. Maximum Demand Meter
Whenever the monthly use of energy has exceeded 8,000 kilowatt-hours for three
consecutive months, a Maximum Demand meter will be installed as promptly as is
practicable and thereafter continued in Service until the monthly use of energy has dropped
below 6,000 kilowatt-hours for twelve consecutive months, whereupon, at the option of the
City, it may be removed.
The Maximum Demand in any month will be the maximum average power in kilowatts taken
during any 15-minute interval in the month provided that in case the load is intermittent or
subject to violent fluctuations, the City may use a 5-minute interval. A thermal-type Demand
meter, which does not reset after a definite time interval, may be used at the City's option.
The Billing Demand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be the actual
Maximum Demand in kilowatts for the current month. An exception is that the Billing
Demand for Customers with Thermal Energy Storage (TES) will be based upon the actual
Maximum Demand of such Customers between the hours of noon and 6 PM on weekdays.
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-3 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-3
4. Power Factor
For new or existing Customers whose Demand is expected to exceed or has exceeded 300
kilowatts for three consecutive months, the City has the option of installing applicable
metering to calculate a Power Factor. The City may remove such metering from the Service
of a Customer whose Demand has dropped below 200 kilowatts for four consecutive months.
When such metering is installed, the monthly Electric bill will include a “Power Factor
Adjustment”, if applicable. The adjustment will be applied to a Customer’s bill prior to the
computation of any primary voltage discount. The Power Factor Adjustment is applied by
increasing the total energy and Demand charges for any month by 0.25 percent or (1/4) for
each one percent (1%) that the monthly Power Factor of the Customer’s load was less than
95%.
The monthly Power Factor is the average Power Factor based on the ratio of kilowatt-hours
to kilovolt-ampere hours consumed during the month. Where time-of-day metering is
installed, the monthly Power Factor shall be the Power Factor coincident with the Customer's
Maximum Demand.
5. Changing Rate Schedules
Customers may request a rate schedule change at any time to any applicable full-service rate
schedule as is applicable to their kilowatt-Demand and kilowatt-hour usage profile.
6. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center. Customers may request at any time, in writing, a
change to the number of blocks they wish to purchase under the Palo Alto Green plan.
Palo Alto Green provides for either the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs)
to match 100% of the energy usage at the facility every month, or for the purchase of 1000
kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks. These REC purchases support the production of renewable
energy, increase the financial value of power from renewal sources, and creates a transparent
and sustainable market that encourages new development of wind and solar.
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-4 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-4
7. Primary Voltage Discount
Where delivery is made at the same voltage as that of the line from which the Service is
supplied, a discount of 2.5 percent for available line voltages above 2 kilovolts will be
allowed provided the City is not required to supply Service at a particular line voltage where
it has, or will install, ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally or better suited
to the Customer's electrical requirements. The City retains the right to change its line voltage
at any time after providing reasonable advance notice to any Customer receiving a discount
hereunder and affected by such change. The Customer then has the option to change the
system so as to receive Service at the new line voltage or to accept Service (without voltage
discount) through transformers to be supplied by the City subject to a maximum kilovolt-
ampere size limitation.
8. Standby Charge
a. Applicability: The standby charge, subject to the exemptions in subsection D(8)(e),
applies to Customers that have a non-utility generation source interconnected on the
Customer’s side of the City’s revenue meter and that occasionally require backup
power from the City due to non-operation of the non-utility generation source.
b. Standby Charges:
Commodity Distribution Total Standby Charge (per kW of Reserved Capacity)
Summer Period $0.69 $15.23 $15.92
Winter Period $0.63 $9.04 $9.67
c. Meters. A separate meter is required for each non-utility generation source.
d. Calculation of Maximum Demand Credit.
(1) In the event the Customer’s Maximum Demand (as defined in Section D.3)
occurs when one or more of the non-utility generators on the Customer’s side of the
MEDIUM COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-4-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-4-G-5 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-4-G-5
City’s revenue meter are not operating, the Maximum Demand will be reduced by the
sum of the Maximum Generation of those non-utility generators, but in no event shall
the Customer’s Maximum Demand be reduced below zero.
(2) If the non-utility generation source does not operate for an entire billing cycle,
the standby charge does not apply and the Customer shall not receive the Maximum
Demand credit described in this Section.
e. Exemptions.
(1) The standby charge shall not apply to backup generators designed to operate only
in the event of an interruption in utility Service and which are not used to offset
Customer electricity purchases.
(2) The standby charge shall not apply if the Customer meets the definition of an
“Eligible Customer-generator” as defined in California Public Utilities Code Section
2827(b)(4) , as amended.
(3) The applicability of these exemptions shall be determined at the discretion of the
Utilities Director.
{End}
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-1 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to Demand metered Service for large commercial Customers who choose
Service under the Palo Alto Green plan. A Customer may qualify for this rate schedule if the
Customer’s Maximum Demand is at least 1,000KW per month per site, who have sustained this
Demand level at least 3 consecutive months during the last twelve months
B. TERRITORY:
The rate schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides Electric Service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES: 1.( 100% Rrenewable/Full Ggreen option):
Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits
Palo Alto
Green Total
Summer Period
Demand Charge ( per kW) $6.42 $12.55 $18.97
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.05562 0.01825 0.00321 0.002150 0.09308
Winter Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $5.50 $6.04 $11.54
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.04990 0.01898 0.00321 0.002150 0.08709 2. (1000 kWh block option):
Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits Total
Summer Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $6.42 $12.55 $18.97
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.05562 0.01825 0.00321 0.07808
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
Winter Period
Demand Charge (per kW) $5.50 $6.04 $11.54
Energy Charge (per kWh) 0.04990 0.01898 0.00321 0.07209
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block) 215.00
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-2 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-2
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Charges
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a Customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as calculated
under Section C.
2. Seasonal Rate Changes
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from
November 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use both in the Summer and the
Winter Periods, the usage will be prorated based on the number of days in each seasonal
period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
3. Maximum Demand Meter
Whenever the monthly use of energy has exceeded 8,000 kilowatt-hours for three
consecutive months, a Maximum Demand meter will be installed as promptly as is
practicable and thereafter continued in Service until the monthly use of energy has dropped
below 6,000 kilowatt-hours for twelve consecutive months, whereupon, at the option of the
City, it may be removed.
The Maximum Demand in any month will be the maximum average power in kilowatts taken
during any 15-minute interval in the month provided that in case the load is intermittent or
subject to violent fluctuations, the City may use a 5-minute interval. A thermal-type Demand
meter which does not reset after a definite time interval may be used at the City's option.
The Billing Demand to be used in computing charges under this schedule will be the actual
Maximum Demand in kilowatts for the current month. An exception is that the Billing
Demand for Customers with Thermal Energy Storage (TES) will be based upon the actual
Maximum Demand of such Customers between the hours of noon and 6 PM on weekdays.
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-3 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-3
4. Request for Service
Qualifying Customers may request Service under this schedule for more than one account or
one meter if the accounts are at one site. A site shall be defined as one or more utility
accounts serving contiguous parcels of land with no intervening public right-of-ways (e.g.
streets) and have a common billing address.
5. Power Factor
For new or existing Customers whose Demand is expected to exceed or has exceeded 300
kilowatts for three consecutive months, the City has the option of installing applicable
metering to calculate a Power Factor. The City may remove such metering from the Service
of a Customer whose Demand has dropped below 200 kilowatts for four consecutive months.
When such metering is installed, the monthly Electric bill shall include a “Power Factor
Adjustment”, if applicable. The adjustment shall be applied to a Customer’s bill prior to the
computation of any primary voltage discount. The Power Factor Adjustment is applied by
increasing the total energy and Demand charges for any month by 0.25 percent or (1/4) for
each one percent (1%) that the monthly Power Factor of the Customer’s load was less than
95%.
The monthly Power Factor is the average Power Factor based on the ratio of kilowatt-hours
to kilovolt-ampere hours consumed during the month. Where time-of-day metering is
installed, the monthly Power Factor shall be the Power Factor coincident with the Customer's
Maximum Demand.
6. Changing Rate Schedules
Customers may request a rate schedule change at any time to any applicable full service rate
schedule as is applicable to their kilowatt-Demand and kilowatt-hour usage profile
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-4 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-4
7. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center. Customers may request at any time, in writing, a
change to the number of blocks they wish to purchase under the Palo Alto Green plan.
Palo Alto Green provides for either the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs)
to match 100% of the energy usage at the facility every month, or for the purchase of 1000
kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks. These REC purchases support the production of renewable
energy, increase the financial value of power from renewal sources, and creates a transparent
and sustainable market that encourages new development of wind and solar.
8. Primary Voltage Discount
Where delivery is made at the same voltage as that of the line from which the Service is
supplied, a discount of 2 1/2 percent for available line voltages above 2 kilovolts will be
allowed; provided, however, the City is not required to supply Service at a qualified line
voltage where it has, or will install, ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally
or better suited to the Customer's Electrical requirements. The City retains the right to
change its line voltage at any time after providing reasonable advance notice to any Customer
receiving a discount hereunder and affected by such change. The Customer then has the
option to change the system so as to receive Service at the new line voltage or to accept
Service (without voltage discount) through transformers to be supplied by the City subject to
a maximum kilovolt-ampere size limitation.
9. Standby Charge
a. Applicability: The standby charge, subject to the exemptions in subsection D(9)(e),
applies to Customers that have a non-utility generation source interconnected on the
Customer’s side of the City’s revenue meter and that occasionally require backup
power from the City due to non-operation of the non-utility generation source.
LARGE COMMERCIAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-7-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 29-516-2013
Supersedes Sheet No E-7-G-5 dated 72-15-200913 Sheet No E-7-G-5
b. Standby Charges:
Commodity Distribution Total Standby Charge (per kW of Reserved Capacity)
Summer Period $0.84 $12.55 $13.39
Winter Period $0.72 $6.04 $6.76
c. Meters. A separate meter is required for each non-utility generation source.
d. Calculation of Maximum Demand Credit.
(1) In the event the Customer’s Maximum Demand (as defined in Section D.3)
occurs when one or more of the non-utility generators on the Customer’s side of the
City’s revenue meter are not operating, the Maximum Demand will be reduced by the
sum of the Maximum Generation of those non-utility generators, but in no event shall
the Customer’s Maximum Demand be reduced below zero.
(2) If the non-utility generation source does not operate for an entire billing cycle,
the standby charge does not apply and the Customer shall not receive the Maximum
Demand credit described in this Section.
e. Exemptions.
(1) The standby charge shall not apply to backup generators designed to operate only
in the event of an interruption in utility Service and which are not used to offset
Customer electricity purchases.
(2) The standby charge shall not apply if the Customer meets the definition of an
“Eligible Customer-generator” as defined in California Public Utilities Code Section
2827(b)(4) , as amended.
(3) The applicability of these exemptions shall be determined at the discretion of the
Utilities Director.
{End}
MUNICIPAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-18-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-16-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-18-G-1 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-18-G-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to service for buildings and facilities owned and/or operated by the City of
Palo Alto receiving power under the Palo Alto Green plan.
B. TERRITORY:
This rate schedule applies anywhere the City of Palo Alto provides electric service.
C. UNBUNDLED RATES:
1.( 100% Rrenewable/ Full Ggreen option):
Per kilowatt-hour
(kWh) Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits
Palo
Alto
Green Total
Summer Period $0.06686 $0.04472 $0.00321
$0.0021
50 $0.12979
Winter Period 0.05369 0.03559 0.00321
0.00215
0 0.10749
2. (1000 kWh block option):
Per kilowatt-hour
(kWh) Commodity Distribution
Public
Benefits Total
Summer Period $0.06686 $0.04472 $0.00321 $0.11479
Winter Period 0.05369 0.03559 0.00321 0.09249
Palo Alto Green Charge (per 1000 kWh block 215.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate cost components as
calculated under Section C.
MUNICIPAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-18-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-16-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-18-G-2 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-18-G-2
2. Seasonal Rate Changes
The Summer Period is effective May 1 to October 31 and the Winter Period is effective from
November 1 to April 30. When the billing period includes use both in the Summer and the
Winter periods, the usage will be prorated based on the number of days in each seasonal
period, and the charges based on the applicable rates therein. For further discussion of bill
calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
3. Power Factor
For new or existing customers whose demand is expected to exceed or has exceeded 300
kilowatts for three consecutive months, the City has the option to install applicable metering
to calculate a power factor. The City may remove such metering from the service of a
customer whose demand has been below 200 kilowatts for four consecutive months.
When such metering is installed, the monthly electric bill shall include a “power factor
penalty”, if applicable. The penalty adjustment shall be applied to a customer’s bill prior to
the computation of any primary voltage discount. The power factor penalty is applied by
increasing the total energy and demand charges for any month by 0.25 percent (0.25%) for
each one percent (1%) that the monthly power factor of the customer’s load was less than
95%.
The monthly power factor is the average power factor based on the ratio of kilowatt hours to
kilovolt-ampere hours consumed during the month. Where time-of-day metering is installed,
the monthly power factor shall be the power factor coincident with the customer's maximum
demand.
4. Palo Alto Green Participation
Customers choosing to participate shall fill out a Palo Alto Green Power Program application
provided by the Customer Service Center. Customers may request at any time, in writing, a
change to the number of blocks they wish to purchase under the Palo Alto Green plan.
Palo Alto Green provides for either the purchase of enough renewable energy credits (RECs)
to match 100% of the energy usage at the facility every month, or for the purchase of 1000
kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks. These REC purchases support the production of renewable
energy, increase the financial value of power from renewal sources, and create a transparent
and sustainable market that encourages new development of wind and solar power.
MUNICIPAL GREEN POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE E-18-G
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 79-16-200913
Supersedes Sheet No E-18-G-3 dated 117-1-20089 Sheet No E-18-G-3
5. Primary Voltage Discount
Where delivery is made at the same voltage as that of the line from which the service is
supplied, a discount of 2 1/2 percent for available line voltages above 2 kilovolts will be
allowed provided the City is not required to supply service at a particular line voltage where
it has, or will install, ample facilities for supplying at another voltage equally or better suited
to the customer's electrical requirements. The City retains the right to change its line voltage
at any time after providing reasonable advance notice to any customer receiving a discount
hereunder and affected by such change. The customer then has the option to change his
system so as to receive service at the new line voltage or to accept service (without voltage
discount) through transformers to be supplied by the City subject to a maximum kilovolt-
ampere (kVA) size limitation.
{End}
Attachment F
1
PaloAltoGreen Redesign Options
Objectives of the Program:
1. Participants get value from participating
2. Environmental benefit (GHG emission reduction, goes “above and beyond”)
3. Implementable (costs can be covered, doable, implementable with current resources,
costs not subsidized by non-participants)
4. Marketable (can be offered at a reasonable cost, simple and easy to explain, transparent
to participants)
5. Community benefit
6. Available to all customers
7. Cost-effective to society
8. Ability to implement by January 2014
Program Ideas:
Community Solar PV Donation Program
For this program, participants contribute funds toward building PV systems on community
buildings such as schools or other community and/or nonprofit facilities. The projects will be
funded through the donations from participants through monthly contributions of $5 to $10
per month through the utility bill. In addition, members of the community or businesses could
donate additional funds on a one-time basis for the installation of the systems. When sufficient
funds are collected, the City will contract with a developer to build the PV systems. Participants
will vote to select sites from a set of locations identified as good candidates. The PV systems,
once installed, will be net metered. For example, if the PV installation is on a school, that
school will have reduced electric bills in direct relationship to the output of the system. The
facility chosen will not receive a rebate for the PV system, as it will be installed at no cost to the
customer.
Community Solar Hot Water Heater Donation Program
This would be similar to, or an offshoot of, the program described above, with the change that
the systems installed would be solar hot water heating systems. As in the program above, the
beneficiary would be the school or community facility on whose site the system was installed.
The primary difference is that the program would save natural gas, instead of electricity,
therefore reducing the community’s GHG emissions.
Community Solar Share Program
In this program, participants pay for a share of the cost of a larger system that would be
installed on a local building. This would be valuable for customers who may not be good
candidates for solar PV on their own homes or businesses (due to shading, or other roof or
access issues) and could be cheaper per KW installed due to economies of scale. For example,
100 participants could each pay 1% of the cost of a system and virtually receive 1% of the
energy output from the PV system. The City’s Utility billing system may require modifications
to implement virtual net-metering to make the participant’s experience similar to customers
Attachment F
2
with PV on their own roof. The RECs for the renewable energy would be provided to the
participants.
Community Solar Investment Program
In this program, participants pay for a share of the cost of a PV system that would be installed
on a local building. For example, 100 participants could each pay 1% of the cost of a system
and receive income derived from the sale of the energy produced from the system. CPAU
would buy the energy via the Palo Alto CLEAN (feed-in tariff) program and use the renewable
energy in its electric supply portfolio.
Fuel Switching Program
Participants would pay an amount on their bill (either per kWh, or a fixed dollar amount per
month) and the money collected would fund rebates to encourage customers to replace gas-
using appliances with electric-using appliances.
Alternative Transportation Incentive Program
Since GHG emissions from mobile transportation constitute the largest category of GHG
emissions for the community, this is an obvious target for programs to reduce GHG emissions. A
program could be developed whereby participants would pay an amount on their bill (either
per kWh, or a fixed dollar amount per month) and the money collected would be used to
promote alternative transportation options such as providing rebates for electric vehicles,
funding for community-based EV chargers, enhancing public transit options, or enhancing
bicycle paths around town.
PaloAltoGreen BioGas Program
Biogas could be procured from landfills or farming operations. Given a price for biogas of about
$1.00 per therm, the cost for a median customer would be about $10 per month if the biogas
purchases covered about half of their natural gas usage. There are many logistical details that
make implementing this program problematic, not the least of which is the ability to actually
procure biogas for $1.00 per therm that could be delivered into California’s natural gas
transportation network.
PaloAltoGreen Gas Offset Program
A PaloAltoGreen Gas program backed by purchasing environmental offsets is less expensive
than purchasing biogas and could be implemented in a relatively short amount of time. Offsets
would be certified by reputable groups such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Participants would pay a small amount (10-15 cents/therm) to offset 100% of the GHG
emissions neutralized from their natural gas usage. Thus, the program would be very similar to
the current PaloAltoGreen Electric program.
Attachment F
3
Program What does the
participant
receive?
What is the
environmental
benefit?
What are the implementation
issues?
What are the
marketability issues?
Are there other
community
benefits?
Current
Program
Participants receive
RECs equal to their
electric usage (or,
for non-residential
customers, equal to
a portion of their
usage purchased in
blocks).
Even with a
carbon neutral
electric supply,
REC purchases
continue to
support
renewable
energy.
N/A Program has been extremely
successful with large take-
up rate. However, program
needs redesign due to high
RPS and carbon neutrality
Before carbon
neutral supply,
community
emissions were
reduced by the
amount of RECs
purchased.
Modified
Program
Participants receive
RECs equal to the
hydroelectric
portion of the
electric supply
portfolio. Block
purchasers continue
as with current
program.
Even with a
carbon neutral
electric supply,
REC purchases
continue to
support
renewable
energy.
No billing system changes would be
required.
Implementable immediately upon
program approval
Program will likely be
successful and, with a lower
price, may attract new
users. On the other hand,
many may decide to leave
the program due to the
carbon neutral supply
portfolio.
Similar to the
current program.
Community
Solar PV
Donation
Participants do not
receive renewable
energy or RECs.
Goodwill and
support of
community
organizations and
local schools.
Reduced energy
losses from long
distance
transmission.
No significant billing system
changes would be required. The
rate could either be based on kWh
used or be a flat monthly charge
(e.g. $5-10/month). However,
there is significant work to finalize
program design, including deciding
what role the City will play and how
much risk it is willing to take on.
New contracts with project
developers will need to be
developed. Staff or third-party
contractors will be needed to
identify project sites and secure all
necessary arrangements. Not able
to implement by January 2014
Since participants don’t
have direct benefits, this
may not appeal to all.
However, there is broad
community support for
schools and community
buildings, the program
beneficiaries.
Increased local solar
energy production.
And, the
beneficiaries would
have reduced
electric bills and
more money for
other community
benefits.
Attachment F
4
Program What does the
participant
receive?
What is the
environmental
benefit?
What are the implementation
issues?
What are the
marketability issues?
Are there other
community
benefits?
Community
Solar Hot
Water Heater
Donation
Same as above. Reduced GHG
emissions from
reduced natural
gas use for
heating.
Same as above. Same as above. Same as above.
Community
Solar Share
Participants would
receive energy and
RECs via virtual net
metering.
Reduced energy
losses from long
distance
transmission.
A change to the billing system
would be required, but program
could be done by a third party.
Other implementation issues exist
similar to those required for the
Community Solar PV Donation
Program.
Doesn’t fit the PAG model of
participants being able to
enter and exit the program
at any time.
Increased local solar
energy production.
Community
Solar
Investment
Participants receive
income from the
sale of the energy in
return for their
investment.
Reduced energy
losses from long
distance
transmission.
Same as above. Doesn’t fit the PAG model of
participants being able to
enter and exit the program
at any time.
Increased local solar
energy production.
Fuel Switching Participants don’t
necessarily receive
any direct benefit.
Reduced GHG
emissions from
reduced natural
gas use for
heating.
Changes to billing system depend
on program design – no changes
required if rate based on kWh used
or a flat monthly charge (e.g. $5-
10/month). However,
implementing such a program
would require policy choices of
how to direct the funds collected.
Not implementable by Jan. 2014.
Beneficiaries would be
customers who accessed the
fuel switching rebates,
which may not seem like a
worthy “cause” for
participants. Or, the
beneficiaries could be non-
profits or schools.
Attachment F
5
Program What does the
participant
receive?
What is the
environmental
benefit?
What are the implementation
issues?
What are the
marketability issues?
Are there other
community
benefits?
Alternative
Transportation
Incentives
Participants don’t
necessarily receive
any direct benefit.
Reduced GHG
emissions from
mobile
transportation.
Changes to billing system depend
on program design – no changes
required if rate based on kWh used
or a flat monthly charge (e.g. $5-
10/month).
Difficult to market as the
beneficiaries would be
existing and new EV owners,
bike riders, or transit takers
and not necessarily the
program participants. Also,
the nexus between
participant’s electric use and
alternative transportation is
difficult to make.
Community GHG
emissions reduced if
program resulted in
traditional vehicles
being replaced by
EVs or more car
trips replaced by
transit or bicycles.
PaloAltoGreen
BioGas
Participants receive
renewable gas
instead of fossil-fuel
based natural gas
for half of their
natural gas usage.
Reduced GHG
emissions for
portion of gas
usage.
Simple to implement as it’s almost
identical to current successful
program, except for entire gas
usage would not be covered.
However, supply of biogas is
difficult to find in the state and, if
found outside the state, expensive
to transport to California. Some
modifications to the billing system
required that would require time to
complete and test.
Easy to market and very
similar to current successful
program.
Community GHG
emissions reduced
by the amount of
biogas purchased.
PaloAltoGreen
Gas Offset
Participants receive
the offset to cover
the GHG emissions
of their natural gas
usage.
Reduced GHG
emissions equal
to all of gas
usage.
Simple to implement as it’s
identical to current successful
electric program. Policy issue to
finalize relate to what types of
offsets to use for the program.
Some modifications to the billing
system required that would require
time to complete and test.
Easy to market and almost
identical to current
successful program.
Community GHG
emissions reduced
by the amount of
offsets purchased.
What Is
Green
Power?
EPA’s Green Power Partnership
Addressing climate risk is increasingly recognized as an impor-
tant strategic issue for businesses and other organizations.
Green power use can reduce your organization’s climate risk and
identify your organization as an environmental leader
to important stakeholder groups, such as customers, Wall Street
analysts, shareholders, investors, government officials, and
employees. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)
Green Power Partnership is ready to assist you in determining
if switching to green power is right for your organization.
Join Now and Position Your
Organization for the Future
Clean Renewable
Energy
Green power is electricity
generated from environ-
mentally preferable renew-
able resources,
such as solar, wind,
geothermal, low-impact
biomass, and low-impact
hydro resources.
An Environmental
Choice
Conventional electricity
use can be one of
the most significant
environmental impacts
associated with your
organization’s operations.
Switching to green power
is one of the easiest
ways for an organization
to reduce its carbon
footprint.
Supporting
Domestic Energy
Supply
Using green power
helps to accelerate
the development of new,
domestic renewable
energy sources, while
playing an important role
in the security of America’s
energy supply.
An Environmental Choice for Your Organization
EPA’s Green Power Partnership is a voluntary program helping to increase the use
of green power among leading U.S. organizations. Organizations are encouraged to
purchase green power as a way to reduce the environmental impacts associated
with conventional electricity use.
The Green Power Partnership works with more than a thousand leading organizations,
including Fortune 500® companies, local, state, and federal government agencies,
manufacturers and retailers, trade associations, and a growing number of colleges
and universities. Partners are purchasing billions of kilowatt-hours (KWh) of green
power annually, which has the equivalent impact of removing the emissions
of hundreds of thousands of passenger cars from the road each year.
Your organization can benefit from partnering with EPA’s Green Power Partnership
by taking advantage of the credibility, expert advice, recognition, and up-to-date market
information that EPA provides.
Reducing the Risk of Climate Change
Differentiation and Competitiveness
Whole Foods Market, a leading grocery store chain, strives to “satisfy and delight”
its customers through inviting store environments, wise environmental practices, and
retail innovation. In part, Whole Foods is accomplishing this by implementing a store-
level green power purchasing strategy that allows store managers to respond to
local customer needs, stay competitive, and differentiate their retail environment from
competitors.
Climate Change Commitment and Energy
Price Stability
As part of its broader initiatives to demonstrate environmental leadership, Microsoft
instituted a company-wide commitment to achieve carbon neutrality beginning in fiscal
year 2013 (July 2012–June 2013). The carbon neutrality commitment includes an internal
carbon price, which will incentivize the purchase of more renewable energy. Microsoft
believes that using green power is an excellent strategy to help the company achieve its
carbon neutrality goal, as well as a sound business decision. Recognizing that climate
change presents significant risks to society, the environment, and its business, Microsoft
is investing in green power to reduce its carbon emissions.
A Cost-Effective Energy Strategy
The U.S. Air Force’s green power use of more than 280 million kWh annually is playing
an important part in controlling its long-term energy costs. The Air Force’s primary strat-
egy is to purchase renewable power from third-party financed projects developed on its
bases. For example, in 2013 the Air Force will purchase power from a 14.5 MW solar
photovoltaic array located on Davis Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona at an annual
cost savings of half a million dollars. The Air Force will use 173 acres of underutilized
property through a 25-year lease for this project.
Local Impact and Community Leadership
The University of Pennsylvania understands the important role it plays within the
local community and sees green power as an opportunity to demonstrate its environ-
mental leadership. By purchasing green power, the University of Pennsylvania is able
to effectively engage local stakeholders, protect the environment, and take a leadership
position in supporting a sustainable future. In the same way, other organizations
are also recognizing that green power purchasing is one of the easiest and most cost-
effective options to make a measurable impact within their local communities.
The above organizations have earned EPA recognition for their green power leadership.
For a full list of Green Power Leadership Award winners, please visit
www.epa.gov/greenpower/awards.
Why Are Organizations
Buying Green Power?
Benefits for Green
Power Partners
Expert Advice
EPA’s Green Power Partnership will
assist you in identifying the green
power products that best meet your
organization’s goals. EPA is committed
to making your green power purchase
as easy as possible by:
• Saving you time, effort, and cost by
identifying green power products
that meet your organization’s goals
• Providing relevant and timely
answers to your questions
Publicity and
Recognition
The Green Power Partnership actively
promotes and recognizes Green Power
Partners as environmental leaders.
Your organization can benefit from EPA’s
recognition and publicity efforts by:
• Identifying your organization as
an environmental leader
• Capturing positive attention in com-
munities where you operate
• Differentiating your organization
and its brand from the competition
• Increasing your organization’s com-
petitiveness through sustainable
management practices
Tools and Resources
EPA offers organizations a variety of
tools and information located on the
Partnership website (www.epa.gov/
greenpower). EPA’s tools and resourc-
es can be invaluable by:
• Explaining and taking the guesswork
out of your green power purchase
• Assisting you in promoting the con-
cept of green power internally and
externally
• Providing you with a means to
estimate the environmental benefits
of switching to green power
Credibility
Participation in the Green Power
Partnership signifies that your organiza-
tion’s green power use meets nationally
accepted standards in terms of size,
content, and resource base. Partnering
with EPA’s Green Power Partnership
can provide great value to your organi-
zation by:
• Allowing you to compare your
green power commitment to others
• Increasing stakeholders’ confidence
in your green power use
• Using green power is
an easy and effective
way for your organi-
zation to reduce the
environmental impact
of its operations.
• Long-term green
power contracts
can provide a hedge
against electricity
price volatility and
help ensure energy
price stability.
• Green power is an
effective way to dif-
ferentiate your orga-
nization and
its brand from com-
petitors.
• Green power use can
generate goodwill,
pride, and loyalty
among employees,
customers, and com-
munities.
• Green power use can
earn your organiza-
tion significant public
relations benefits,
including favorable
coverage in local
and national media.
Why Use
Green
Power?
EPA’s Green Power Partnership is ready to assist you in achieving your envi-
ronmental goals through the use of green power. The Green Power Partnership
offers the following assistance to organizations that join the Partnership.
Your Organization’s Baseload If your annual electricity use in kilowatt-hours is...
Green Power Partner Requirements You must, at a minimum, use this much green power
Green Power Leadership Club Requirements You must, at a minimum, use this much green power
> _100,000,001 kWh 3% of your use 30% of your use
10,000,001–100,000,000 kWh 5% of your use 50% of your use
1,000,001–10,000,000 kWh 10% of your use 100% of your use
< _1,000,000 kWh 20% of your use Not Applicable
Green Power Purchase Requirements
Office of Air and
Radiation (6202J)
In addition, the minimum Partner and Leadership Club purchase requirements must be
entirely met with power from “new” renewable facilities ((i.e., installed within the last 15 years).
EPA invites your organization to join the hundreds of other U.S.
organizations that are improving their environmental performance
and reducing the risks associated with climate change by switching
to green power.
It is easy for organizations to join EPA’s Green Power Partnership:
• A green power purchase involves little to no complicated logistics
• Minimal staff time is required to initiate or maintain a green power
purchase
• Joining the Partnership entails completing a simple voluntary
Partnership agreement—no contract
Join other leading U.S. organizations and partner with EPA today!
To join, organizations procure green power at a level that meets
or exceeds Partnership requirements (see below), sign a simple
Partnership Agreement, and agree to update EPA on their green
power use annually. More details: www.epa.gov/greenpower/join.
Join the Green Power Partnership
EPA-430-F-06-015
January 2013
www.epa.gov/greenpower
Earned
Recognition
The Green Power Partnership pro-
motes the actions of its Partners
through a variety of earned recogni-
tion opportunities.
• The Top 50 Partner List recog-
nizes those Partners using the most
green power nationally within the
Partnership. Due to its wide distribu-
tion, the list provides Partners with
measurable recognition.
• The Top Sector Lists acknowledge
the leadership of Partners within vari-
ous sectors. An organization holding
a position on a Top Sector List dem-
onstrates to stakeholders— employ-
ees, customers, and investors —that
their organization is an environmental
leader.
• The Green Power Leadership Awards
are competitive awards that recog-
nize outstanding commitments and
achievements in the green power
marketplace. EPA sponsors these
awards annually and recognizes mar-
ket participants in the following cate-
gories: EPA Green Power Purchasing,
Green Power Partner of the Year,
Green Power Community of the
Year, On-site Generation, Sustained
Excellence in Green Power, Green
Power Supplier of the Year, and
Innovative Green Power Program of
the Year.
For more information, contact
Blaine Collison at (202) 343-9139
or collison.blaine@epa.gov,
or visit our website at
www.epa.gov/greenpower
ATTACHMENT H
EXCERPTED FINAL MINUTES OF THE APRIL 3, 2013
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
ITEM 2: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend
that City Council Approve a Redesign of the PaloAltoGreen Program
Assistant Director Jane Ratchye provided an overview of the written report. Overall the
recommendation is to end the current PaloAltoGreen program at the end of 2013. Starting in
January 2014, staff’s proposal is that the program would transition to a local solar donation
program and starting in January 2015, a new program would be rolled out targeting reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas usage. Ratchye noted that the written report
contained a typo in the second part of the recommendation for the PaloAltoGreen Gas
program. The report stated that the program would be implemented in January 2014, but the
correct date is January 2015. This PaloAltoGreen Gas program would be developed during 2014.
Ratchye stated that the local solar program would use contributions from participants to install
solar systems on community buildings. The contributions would be fixed amounts such as $5 or
$10 per month. The City would identify potential locations (e.g. schools, non-profits, churches,
even City facilities) and participants would select, or vote, on which sites to fund. The collected
funds would be used to hire a developer to install the solar system on the facility. The systems
would be net metered and will be provided at no cost to the facility owner. The proposed
program is fundamentally a donation program with the primary beneficiary being the facility
that gets the free solar system.
Ratchye stated that the PaloAltoGreen Gas program could reduce, or eliminate, GHG emissions
from natural gas use of participants. There is not enough information yet to move forward, but
conceptually this program would be constructed similarly to the current PaloAltoGreen
program in that the cost would be based on the participant's natural gas usage with the cost on
a cents per them basis. The program could use physical biogas from dairies or landfills, but this
is challenging and quite expensive so that participants would only be able to cover 20-25% of
their natural gas use at a reasonable cost. Alternately, the program could use environmental
offsets. At today's prices for offsets, a customer’s entire natural gas usage could be covered
under this type of program for a reasonable cost.
Ratchye explained that public feedback was sought in several ways, including from the UAC and
Council at study sessions. In addition, staff met with Bruce Hodge and Walt Hays, who
indicated that the program should target GHG emission reductions. A survey was sent to
current PaloAltoGreen participants, who supported both the local solar and the green gas
programs and were willing to pay about the same as they currently pay in the program.
Ratchye also indicated that some customers may drop out of the program, and depending on
the program, others may opt in.
Public Comment:
Bruce Hodge, Carbon Free Palo Alto, stated that the program proposed is not a true community
solar program but that a community solar program would be a good approach and a good
addition to the portfolio of programs offered by the City. In addition, over the next 20 years,
natural gas usage should be phased out and replaced with electricity usage, which can be
carbon free. He stated that there are synergies between PaloAltoGreen and a community solar
approach. He indicated that he was not excited about a program designed to use donations,
but preferred an all-inclusive community crowd sourced program. He stated that it was a top
priority to have a gas offset program this year. He encouraged the Commission to review the
paper he emailed the link for by someone who advocates discontinuing natural gas use in the
future.
Commissioner Melton asked why the community solar program is a net metering model, and
not a feed-in tariff program. He commented that since the building owner is the beneficiary,
the only facilities that make sense for the program are charitable organizations. Ratchye
agreed that the community would be more likely to support such organizations and expected
that many people would provide financial support to install solar systems on schools since the
schools would benefit by having lower electric bills. Commissioner Melton added that other
facility owners can always participate in local solar installations through the CLEAN feed-in tariff
program.
About the green gas program, Commissioner Melton asked if physical biogas is difficult to find
or expensive, are there enough offsets available for such a program. Ratchye stated that the
green gas program is focused on reducing GHG emissions and that any products that reduce
GHG could be considered for the program. She mentioned that there are different types of
environmental offsets, including those that are certified by the California Air Resources Board
or other agencies. In addition, Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) can be used for GHG
emissions reductions and they are available at a reasonable cost.
Vice Chair Foster stated that a two-track approach is excellent—both continuing with an
electric program, and then adding the gas program. He identified three options: charitable gift
program, “true” community solar, and buying power by paying a little more as in the current
PaloAltoGreen program. Vice Chair Foster indicated that he had been contacted by the Clean
Energy Collective (CEC), which is a true community solar program model. He cited challenges
with a charitable program and recommended looking at the traditional notion of community
solar. He stated that he was originally not supportive of a green gas program, but now would
like to look at it more.
Commissioner Hall stated that community solar on schools would be supported, but that he
was not supportive of solar on commercial buildings funded from donations. He added that
using churches could work, but could be frowned upon by some in the community. He said that
staff may want to look at modifying the program in the future, including using a developer for a
commercial solar. Commissioner Hall said that for green gas program, the City could look at
substituting gas for electricity. For example, air based heat pumps could be beneficial to
replace gas using heating appliances. He indicated that the concept was at least worth a paper
study or pilot program to be expanded later.
Chair Cook congratulated staff and noted that the City has come a long way with this program,
and that there is monumental support in the community for the program as the nation’s
leading voluntary green program. Chair Cook stated that the goal is to have GHG emissions
reductions. He supports the idea of contests to choose sites for the local solar program since it
would add to community engagement. However, he indicated that we need to move away
from burning things for our energy use and would like to move up the timing of the green gas
program. He likes local solar programs since the benefits accrue locally and with a green gas
program, benefits may not accrue locally.
Vice Chair Foster indicated that he supported the staff recommendation, but wants to work on
the exact details to be determined over the next several months. In addition, he recommended
continuing with the 1.5 cent/kWh format and not a new mechanism that didn’t depend on a
participant’s energy use.
Chair Cook asked if current PaloAltoGreen program participants would be automatically
transferred over to the new program, or would they be asked to opt in. Ratchye indicated that
participants would be asked to opt in to the new program and that there would be outreach to
explain the change to existing program participants.
Commissioner Hall recommended that staff think broadly about the plan and stated that staff
should look at options, including a substitution of electricity for gas.
ACTION:
Commissioner Melton recommended separating the two parts of the action by the UAC and
developing separate motions for each part. Chair Cook agreed with this approach.
Vice Chair Foster made a motion to recommend that Council approve a redesign of the
PaloAltoGreen Program to support a community solar program to be implemented beginning
January 2014, after staff returns to the UAC with program design details or options for further
discussion. Commissioner Melton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (4-0)
with Commissioners Chang, Eglash, and Waldfogel absent.
Vice Chair Foster made a motion to recommend that Council direct staff to develop a
PaloAltoGreen Gas Program to provide an opportunity for participants to reduce or eliminate
greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas usage for Council consideration to be implemented
beginning January 2015 and that staff return to the UAC with program design details and
options for further discussion. Commissioner Hall seconded the motion. The motion carried (3-
1) with Commissioner Melton opposed and Commissioners Chang, Eglash, and Waldfogel
absent.
EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF THE JULY 31, 2013
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
ITEM 4: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend
that the City Council Terminate or Approve Changes to the PaloAltoGreen Program
Public Comment:
Bruce Hodge recommended retaining the electric program and transitioning to a green gas
program to get additional GHG emission reductions from the purchase of offsets. Also reducing
gas usage should be a focus. In addition, he supports focusing on new programs such as
community solar programs.
Walt Hays stated that the program should not be terminated since the City has spent so much
getting the brand established. He added that climate change is the threatening issue and a
program should be focused on reducing gas usage. He also supports the introduction of a
community solar program.
Senior Resource Planner Monica Padilla provided a presentation summarizing the written
report on modifications to the PaloAltoGreen (PAG) program.
Commissioner Eglash asked what is meant by having an objective of having the program
available to all customers. He stated that the Utility has used a broader portfolio approach to
provide programs for customers, but does not require any specific program to be relevant to all
customers. Assistant Director Jane Ratchye replied that this only meant that all customers are
provided an opportunity to participate in a voluntary green program.
Commissioner Waldfogel asked about the objective that a participant receive a benefit since he
believes that Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) don't directly benefit participants, but
benefit the planet. Padilla stated that the idea was that participants who purchase and own the
RECs would get at least a "feel good" benefit knowing that they were part of the solution.
Commissioner Melton stated that he likes the option of terminating the full needs program
since he doesn't like idea of greening up hydropower since it is already a green resource, but he
does see the advantage of the program for commercial customers. He said he would support
environmental offsets for a green gas program if the offsets are high quality. Ratchye replied
that there are various types of environmental offsets and that the ones certified by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) are thought to be of the highest quality and those are the
ones that staff is currently thinking would be used for a green gas program. Ratchye added that
staff would return to the UAC with further information when it returns with a green gas
program design proposal.
Commissioner Melton asked if the market for biogas is still not mature enough for the City’s
needs to back a green gas program. Ratchye indicated that biogas is very difficult to find and
expensive in California. She added that any biogas that is available is used where it’s produced
to generate renewable electricity. In addition, the biogas is not of high enough quality to be
inserted into the gas pipeline transmission and distribution pipelines and it is not practical to
clean up the gas to meet pipeline quality standards.
Commissioner Melton stated that he supports the option to terminate the full needs program,
but keep the commercial block program going. He also supports the development of a green
gas program if the environmental offsets are high quality.
Commissioner Waldfogel said that he agrees with Commissioner Melton's comments. He said
that the program has three components to the PAG program: the program, the brand, and the
movement. However, he said that the program met its objective and is now obsolete and
should be terminated. He added that we should figure out how to retain the participants. He
stated that one option is to suspend, or stop charging for, the program until we figure out our
next move.
Commissioner Chang asked if we know of any other entity that greens up a carbon neutral
portfolio. Padilla stated that she doesn't know of any. Commissioner Chang advised against
terminating the program. She stated that none of the options recommended seem like good
ones. She asked why there was a need to change the program by January 2014. Director Fong
stated that we could make a modification earlier than January, but that something needs to
change relatively soon since the portfolio is carbon neutral. Commissioner Chang stated that
she would support other options for the long term, but doesn't like the option of terminating
the program. She supports community solar programs and sees them as a way to hedge
electric costs for customers with locally sited renewables. She asked why staff did not consider
that type of program. Director Fong stated that these programs could be done as separate
programs, but the design doesn't lend itself to the PAG design. Padilla added that staff plans to
return by the end of year with a local solar strategy. Commissioner Chang added that she
supports the use of the highest quality environmental offsets if used for a PAG Gas program.
Commissioner Waldfogel asked whether Commissioner Chang supports the concept of fuel
switching from dirty gas to clean electricity. Commissioner Chang said that when we are at
100% renewable electric supply, she may support that type of fuel switching.
Commissioner Eglash stated that PAG was created to solve a specific problem and that problem
has now been solved. Having a carbon neutral portfolio is a happy situation. The question is
how to use PAG to address other environmental problems. He stated that staff and he have
concluded that community solar programs are not good fits for the PAG program. He stated
that the letter to the commission from Karl Knapp made many good points, including the fact
that large hydro does have environmental impacts and that climate change was not the original
driver for the PAG program. Commissioner Eglash pointed out that the program administration
costs are very high – administrative costs of $250,000 (not including the cost of the RECs), but
that the proposed revenue is only $140,000, which is not a sustainable practice. Commissioner
Eglash suggested continuing the program until a transition can be made to the PAG Gas
program or if a new program could be blended in with PAG. Commissioner Eglash stated that
the current program at the current price does not make sense – the program must change in
some way.
Vice Chair Foster stated that getting rid of the nation's top green program makes no sense and
is a non-starter. He said that substituting one form of renewable energy for another is not easy
to explain. He does support high quality environmental offsets for a green gas program. He
supports community solar programs but is persuaded that these are not a good fit for the PAG
program. He supports the solar PV donation program for schools and suggested using the
money from the program for this purpose. Vice Chair Foster recommends immediately
redirecting funds from the program to a program to install PV systems on Palo Alto Unified
School District (PAUSD) facilities. He also recommends cutting the premium in half with the
revenues directed to PV on schools. He also recommended developing PAG gas program and
continuing the non-residential PAG program for block purchases.
Commissioner Eglash asked why a solar donation program was not part of the
recommendation. Ratchye stated that the program would take longer to develop, but would be
part of the larger local solar strategy that staff plans to develop.
Vice Chair Foster said that the solar donation program should be very simple and be restricted
to PAUSD.
Chair Cook thanked staff, the UAC subcommittee and the public, particularly Bruce Hodge and
Walt Hays. Chair Cook noted that the program is number one in the country and does
something important and we should not terminate the program. The program should be cost
neutral, not a money loser – it should be priced at the break-even price of 0.5 cents per
kilowatt-hour (₵/kWh) and not be lowered to 0.2 ₵/kWh. Chair Cook supports retaining the
program at a lower price for both the full needs and the block programs as a transition and
developing a green gas program as soon as possible. He recommended using a big marketing
push for the new program to increase participation.
Commissioner Waldfogel asked Chair Cook if the REC purchases of the program are the key
piece, or should collections continue. Chair Cook said that the collections should continue, but
should not be used to purchase RECs. Director Fong stated that that approach would be
difficult.
Commissioner Eglash said the program should be priced at the 0.2 cents/kWh and that the
admin costs should be reduced.
Chair Cook said that we are collecting more money than we need now so that is not an issue.
Commissioner Melton agrees with Commissioner Waldfogel's comments regarding spending
money to buy RECs to green up green hydro power. He suggested that the revenue collected
could be used for seed money for putting PV on schools.
Vice Chair Foster stated that he hears general consensus for developing a green gas program
and for continuing the block program at a cost neutral. However, there does not seem to be
support for greening up green resources for the full needs program. The alternative is to either
use the funds for solar PV on schools or suspend the collection of funds for the full needs
program and stop buying RECs.
Commissioner Melton asked the subcommittee why the solar donation program wasn't
recommended. Commissioner Eglash stated that the committee felt that the program couldn't
be designed quickly enough and that a transition needed to happen relatively quickly.
Commissioner Waldfogel commented that participants are willing to spend 1.5 ₵/kWh for
something very conceptual (i.e. RECs) and we leave money on the table by lowering the price.
ACTION:
First Motion:
Vice Chair Foster moved that the UAC recommend that the Council:
1. Direct staff to develop a PAG gas program to be implemented by July 2014;
2. Approve changes to the PAG program for the commercial customer blocks at the
purchase rate of 0.2 ₵/kWh; and
3. Approve changes to the PAG full needs program to cut the rate to 0.75 ₵/kWh and use
the funds for PV systems or solar hot water heating program for PAUSD.
Commissioner Waldfogel proposed an amendment to modify the program so that the funds
collected would be used for seed funds for PV on PAUSD sites.
Commissioner Melton indicated he would support using the funds for seed money to fund solar
on PAUSD as suggested by Waldfogel.
Chair Cook seconded the amended motion.
Commissioner Eglash stated that he does not support the motion as it could have many
negative ramifications in the future since the program suggested in the motion has not been
worked through by staff.
Substitute to the First Motion:
Commissioner Eglash made a substitute motion that the UAC recommend that the Council:
1. Direct staff to develop a PAG gas program to be implemented by July 2014; and
2. Approve changes to the PAG program with two rate options:
a. Full Needs: rate premium of 0.2 ₵/kWh to purchase RECs for the large hydroelectric
supply portion of the City’s supply mix; and
b. Commercial Customer blocks: purchase rate of 0.2 ₵/kWh, or $2 for a 1,000 kWh
block.
Chair Cook seconded the substitute motion.
Vice Chair Foster noted that the dangers alluded to by Commissioner Eglash are not an issue
since there is time before Council makes the final decision.
The substitute motion did not carry (3-3) with Commissioners Waldfogel, Foster, and Melton
voting no.
Returning to the first motion,
Vice Chair Eglash proposed amending the motion as follows:
That the UAC recommend that the Council:
1. Direct staff to develop a PAG gas program to be implemented by July 2014;
2. Approve changes to the PAG program for the commercial customer blocks at the
purchase rate of 0.2 ₵/kWh; and
3. Approve changes to the PAG full needs program to reduce the rate by 50% and use
those funds as a seed fund for a community local solar donation program (e.g., for
PAUSD schools) as directed by the City Council.
Chair Cook, the motion’s seconder, agreed to the amendment to the first motion.
Commissioner Eglash noted that the recommendation is contrary to staff's opinion since it
concluded that such a program won't be ready by January 2014. Melton replied that the
money could be put into a fund until the program could be ready and he realizes that it
wouldn't be ready by January 2014. Commissioner Eglash said that this means that collection
of funds would occur prior to the program being designed. Vice Chair Foster indicated that the
Council would decide the final details.
The first motion did not carry (3-3) with Commissioners Cook, Chang, and Eglash voting no.
Second Motion:
Commissioner Melton made a motion that the UAC recommend that Council:
1. Direct staff to develop a PAG gas program to be implemented by July 2014; and
2. Suspend the PAG Full Needs program, but maintain the PAG program’s Commercial
Customer Block program and reduce the price to 0.2 ₵/kWh, or $2 per 1,000 kWh block.
Vice Chair Foster seconded the motion.
Substitute to the Second Motion:
Commissioner Eglash made a substitute motion that the UAC recommend that the Council:
1. Direct staff to develop a PAG gas program to be implemented by July 2014; and
2. Approve changes to the PAG program with two rate options:
a. Full Needs: rate premium of 0.2 ₵/kWh to purchase RECs for the large hydroelectric
supply portion of the City’s supply mix; and
b. Commercial Customer blocks: purchase rate of 0.2 ₵/kWh, or $2 per 1,000 kWh
block.
Chair Cook seconded the substitute motion.
The substitute motion failed (3-3) with Commissioners Waldfogel, Foster, and Melton voting no.
Returning to the Second Motion, the motion passes unanimously (6-0).
FINANCE COMMITTEE
WORKING MINUTES
Page 1 of 12
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Chairperson Burt called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Council
Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Burt (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd
Absent: Berman
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the City Council
Adopt a Resolution Approving Modifications to the PaloAltoGreen
Program and Associated Electric Rate Schedules and Directing Staff to
Develop a PaloAltoGreen Gas Program.
Valerie Fong, Director of Utilities, introduced Senior Resource Planner,
Monica Padilla to provide an overview of the Staff discussions on
PaloAltoGreen.
Monica Padilla, Senior Resource Planner, reviewed the Staff proposals
regarding the PaloAltoGreen Program by terminating or modifying the
program. The Staff Report included 3 options for modification. Option 1; to
terminate the program altogether, 2; to suspend the portions of the program
called the full-needs rate and reduce the commerce block rate from 1.5
cents per kWh to 0.2 cents per KWh, and 3; to modify the program for the
full-needs customers by changing their rate from 1.5 cents per kWh to 0.2
cents per kWh and purchase only for the large hydro portion of their needs.
Staff requested the Finance Committee (Committee) ask Council to direct
Staff to develop a PaloAltoGreen Gas Program. The goal of the new program
would be to reduce the carbon associated with the natural gas usage. The
second recommendation was for Council to direct Staff to return with a plan
to allocate excess or accumulative revenues associated with PaloAltoGreen
to date.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 2 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Working Minutes 08/20/13
She reviewed the drivers behind the requested modifications to the
program; the City would achieve carbon neutrality by the end of 2013, the
renewable standard portfolio had been increasing since the initial entrance
into renewable long term contacts; by the year 2017 the expectation was to
be at 47 percent, and the cost of purchasing renewable energy certificates
(REC) in California has reduced significantly. Staff had reviewed other
options outside of changing the program including solar programs, the
promotions of fuel switching or electric vehicles. Staff was directed internally
to build a solar sample program and present it to the Utilities Advisory
Commission (UAC) for recommendations prior to submission to the full
Council. Terminating the program allowed the City to exit on a high note;
the program was a national leading program in terms of voluntary renewable
programs. One of the issues with terminating the program would be the loss
of the national recognition of branding if the program was terminated
without reusing the program for something else. Termination also eliminated
the option for customers who prefer to say they maintain 100 percent
renewable energy.
Council Member Schmid asked for clarification on what the divisions were
within the UAC on the matter when it was brought before them for
recommendation.
Ms. Fong believed the split amongst the Commissioners was whether or not
to maintain the PaloAltoGreen program for residential and commercial
customers. There was uncertainty whether the customers had a clear
understanding of what they were participating in with the program. The
large discussion was whether it was best to stop the program or continue it
at a much reduced rate particularly for the residential customers.
Jane Ratchye, Assistant Utilities Director, stated there was a group of
Commissioners wanting to alter PaloAltoGreen to a solar program for the
schools while the other Commissioners felt they did not have the preview.
There was mention of utilizing the accumulative revenues as seed money to
start a solar program.
Ms. Padilla mentioned another concern was with greening up large hydro and
the message that may send to the community. It was not considered eligible
under the state’s definition of renewables although it was a renewable
resource.
Council Member Schmid understood it was difficult to request customers pay
for a renewable energy source that was not considered by the State as a
renewable source such as large hydro.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 3 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Working Minutes 08/20/13
From an economist view Palo Alto’s role in the market could be harmful to
others by continuing to purchase more than necessary resources which then
raises the cost for others with respect to purchasing more REC’s. The split
between full-needs (residential) and blocks (commercial) was how to
adequately request donations from both types of participants when the
residential side not receiving a benefit but business’s comparing the
donation cost to their profits. He recalled the PaloAltoCLEAN program was a
property owner/developer only program. The participants were receiving a
subsidy because the rate given was high while they would then be asked to
donate more funds. The suspension of the full-needs program for residential
customers but requesting donations and continuation of the commercial
block where they receive an incentive created a split amongst the division of
participants. He felt the clearest case would be to work toward an
innovative solution that did not affect the renewable market that did not get
bogged down in state definitions. Another issue with the REC’s was
conversion technology was not included although several southern counties
and cities made recommendations to the Governor to assist with gas
programs.
Council Member Shepherd mentioned the name on Facebook had changed
from PaloAltoGreen to Palo Alto Utilities. She felt that was premature and
requested it be reversed.
Ms. Padilla stated her understating of the name change was PaloAltoGreen
was a program specifically for Palo Alto participants while the idea was to
include all of the sustainability programs the Utilities Department had
including energy efficiency.
Council Member Shepherd clarified the program has not changed just the
name.
Ms. Padilla said that was correct.
Council Member Shepherd stated she agreed with the UAC recommendation
to suspend PaloAltoGreen’s full-needs program but maintain the commercial
customer block program and reduce the price to 0.2 cents per kWh. She felt
if the commercial customers were receiving an added value she did not see
the benefit of removing it. She noted there was $800,000 in the program
and she asked how the program started making money when it was down
until recently.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 4 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Working Minutes 08/20/13
Ms. Padilla stated the purchase price of certificates dropped which provided a
revenue stream. In 2013 the Utilities Department converted the source of
the REC to local California solar which cost more than the traditional wind
REC’s they had been purchasing. The cost was low compared to the rate
being charged.
Council Member Shepherd questioned how in 2011 the revenue was $80,000
and two years later $800,000. She asked if the intent was to address the
revenue going forward with the development of PaloAltoGreen.
Ms. Fong felt the UAC did attempt to address the revenue in advance by
suggesting putting it aside to use as seed money for the program or other
programs. Although the Utilities Department agreed with the seed money
concept there was a concern with taking the funds and putting it towards an
unknown.
Council Member Shepherd said she was impressed by the percentage of
people who had bought into the program. She was interested in exploring
the Feed-in-Tariff such as solar panels on parking garages and local
renewables. Her concern with the recommendation of PaloAltoGreen Gas
was scale. It was important to model how a community could have a
renewable or carbon neutral portfolio. She was not certain how flipping
renewable power into gas in order to neutralize it was the correct manner to
transfer people off of gas.
Ms. Padilla believed the intent of developing a PaloAltoGreen Gas program as
a separate program. The manner in which to neutralize the gases in one’s
home or business would be through the use of environmental offsets which
are different than REC’s; they were an environmental product readily
available and used for compliance purposes throughout the country.
Council Member Shepherd asked if it was aligned with the same type of
transition as wind power going to electricity.
Ms. Padilla stated yes, the City was not attempting to convert electricity not
natural gas.
Council Member Shepherd clarified it would be a completely new and
separate program from PaloAltoGreen.
Ms. Padilla answered yes.
Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification on recommendation for the
solar donation for schools.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 5 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Working Minutes 08/20/13
Ms. Padilla said the solar recommendation was completely separate from the
PaloAltoGreen electricity or gas programs. Staff’s intent was to bring before
the UAC and Council by the close of 2013 was a Solar Strategic Plan which
would address all of the areas where the City could develop solar power in
Palo Alto.
Chair Burt stated his initial reaction was to support recommendation 1 to
terminate the PaloAltoGreen program because he felt the City had achieved
the full success imaginable. The City consumers were receiving carbon
neutral electricity without paying additional funds. He asked for an update
on the possibility of no rate impact to the rate payers.
Ms. Ratchye clarified there was a cost impact but it was minimal and she
believed Council adopted a limit.
Chair Burt stated he was aware of the limit but he asked what that amount
was.
Ms. Ratchye said Staff had not completed the cost evaluation but there
would be an increased cost because the City was purchasing a product they
would not have purchased otherwise. The impact would be under 0.15 cents
per kWh.
Chair Burt confirmed there would be no impact above what was authorized
under the historic policy.
Ms. Fong clarified the 0.15 was different from the half cent for the City’s
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). There was a different threshold set for
the carbon neutral and Staff did not anticipate a rate increase. The rates
were set for Fiscal Year 2013 and would be reviewed again during the next
budget cycle to see if there would be a different rate.
Chair Burt asserted renewables provided a potential for better rate stability
over other market rate products. The question of what to do with surplus
funds came about because of the rapid reduction in the cost of renewables.
The understanding of the subscribers was they paid a higher rate for the
REC’s which would offset for their entire bill. The City unintentionally
collected additional funds which belong to the consumer and they should
have a say in the distribution of them. He suggested an alternative to allow
the funds to stay in the program at the present time with the understanding
of their eligibility to be rolled into another program or to have the funds
refunded.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 6 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Working Minutes 08/20/13
Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director, noted after review of the 2011
program year there was a negative and felt it may be appropriate to take
the positives and negatives into account when making a decision.
Ms. Fong said the chart was reflective of the cumulative revenue so the
projection was such that any negative numbers would have been forecasted.
If the PaloAltoGreen program was to continue as is the Committee should
consider there would be a continued over-collection.
Council Member Schmid asked how suspending the full-needs portion of the
program and the excess funds were affected by Proposition 218.
Ms. Fong acknowledged the Propositions would need to be re-worked; 218
was for water and Proposition 26 was for electricity.
Council Member Schmid asked is the City could suspend the program with
the excess funds belonging top the participants.
Ms. Fong noted the program was completely voluntary and she was
uncertain whether or not Proposition 26 applied.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, stated the area of discussion did not have
language in the law. There was an argument with a voluntary program
where in the aspect that it was not a utility where people needed to
participate to have the necessities of life.
Council Member Schmid felt it would be more transparent to explain to the
participants how the funds would be used and that the program was to be
suspended prior to taking any action.
Chair Burt noted the cumulative net revenue of $829,000 was through June
of 2013. Presumably the amount has risen to approximately $900,000 to
date. He believed the local Solar Strategy Plan was an exciting direction for
the City. Palo Alto currently had 100 percent carbon neutrality with solar
throughout the community while many cities were ahead in one or more of
those areas. The local renewable portion was not as visible or strong as the
totality of the portfolio. There was a strong local interest in participating so
reviewing the possibility of a solar coop or other means where the City used
public or private lands to leverage the interest in the community with the
right location that were cost effective. There were questions surrounding the
PaloAltoCLEAN program that had not been fully addressed.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 7 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Working Minutes 08/20/13
There was a significant program emerging from the Long Island Power
regarding expansion of their clean program surrounding a greater resilience.
Ms. Fong mentioned the PaloAltoCLEAN Program was a power purchase type
of program not a net metering program. She was not certain how the Long
Island program was designed.
Chair Burt stated the Long Island Clean Program was a Feed-in-Tariff
program. He was aware of proposals in different locations where they were
beginning to monetize the value of shade. Solar panels provide shade to the
buildings beneath them and in some cases it has been found that the
revenue from monetizing the shade they have found revenue from the solar
shade exceeds the revenues from the land lease. It has been noticed that
the cost of HVAC has dropped significantly when they install solar panels on
the roofs. He spoke of a trend nationwide regarding electricity consumption
for commercial purposes and in particular for renewable energy generation
which was onsite consumption of DC power. When solar power was created
on a roof it was generated as DC then fed into the grid to convert to AC and
it would be bought back and usually reconverted to DC for use. The
discussion around the utilities commissions is the greatest power
consumption by 2040 would be DC. There is far better energy efficiency
when the solar was generated and used onsite as DC. He believes solar
would be the strongest renewable source of energy in Palo Alto although the
City should not limit themselves. Fuel cells have been recognized as a viable
renewable resource. He wanted to ensure when Staff reviewed local solar
strategy or local renewable strategy recognizing in all likelihood the
predominant resource would be solar. The reason Palo Alto had a renewable
program was because of the climate action plan. He noted there would be
an increased electricity demand based on the increased volume of Electric
Vehicles being purchased; hopefully the usage would be in the off peak
hours. He felt it would be interesting to complete a poll asking customers
what the propulsion of the next vehicle they were anticipating buying EV,
gas, and hybrid. He asked Staff to return to the Committee prepared to
discuss on fuel switching as the next direction.
Ms. Ratchye stated the Utilities Department was working with an intern who
had been working on fuel switching. Her report will be reviewed by the UAC
at the end of November.
Chair Burt asked if the report and UAC recommendation would be agendized
for the Committee.
Ms. Fong said she was uncertain as of yet what the action would be.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 8 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Working Minutes 08/20/13
Chair Burt felt the Committee should vet the repot refer to the full Council.
Council Member Schmid said fuel switching was one of the options being
discussed with the new PaloAltoGreen program.
Chair Burt clarified it could be but had not been confirmed.
Council Member Schmid asked whether it should be integrated into that
general description.
Chair Burt said his understanding was the City was going to have some
element of a plan as to whether it should be a part of PaloAltoGreen or not.
Ms. Ratchye clarified Staff did not feel fuel switching was a good fit for
PaloAltoGreen just yet. There was the intern and 3 groups of Stanford
students working on proposed plans, each on a different aspect.
Chair Burt did not expect it would be a part of PaloAltoGreen but with the
foundation of 100 percent carbon neutral electricity, the organic trend in the
transportation vehicles going from gasoline to carbon neutral electricity, and
natural gas.
Council Member Schmid said to put that information in the context of climate
and the waste disposal process as the support element.
Chair Burt agreed that action had been approved by Council.
Ms. Fong noted there were additional input needed before Staff could move
forward with a fuel switching plan or proposal and involvement from the City
Attorney’s office for assistance with the Proposition 26 language and legal
matters.
Chair Burt added the entire legal and regulatory environment surrounding
the changing conditions was in its infancy.
Ms. Stump agreed the City was entering into a new and cutting edge area
where creativity was necessary to produce policy within a set of laws that
have yet to be applied.
Chair Burt stated Staff and Colleagues should recognize this was a dynamic
time in the climate, environment and the City. In the event the City was
successful enough in growing their renewable supply then there would be a
local grid balancing issue.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 9 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Working Minutes 08/20/13
Ms. Stump added on the Proposition 26 issue it was helpful to have local
legislators looking to partner with Palo Alto in an area where something
needed to be put into place.
Chair Burt noted he was less apprehensive about Proposition 26. He
understood it may be an issue but not the primary obstacle.
Council Member Shepherd agreed solar energy could be better quantified;
although, it was not asked to be part of recommendation.
MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Chair Burt to
recommend the City Council adopt the following:
1. A resolution:
a. Suspending the PaloAltoGreen Program’s Full-Needs program for all
electric customers; and
b. Reduce rates for PaloAltoGreen’s Commercial Customer Block
Program to $2 per 1,000 kWh block, or 0.2 cents per kilowatt-hour
(₵/kWh); and
2. Direct Staff to develop a PaloAltoGreen Gas program and return to the
Utilities Advisory Commission and Council with program design details
and rate recommendations with a target launch date of July 2014; and
3. Direct Staff to return with a recommendation by March 2014 on how to
allocate surplus revenues, if any, associated with the PaloAltoGreen
program.
Council Member Shepherd felt the Motion did not address the excitement
regarding local solar strategy which was an item she believed could have a
positive outcome with an earlier rather than later trajectory. The Motion
encompassed the three items that Palo Alto needed to tighten up with
respect to the PaloAltoGreen Program. She felt the commercial customers
should be notified with the option to opt out of the program. She agreed
those participants who assisted in the contribution of the $830,000 should
have the opportunity to receive the benefits of the revenue. She asked who
would supply the REC’s to the commercial customers.
Ms. Fong stated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was the
responsible party for the certificates. The City offered the program that
commercial customers could use to achieve their certificates from the EPA.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 10 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Working Minutes 08/20/13
Council Member Shepherd asked if the notice would be regarding the
changes or suspension of PaloAltoGreen or would it be a request to rejoin.
Ms. Padilla said her understanding was the key commercial accounts had
already been notified of the upcoming changes. Annually the key account
representatives discuss and create a plan for the commercial accounts on
the amount the needed to procure in order to meet the minimum
qualifications in order to participate in the program.
Ms. Fong said with the Motion of recommending A2 acknowledged the
reduced cost from $15 to $2.
Chair Burt noted Item C needed to have some alignment with the other
actions being taken in the Motion. He asked what the timing would be in the
process for addressing the development of the recommendation for
disbursement of the excess funds and how the funds would be disbursed.
Ms. Ratchye stated her understanding of the Motion was to continue the
commercial program and suspend the full-needs portion of the
PaloAltoGreen program. Staff would return with a different concept for
PaloAltoGreen program for the electric side. Once Staff was ready with the
new program plans to share with the Committee or Council that would be
the appropriate time to address the disbursement of the excess funds. She
agreed the program would still be collecting funds from the commercial
customers who were participating.
Chair Burt said there needed to be a determination of the length of time that
was appropriate to hold the funds without disbursement. There would be two
options; 1) wait and figure out the next generation of the program or 2)
offer the current and previous customers a refund. He did not feel it was
appropriate to leave that open ended.
Ms. Padilla noted Staff proposed to return before March 2014 with
suggestions on the disbursement options. The timeframe was consistent with
the time necessary to vet viable options.
Council Member Shepherd asked if the thought was to poll current
customers to see how they felt.
Chair Burt stated that was not part of his thought process. He confirmed
March 2014 would be the presentation of the recommendation not the
implementation.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 11 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Working Minutes 08/20/13
Council Member Shepherd asked how many residential customers were
involved in the program.
Ms. Padilla said approximately 6,000.
Council Member Schmid said if the full-needs portion of the program was
being suspended with $800,000 plus in the account. The commercial block
customer cost might be under market thereby taking a subsidy from the
cumulative revenues collected. His concern was the commercial subsidy was
being taken out of the residential customer’s portion. He suggested the
Motion include a statement, as of the date of suspension, of what the
cumulative reserves were at that date for future decisions.
Council member Shepherd asked if Staff was aware of who was generating
the financial overage, the commercial or residential customers.
Ms. Fong stated when the cost was $15 the commercial customers far
overpaid because the administrative cost to serve them was less.
Chair Burt said the dollar amount would need to be divided up which was a
process Staff would need to calculate based on their contributions. The
portion of the program being suspended was the most successful throughout
the country performed by residential by threefold. He recommended
supplying all participants with a certificate showing the City’s appreciation of
the success of the program due to their participation.
Council Member Schmid mentioned that the commercial customers
accounted for more than half but prior to 2012 it was residential. That
implied the residential customers paid a fair amount up to half into the
surplus. The notice to the customers should be include the program was
being suspended with an asset.
MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Berman absent
Ms. Stump asked whether the Committee would recommend to the full
Council to consider the Motion as Action or Consent.
Council Member Schmid felt since the action affected 25 percent of the
population placing the item on Action for September 9, 2013 was
appropriate.
Council Member Shepherd was comfortable with having it under Consent.
Chair Burt believed it warranted going as an Action Item.
WORKING MINUTES
Page 12 of 12
Finance Committee Regular Meeting
Working Minutes 08/20/13
FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS
Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director, stated the next regularly
scheduled meeting was Tuesday, September 3, 2013. There were currently
no items agendized and it was the day after the Labor Day holiday so he
recommended cancelling the meeting.
There was full concurrence with the Finance Committee (Committee)
members for cancelling the September 3, 2013 meeting.
Mr. Perez stated the September 17, 2013 meeting had three items
agendized: cost of service study, 2013 reappropriations, and the library
oversight report. The October 1, 2013 meeting had two items agendized:
development impact fees and infrastructure needs. The November 19, 2013
meeting the agenda would have the financials.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:33 P.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4053)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/9/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 2013 League of California Cities Resolutions
Title: Approval of City Positions for the 2013 League of California Cities
Resolutions
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the City’s voting delegate to vote on the two (2)
resolutions to be considered at the Annual League of California Cities (LOCC) Conference to be
held in Sacramento, September 18-20, 2013 and approve the general guidance provided below.
Background
Each year, the LOCC accepts resolutions from member cities, and elected officials to be adopted
at its annual conference. Before the conference, the resolutions undergo review by the
appropriate LOCC policy committees. On Wednesday, September 18, policy committees will
meet for a final review of the resolutions. Next, the General Resolutions Committee will meet
on Thursday, September 19, to consider the policy committees’ reports and to take action on
their recommended positions. Resolutions that are approved by the General Resolutions
Committee will then be reported on the floor of the General Assembly at the Annual Business
meeting, on Friday, September 20.
The voting delegates at the Annual Business meeting make the final determination on the
resolutions. The two resolutions to be considered by the League’s Policy Committees are
subject to change in their current form. By approving the recommendation for the resolutions,
our City LOCC representatives, Councilmember Shepherd and Councilmember Scharff (as the
alternate) will have the Council's general guidance for votes to be taken on each resolution and
are authorized to vote on amended resolutions deemed to be in the best interest of the City.
Discussion
The LOCC analyses and original language of the resolutions in their current form are included in
Attachment A. In addition, a summary below has been provided for each resolution and staff’s
recommended City positions.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
2013 Proposed League of California Resolutions
1. Resolution calling upon the governor and the legislature to work
with the League of California Cities in providing adequate funding to
prioritize water bonds to assist local government in water
conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater and
urban runoff programs.
Support
In 2009, the State Legislature passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a
package of legislation that included four policy bills and an $11.1 billion water bond (The
Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act). See attachment A for additional
information on the major spending proposals for the bond.
This resolution seeks to call upon the Governor and the Legislature to work with the
League of California Cities in providing adequate funding and to prioritize water bonds to
assist local governments in water conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of
stormwater and urban runoff programs.
Staff recommends that the City take a support position on the League of California Cities
2013 Resolution 1, submitted by Los Angeles County Division. As projects for the upcoming
water bond are being contemplated, this resolution calls upon the Governor and the
Legislature to work with the League of California Cities to provide adequate funding for
water conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater and urban runoff in
the water bond issue and to prioritize future water bonds to assist local governments in
funding these programs.
The City’s water utility and the waste water treatment plant are possible recipients of
funds. At its January 28, 2013 meeting, the City of Palo Alto Council approved advocating
for funding of water conservation programs in the 2013 Utilities Legislative Priorities
Guidelines (Staff Report 3408, Resolution No. 9318):
“Water Utility Guideline 11: Advocate for financing or funding for water
conservation programs and recycled water projects that meet end-use needs
and conserve potable water and oppose legislation that would reduce such
funding.”
This resolution does not call for support of the 2014 Water Bond, development of which
staff will continue to monitor and bring back for review when the language is finalized.
Neither does the resolution seek a specified appropriation from a water bond, which
would also be further reviewed if and when incorporated into a water bond.
Source: Los Angeles County Division
Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
City Coordination: Utilities, Public Works, Administrative Services Department, City Attorney’s
Office
City of Palo Alto Page 3
2. Resolution calling upon the governor and legislature to enter into
discussions with the League and California Police Chiefs’ Association
representatives to identify and enact strategies that will ensure the
success of public safety realignment from a local municipal law
enforcement perspective.
Support
In October 2011 the Governor proposed the realignment of public safety tasks from State
Prisons to local government as a way to address certain judicial orders dealing with State
prison overcrowding and to reduce State expenditures. This program shifts the prisoner
burden from State prisons to local counties and cities.
In signing the realignment law, the Governor noted the fiscal impacts of realignment on
local government would need to be offset with constitutionally protected revenue. Since
the implementation of realignment, the State has yet to identify a revenue stream to assist
cities in handling additional offenders. In addition to providing revenue, issues have been
identified that continue to impact local law enforcement agencies. For example, the
criteria used to release non-serious, non-sexual and non-violent ("3N") criminals and the
definition of recidivism.
This Resolution seeks to outline the deficiencies in the State’s current public safety
realignment policy, as implemented in 2011 and to identify policy changes that will assist
State, county and municipal law enforcement entities to cope with the expanded universe
of offenders that are now being directed to county facilities, resulting in increased related
impacts on both local communities and municipal law enforcement.
Staff recommends that the City take a support position on the League of California Cities
2013 Resolution 2, submitted by the Public Safety Policy Committee. Staff supports the
need to adequately fund realignment and to make changes to the implementing resolution
as noted in the proposed resolution. Of particular concern is the criteria used to determine
an offender’s eligibility for release. The realignment law defines the most recent offense
that resulted in incarceration as the only crime taken into consideration in determining 3N
status. It does not take into account previous violent crimes the offender may have
committed that would have made them ineligible for release. This oversight allows
potentially violent offenders back into society and erroneously categorizes them as a
minimal risk to the community.
Source: Public Safety Policy Committee
Referred to: Public Safety Policy Committee
City Coordination: Public Safety, City Attorney’s office
Attachments:
Attachment A. League Resolutions (PDF)
Annual Conference
Resolutions Packet
115th Annual Conference
Sacramento
September 18 - 20, 2013
Attachment A
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES
RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that resolutions shall
be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and recommendation.
Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the General Resolutions
Committee at the Annual Conference.
This year, two resolutions have been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and referred
to the League policy committees.
POLICY COMMITTEES: Two policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider and take
action on resolutions referred to them. The committees are Environmental Quality and Public Safety. These
committees will meet on Wednesday, September 18, 2013, at the Sheraton Grand Hotel in Sacramento. The
sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meetings.
GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday,
September 19, at the Sacramento Convention Center, to consider the reports of the two policy committees
regarding the two resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League’s regional
divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals appointed by the
League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room location.
ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting will be held at
12:00 p.m. on Friday, September 20, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.
PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day deadline, a
resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by designated voting
delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (47 valid signatures required) and presented to the Voting
Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the Annual Business Session of the
General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:00 p.m., Thursday, September 19. If the petitioned
resolution is substantially similar in substance to a resolution already under consideration, the petitioned
resolution may be disqualified by the General Resolutions Committee.
Resolutions can be viewed on the League's Web site: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond at the League
office: mdesmond@cacities.org or (916) 658-8224
1
Attachment A
GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for deciding policy
on the important issues facing cities is through the League’s eight standing policy committees and the board of
directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment and assures city
officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions should
adhere to the following criteria.
Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions
1. Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted at the
Annual Conference.
2. The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern.
3. The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy.
4. The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives:
(a) Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities.
(b) Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around which
more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the board of directors.
(c) Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and board of
directors.
(d) Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly).
2
Attachment A
LOCATION OF MEETINGS
Policy Committee Meetings
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Sheraton Grand Hotel
1230 J Street, Sacramento
Public Safety: 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
Environmental Quality: 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
General Resolutions Committee
Thursday, September 19, 2013, 1:00 p.m.
Sacramento Convention Center
1400 J Street, Sacramento
Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon
Friday, September 20, 2013, 12:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Hotel
1209 L Street, Sacramento
3
Attachment A
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.
Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action
1 2 3
1 - Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2 - General Resolutions Committee
3 - General Assembly
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Water Bond Funds
PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
2 Public Safety Realignment
Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each committee’s
page on the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet will be posted at:
www.cacities.org/resolutions.
4
Attachment A
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN
1. Policy Committee
A - Approve
2. General Resolutions Committee
D - Disapprove
3. General Assembly
N - No Action
R - Refer to appropriate policy committee for
study
Action Footnotes
a - Amend
* Subject matter covered in another resolution
Aa - Approve as amended
** Existing League policy
Aaa - Approve with additional amendment(s)
*** Local authority presently exists
Ra - Amend and refer as amended to
appropriate policy committee for study
Raa - Additional amendments and refer
Da - Amend (for clarity or brevity) and
Disapprove
Na - Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take
No Action
W - Withdrawn by Sponsor
Procedural Note: Resolutions that are approved by the General Resolutions Committee, as well as all
qualified petitioned resolutions, are reported to the floor of the General Assembly. In addition, League policy
provides the following procedure for resolutions approved by League policy committees but not approved by
the General Resolutions Committee:
Resolutions initially recommended for approval and adoption by all the League policy committees to which
the resolution is assigned, but subsequently recommended for disapproval, referral or no action by the
General Resolutions Committee, shall then be placed on a consent agenda for consideration by the General
Assembly. The consent agenda shall include a brief description of the basis for the recommendations by
both the policy committee(s) and General Resolutions Committee, as well as the recommended action by
each. Any voting delegate may make a motion to pull a resolution from the consent agenda in order to
request the opportunity to fully debate the resolution. If, upon a majority vote of the General Assembly, the
request for debate is approved, the General Assembly shall have the opportunity to debate and subsequently
vote on the resolution.
5
Attachment A
2013 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
1. RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE TO WORK
WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDING
AND TO PRIORITIZE WATER BONDS TO ASSIST LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN WATER
CONSERVATION, GROUND WATER RECHARGE AND REUSE OF STORMWATER AND
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAMS.
Source: Los Angeles County Division
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities of Alhambra; Cerritos; Claremont; Glendora;
Lakewood; La Mirada; La Verne; Norwalk; Signal Hill; Mary Ann Lutz, Mayor, city of Monrovia.
Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Recommendations to General Resolutions Committee: Approve
WHEREAS, local governments play a critical role in providing water conservation, ground water
recharge and reuse of stormwater infrastructure, including capture and reuse of stormwater for their citizens,
businesses and institutions; and
WHEREAS, local governments support the goals of the Clean Water Act to ensure safe, clean
water supply for all and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has encouraged local governments to
implement programs to capture, infiltrate and treat stormwater and urban runoff with the use of low impact
development ordinances, green street policies and programs to increase the local ground water supply
through stormwater capture and infiltration programs; and
WHEREAS, local governments also support the State’s water quality objectives, specifically
Section 13241of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, on the need to maximize the use of
reclaimed and water reuse and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the State Water Resources
Board encourage rainwater capture efforts; and
WHEREAS, the State’s actions working through the water boards, supported by substantial
Federal, State and local investments, have led to a dramatic decrease in water pollution from wastewater
treatment plants and other so-called “point sources” since 1972. However, the current threats to the State’s
water quality are far more difficult to solve, even as the demand for clean water increases from a growing
population and an economically important agricultural industry; and
WHEREAS, the State’s Little Hoover Commission found in 2009 that more than 30,000 stormwater
discharges are subject to permits regulating large and small cities, counties, construction sites and industry.
The Commission found that a diverse group of water users – the military, small and large businesses, home
builders and local governments and more – face enormous costs as they try to control and limit stormwater
pollution. The Commission concluded that the costs of stormwater clean up are enormous and that the costs
of stormwater pollution are greater, as beach closures impact the State’s economy and environmental
damage threatens to impair wildlife; and
WHEREAS, at the same time that new programs and projects to improve water quality are
currently being required by the U.S. EPA and the State under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits and the Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) programs, many local governments
find that they lack the basic infrastructure to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and cities are facing
difficult economic challenges while Federal and State financial assistance has been reduced due to the
impacts of the recession and slow economic recovery; and
6
Attachment A
WHEREAS, cities have seen their costs with the new NPDES permit requirements double and
triple in size in the past year, with additional costs anticipated in future years. Additionally, many local
businesses have grown increasingly concerned about the costs of retrofitting their properties to meet
stormwater and runoff requirements required under the NPDES permits and TMDL programs; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities adopted water polices in March of 2012, recognizing
that the development and operation of water supply, flood control and storm water management, among
other water functions, is frequently beyond the capacity of local areas to finance and the League found that
since most facilities have widespread benefits, it has become the tradition for Federal, State and local
governments to share their costs (XIV, Financial Considerations); and the League supports legislation
providing funding for stormwater and other water programs; and
WHEREAS, the Governor and the Legislature are currently contemplating projects for a water
bond and a portion of the bond could be directed to assist local government in funding and implementing the
goals of the Clean Water Act and the State’s water objectives of conserving and reusing stormwater in order
to improve the supply and reliability of water supply; and now therefore let it be
RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Sacramento
on September 20, 2013, that the League calls for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League
and other stakeholders to provide adequate funding for water conservation, ground water recharge and
capture and reuse of stormwater and runoff in the water bond issue and to prioritize future water bonds to
assist local governments in funding these programs. The League will work with its member cities to educate
federal and state officials to the challenges facing local governments in providing for programs to capture,
infiltrate and reuse stormwater and urban runoff.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source: Los Angeles County Division
Background:
In order to meet the goals of both the Federal Clean Water Act and the State’s Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act, which seek to ensure safe clean water supplies, cities provide critical water
conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater infrastructure, including capture and reuse of
stormwater for their citizens, businesses and institutions.
Working with the State’s Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the State Water Resources Board
through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process and Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Programs, California’s cities implement programs to capture, infiltrate and
treat stormwater and urban runoff with the use of low impact development ordinances, green streets policies
and other programs to increase the local ground water supply.
These actions have led to a dramatic decrease in water pollution from wastewater treatment plants and other
so-called “point sources” since the adoption of the Clean Water Act in 1972. However, current threats to the
State’s “non-point sources “ of pollution, such as stormwater and urban runoff are far more difficult to solve,
even as the demand for clean water increases from a growing population and an economically important
agricultural industry.
7
Attachment A
Current Problem Facing California’s Cities
The Little Hoover Commission found in 2009 that more than 30,000 stormwater discharges are subject to
permits regulating large and small cities, counties, construction sites and industry. The Commission found
that a diverse group of water users – the military, small and large businesses, home builders and local
governments and more – face enormous costs as they try and control and limit stormwater pollution. The
Commission concluded that the costs of stormwater clean up are enormous and that the costs of stormwater
pollution are greater as beach closures impact the state’s economy and environmental damage threatens to
impair wildlife.
Additionally, new programs and projects to improve water quality are currently being required by the U.S.
EPA and the State under the NPDES permits and the TMDL programs. Many local governments find that
they lack the basic infrastructure to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and the cities are facing difficult
economic challenges while Federal and State financial assistance has been reduced due to the impacts of the
recession and slow economic recovery.
Cities have seen their costs with the new NPDES permit requirements triple in size in the past year, with
additional costs anticipated in future years. Additionally, many local businesses have grown increasingly
concerned about the costs of retrofitting their properties to meet stormwater and runoff requirements
required under the NPDES permits and TMDL programs.
In Los Angeles County alone, reports commissioned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
estimate the costs of achieving region-wide compliance for implementing TMDL programs in the NPDES
permits required by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) will be in the
tens of billions of dollars over the next twenty years. Additionally, failure to comply with the LARWQCB’s
terms could result in significant Clean Water Act fines, state fines and federal penalties anywhere from
$3,000- $37,500 per day. Violations can also result in third-party litigation. Such costs are not confined to
Los Angeles County and are being realized statewide.
Clearly, compliance with the NPDES permit and TMDL programs will be expensive for local governments
over a long period of time and cities lack a stable, long-term, dedicated local funding source to address this
need. Many cities are faced with the choice of either cutting existing services or finding new sources of
revenue to fund the NPDES and TMDL programs.
Los Angeles County Division Resolution
The Division supports strong League education and advocacy at both the State and Federal levels to help
cities face the challenges in providing programs to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and urban runoff.
While Los Angeles County cities and other regions seek to secure local funding sources to meet the Clean
Water Act and the State’s water objectives, it will simply not be enough to meet the enormous costs of
compliance. The Los Angeles County Division strongly believes that State and Federal cooperation are
necessary to fund programs to secure and reuse stormwater in order to improve water supply and reliability
throughout the state.
The Division calls for the League to engage in discussions on 2014 State Water Bond to assist cities in
funding and implementing the goals of the Clean Water Act and the State’s Water objectives. This
resolution does not support the 2014 bond issue, since the League and individual cities will need to make
this decision at a later time upon review of the final language. However, the Governor and Legislature have
reopened discussions for the 2014 water bond and funding of urban runoff and stormwater programs has
taken a back seat in past bond issues, such as Proposition 84. In May, Assembly Speaker John Perez
appointed a Water Bond Working Group which recently outlined a new set of Priorities and Accountability
Measures for developing a water bond that would gain the support of 2/3 of the Legislature and voters. One
of the priorities identified by the committee included, “Regional Self Reliance/Integrated Regional Water
8
Attachment A
Management,” posing the question if stormwater capture should be included in any future bonds. The
Division believes the opportunity to advocate for funding in the bond is now.
//////////
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff: Jason Rhine; (916) 658-8264
Committee: Environmental Quality
Summary:
This resolution seeks to call upon the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California
Cities in providing adequate funding and to prioritize water bonds to assist local governments in water
conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater and urban runoff programs.
Background:
In 2009, the State Legislature passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a package of legislation
that included four policy bills and an $11.1 billion water bond (The Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water
Supply Act). The water bond included the following major spending proposals:
• $455 million for drought relief projects, disadvantaged communities, small community wastewater
treatment improvements and safe drinking water revolving fund
• $1.4 billion for "integrated regional water management projects"
• $2.25 billion for projects that "support delta sustainability options"
• $3 billion for water storage projects
• $1.7 billion for ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects in 21 watersheds
• $1 billion for groundwater protection and cleanup
• $1.25 billion for "water recycling and advanced treatment technology projects"
The $11.1 billion bond also included nearly $2 billion in earmarks. Projects slated for funding included:
• $40 million to educate the public about California's water
• $100 million for a Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program for watershed restoration, bike
trails and public access and recreation projects
• $75 million for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, for public access, education and interpretive
projects
• $20 million for the Baldwin Hills Conservancy to be used to buy more land
• $20 million for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands for interpretive projects for visitors
The water bond was originally scheduled to appear on the 2010 ballot as Proposition 18. However, due to
significant criticism over the size of the bond, the amount of earmarked projects, and a lack of public
support, the Legislature has voted twice to postpone the ballot vote. The water bond is now slated for the
November 4, 2014 ballot.
It is unclear whether or not the water bond will actually appear on the November 2014 ballot. In recent
months, pressure has been mounting to postpone the water bond yet again or significantly rewrite the water
bond to drastically reduce the overall size of the bond and remove all earmarks. The Legislature has until
the summer of 2014 to act.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. This resolution does not seek a specified appropriation from a water bond.
9
Attachment A
Existing League Policy:
In 2008, the League formed a new Water Task Force to consider updates and revision to the Water
Guidelines the League drafted and adopted 20 years earlier. These new Guidelines were formally approved
by the League board of directors in Feb. 2010. Below are the most pertinent policy and guiding principles
related to the proposed resolution. To view the entire water policy guidelines, go to
www.cacities.org/waterpolicyguidelines.
General Principles
• The League supports the development of additional groundwater and surface water storage,
including proposed surface storage projects now under study if they are determined to be feasible,
including but not limited to: environmentally, economically, and geographically relating to point of
origin. Appropriate funding sources could include, but are not limited to user fees, bonds and federal
funding.
• The League supports state water policy that allows undertaking aggressive water conservation and
water use efficiency while preserving, and not diminishing, public and constitutional water rights.
Water Conservation
• The League supports the development of a statewide goal to reduce water use by 20% by 2020
through the implementation of fair and equitable measures consistent with these principles.
• Accomplishing water conservation and water use efficiency goals will require statewide action by
all water users, including residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural water users, local and
regional planning agencies, state and federal agencies, chambers of commerce, and business,
commercial and industrial professional and trade associations.
Water Recycling
• Wherever feasible, water recycling should be practiced in urban, industrial and agricultural sectors.
This includes increasing the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least one million acre-
feet/year (afy) by 2020 and by at least two million afy by 2030.
• Increased recycling, reuse and other refinements in water management practices should be included
in all water supply programs.
Water Storage
• The development of additional surface facilities and use of groundwater basins to store surface
water that is surplus to that needed to maintain State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Bay-
Delta estuary water quality standards should be supported.
Groundwater
• The principle that local entities within groundwater basins (i.e., cities, counties, special districts, and
the regional water quality control boards) working cooperatively should be responsible for and
involved in developing and implementing basin wide groundwater, basin management plans should
be supported. The plans should include, but not be limited to: a) protecting groundwater quality; b)
identifying means to correct groundwater overdraft; c) implementing better irrigation techniques; d)
increasing water reclamation and reuse; and e) refining water conservation and other management
practices.
• Financial assistance from state and federal governments should be made available to requesting
local agencies to develop and implement their groundwater management plans.
Financial Considerations
• It is recognized that the development and operation of water supply, water conveyance, flood control
and stormwater management, water storage, and wastewater treatment facilities is frequently beyond
the capability of local areas to finance;
10
Attachment A
• The League supports legislation to provide funding for stormwater, water and wastewater programs,
including a constitutional amendment which would place stormwater fees in the category of water
and wastewater fees, for the purposes of Proposition 218 compliance.
Support:
New this year, any resolutions submitted to the General Assembly must be concurred in by five cities or by
city officials from at least five or more cities. Those submitting resolutions were asked to provide written
documentation of concurrence. The following letters of concurrence were received: cities of Alhambra;
Cerritos; Claremont; Glendora; Lakewood; La Mirada; La Verne; Norwalk; Signal Hill; and Mary Ann Lutz,
Mayor, city of Monrovia. A letter of support was also received from the California Contract Cities
Association.
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
2. RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO ENTER INTO
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LEAGUE AND CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS’ ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTATIVES TO IDENTIFY AND ENACT STRATEGIES THAT WILL ENSURE THE
SUCCESS OF PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT FROM A LOCAL MUNICIPAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE.
Source: Public Safety Policy Committee
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities of Arroyo Grande, Covina; Fontana; Glendora;
Monrovia; Ontario; Pismo Beach; and Santa Barbara
Referred to: Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve
WHEREAS, in October 2011 the Governor proposed the realignment of public safety responsibilities
from state prisons to local government as a way to address recent court orders in response to litigation
related to state prison overcrowding, and to reduce state expenditures; and
WHEREAS, the Governor stated that realignment needed to be fully funded with a constitutionally
protected source of funds if it were to succeed; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature enacted the realignment measures, AB 109 and AB 117, and the
Governor signed them into law without full constitutionally protected funding and liability protection for
stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, California currently has insufficient jail space, probation officers, housing and job
placement programs, medical and mental health facilities, lacks a uniform definition of recidivism; and
utilizes inappropriate convictions used to determine inmate eligibility for participation in the realignment
program; and
WHEREAS, since the implementation of realignment there have been numerous issues identified that
have not been properly addressed that significantly impact municipal police departments’ efforts to
successfully implement realignment; and
WHEREAS, ultimately many of these probationers who have severe mental illness are released into
communities where they continue to commit crimes that impact the safety of community members and drain
the resources of probation departments and police departments throughout the state; and
11
Attachment A
WHEREAS, an estimated 30 counties were operating under court-ordered or self-imposed population
caps before realignment, and the current lack of bed space in county jails has since led to many convicted
probationers being released early after serving a fraction of their time; with inadequate to no subsequent
supervision, leaving them free to engage in further criminal offenses in our local cities; and
WHEREAS, there is increasing knowledge among the offender population which offenses will and
will not result in a sentence to state prison, and many offenders, if held in custody pending trial, that would
be sentenced to county jail are ultimately sentenced to time served due to overcrowding in county facilities;
and
WHEREAS, there are inadequate databases allowing local police departments to share critical
offender information among themselves, with county probation departments, and with other county and state
law enforcement entities; and
WHEREAS, local police departments have not received adequate funding to properly address this new
population of offenders who are victimizing California communities; and now therefore let it be
RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Sacramento
on September 20, 2013, to request the Governor and State Legislature to immediately enter into discussions
with League representatives and the California Police Chiefs’ Association to address the following issues:
1. The need to fully fund municipal police departments with constitutionally protected funding to
appropriately address realignment issues facing front-line law enforcement;
2. Amend appropriate sections of AB 109 to change the criteria justifying the release of non-violent,
non-serious, non-sex offender inmates (N3) inmates to include their total criminal and mental
history instead of only their last criminal conviction;
3. Establish a uniform definition of recidivism with the input of all criminal justice stakeholders
throughout the state;
4. Enact legislation that will accommodate the option for city police officers to make ten (10) day flash
incarcerations in city jails for probationers who violate the conditions of their probation;
5. Establish oversight procedures to encourage transparency and accountability over the use of
realignment funding;
6. Implement the recommendations identified in the California Little Hoover Commission Report #216
dated May 30, 2013;
7. Provide for greater representation of city officials on the local Community Corrections Partnerships.
Currently AB 117 provides for only one city official (a police chief) on the seven-member body, six
of which are aligned with the county in which the partnership has been established. As a result, the
counties dominate the committees and the subsequent distribution of realignment funds.
8. Provide, either administratively or by legislation, an effective statewide data sharing mechanism
allowing state and local law enforcement agencies to rapidly and efficiently share offender
information to assist in tracking and monitoring the activities of AB 109 and other offenders.
//////////
12
Attachment A
Background Information on Resolution No. 2
Source: Public Safety Policy Committee
Background:
In October 2011 the Governor proposed the realignment of public safety tasks from State Prisons to local
government as a way to address certain judicial orders dealing with State prison overcrowding and to reduce
State expenditures. This program shifts the prisoner burden from State prisons to local counties and cities.
When the Governor signed into law realignment he stated that realignment needed to be fully funded with
constitutionally protected source of funds to succeed. Nonetheless, the law was implemented without full
constitutional protected funding for counties and cities; insufficient liability protections to local agencies;
jail space; probation officers; housing and job placement programs; medical and mental health facilities; and
with an inappropriate definition of N3 (non-serious, non-sexual, non-violent) criminal convictions used to
screen inmates for participation in the program.
Two-thirds of California's 58 counties are already under some form of mandated early release. Currently, 20
counties have to comply with maximum population capacity limits enforced by court order, while another 12
counties have self-imposed population caps to avoid lawsuits.
At this time no one knows what the full impact of realignment will ultimately be on crime. We hope that
crime will continue to drop, but with the current experience of the 40,000 offenders realigned since October
2011, and an estimated additional 12,000 offenders being shifted from State prison to local jails and
community supervision by the end of fiscal year 2013-14, it will be very difficult to realize lower crime rates
in the future.
Beginning in October 2011, California State prisons began moving N3 offenders into county jails, the
county probation and court systems, and ultimately funneled them into community supervision or alternative
sentencing program in cities where they will live, work, and commit crime.
Note: There is currently no uniform definition of recidivism throughout the state and no database that can
deliver statistical information on the overall impact realignment has had on all cities in California. Because
of this problem we have used data from Los Angeles County.
The March 4, 2013 report to the Los Angeles County Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (CCJCC)
shows a strong effort and progress in addressing the realignment mandate. However, there is insufficient
funding.
The report also states the jail population continues to be heavily influenced by participants housed locally.
On September 30, 2012, the inmate count in the Los Angeles County Jail was 15,463; on January 31, 2013,
the count was 18,864. The realignment population accounted for 32% of the Jail population; 5,743 offenders
sentenced per Penal Code Section 1170 (h) and 408 parole violations.
By the end of January 2013, 13,535 offenders were released on Post Release Community Supervision
(PRCS) to Los Angeles County including prisoners with the highest maintenance costs because of medical
and drug problems and mental health issues costing counties and local cities millions of dollars in unfunded
mandates since the beginning of the program. Prisoners with prior histories of violent crimes are also being
released without proper supervision. That is why sections of AB 109 must be amended to change the
criteria used to justify the release of N3 inmates to include an offender’s total criminal and mental
history instead of only their last criminal conviction. Using the latter as the key criteria does not provide
13
Attachment A
an accurate risk assessment of the threat these offenders pose to society if they are realigned to county
facilities, or placed on Post Release Community Supervision.
Chief Jerry Powers from the Los Angeles County Probation Department recently stated the release criteria
for N3 offenders “has nothing to do with reality.” He said initially the State estimated the population of
released PRCS offenders would be 50% High Risk, 25% Medium Risk and 25% Low Risk. The reality is
3% are Very High Risk, 55% are High Risk, 40% are Medium Risk and only 2% are Low Risk offenders. He
said the High Risk and serious mentally ill offenders being released “are a very scary population.” One of
the special needs offenders takes the resources of 20-30 other offenders.
Assistant Sheriff Terri McDonald who is the county Jail Administrator recently stated the Jail has only 30
beds for mentally ill offenders being released – when in fact she actually needs 300 beds to accommodate
the volume of serious mentally ill offenders being released that require beds.
Los Angeles County data shows 7,200 released offenders have had some sort of revocation. This number is
expected to increase because of a significant increase in the first four months of year two of realignment that
totals 83% of the entire first year of the program; 4,300 warrants were issued for offenders; 6,200 offenders
have been rearrested; and 1,400 prosecuted. Data reveals one in 10 offenders will test positive for drugs
during the first 72 hours after being released knowing they are required to report to a probation officer
during that time. Only one in three offenders will successfully complete probation.
There are more than 500 felony crimes that qualify State prison inmates for release under realignment. They
will be spending their time in cities with little, if any, supervision.
//////////
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2
Staff: Tim Cromartie (916) 658-8252
Committee: Public Safety Policy Committee
Summary:
This Resolution seeks to outline the deficiencies in the State’s current public safety realignment policy, as
implemented in 2011 by AB 109, and to identify policy changes that will assist State, county and municipal
law enforcement entities to cope with the expanded universe of offenders that are now being directed to
county facilities, resulting in increased related impacts on both local communities and municipal law
enforcement.
Background:
This resolution was brought to the Public Safety Policy Committee by individual members of that committee
who are increasingly concerned about municipal public safety impacts resulting from county jail
overcrowding, a problem that has intensified with realignment, resulting in certain categories of offenders
doing no jail time or being sentenced to time served. This has created a climate in which some offenses
receive little or no jail time, accompanied by a growing body of anecdotal evidence that property crimes
have correspondingly increased, with some, such as auto theft, being committed in serial fashion. Increased
criminal activity has strained the resources of many local police departments already struggling to more
closely coordinate information sharing with county probation offices to effectively monitor offenders on
post-community release supervision.
In addition, there is growing concern about the criteria established for determining which offenders are
eligible for post-release community supervision (the non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders). There is
so much concern that a May 2013 report of California’s Little Hoover Commission recommended adjusting
14
Attachment A
the criteria to examine an offender’s total criminal history rather than merely his or her last known offense,
as a means of more accurately assessing the risk he or she might pose to the community.
Implementation of the realignment policy is handled in part by the Community Corrections Partnerships
established by AB 109, which currently have only one city representative, compared to at least four county-
level representatives.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown impact on the State General Fund. This resolution seeks to establish increased and
constitutionally protected funding for city police departments (and county sheriff’s departments, to the
degree they are contracted to provide police services for cities), but does not specify a dollar amount for the
revenue stream. At a minimum, it would entail an annual revenue stream of at least the amount provided for
cities for front-line law enforcement in the State’s 2013-14 Budget, $27.5 million, indefinitely – although
that revenue stream has never been formally identified by the Brown Administration as having any direct
connection to realignment.
Existing League Policy:
Related to this resolution, existing policy provides:
• The League supports policies establishing restrictions on the early release of state inmates for the
purpose of alleviating overcrowding, and limiting parole hearing opportunities for state inmates
serving a life sentence, or paroled inmates with a violation.
• The League supports increasing municipal representation on and participation in the Community
Corrections Partnerships, which are charged with developing local corrections plans.
• In addition, the Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, included
the promotion of local control for strong cities. The resolution’s objectives of locking in ongoing
funding for front-line municipal law enforcement, and increasing city participation in the
Community Corrections Partnerships, are consistent with promoting local control.
Support:
New this year, any resolutions submitted to the General Assembly must be concurred in by five cities or by
city officials from at least five or more cities. Those submitting resolutions were asked to provide written
documentation of concurrence. The following cities/city officials have concurred: cities of Arroyo Grande;
Covina; Fontana; Glendora; Monrovia; Ontario; Pismo Beach; and Santa Barbara.
15
Attachment A
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution #1
Water Bond Funds
16
Attachment A
17
Attachment A
18
Attachment A
19
Attachment A
20
Attachment A
21
Attachment A
22
Attachment A
23
Attachment A
24
Attachment A
25
Attachment A
26
Attachment A
27
Attachment A
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution #2
Public Safety Realignment
28
Attachment A
29
Attachment A
30
Attachment A
31
Attachment A
32
Attachment A
33
Attachment A
34
Attachment A
35
Attachment A
36
Attachment A