Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-06 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Council Chambers October 6, 2014 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 October 6, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Study Session 6:00-7:00 PM 1.City Council Study Session with Senator Jerry Hill 7:00-8:00 PM 2.Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform Special Orders of the Day 8:00-8:20 PM 3.Selection of Applicants to Interview on October 15, 2014 for the Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board, and Selection of Applicants to Interview on October 22, 2014 for the Planning and Transportation Commission 4.Community Partnership Presentation by Gamble Garden REVISED 2 October 6, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 8:20-8:30 PM Oral Communications 8:30-8:45 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 8:45-8:50 PM August 18, 2014 Consent Calendar 8:50-8:55 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 5.Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy 6.Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services Contract with G&E Engineering Systems, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of $268,400 for the Performance of a Water System Condition Assessment Master Study and a Seismic Master Study (WS-11003) 7.Approval of Amendment to the Lease with R &T Restaurant Corporation for Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Restaurant, 1875 Embarcadero Road and Adoption of Related Budget Amendment Ordinance in the General Fund 8.Approval of a Contract with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority in the Amount of $500,000 for the Baylands Levee Improvements Feasibility Study, Capital Improvement Program Project PE-15028 9.Approval of a Purchase Order with Owen Equipment in a Not to Exceed Amount of $785,469 for the Purchase of Two Vacuum/Flush Trucks (Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement Program VR-13000) 10.Approval of Resolution Extending the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Boundaries and Program Trial for Additional 12 Months 3 October 6, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 11.Response to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the City of East Palo Alto General Plan Update 12.Request for Approval of a Three-Year Blanket Purchase Order with Granite Rock Company in the Total Amount of $1,060,830 to be the Primary Supplier of Asphalt Concrete Products and Request for Approval of a Three-Year Blanket Purchase Order with Granite Construction Company in the Total Amount of $270,000 to be the Secondary Supplier of Asphalt Concrete Products, with Both Blanket Purchase Orders Supplying the Public Works and Utilities Departments From September 22, 2014 through September 21, 2017 (Continued From September 22, 2014) 13.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.28.090 (Lapse of Appropriation) of Chapter 2.28 (Fiscal Procedures), Repealing Section 2.08.145 (Consultation with City Auditor) and Amending Section 2.08.150 (Department of Administrative Services) of Section 2.08 (Officers and Departments) (First Reading: September 22, 2014 PASSED: 9-0) 14.Approval of Annual Williamson Act Contracts and Acceptance of Nonrenewal Notice from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for 5061, 5065, 22601 Skyline Boulevard 15.Adoption of an Ordinance Creating a Business Registry in the City of Palo Alto and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2015 for Costs Related to the Implementation of a Business Registration Program for all Businesses Occupying Commercial Space Within the City and Amendment to the Municipal Fee Schedule and Administrative Penalty Schedule Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 8:55-9:10 PM 16.Public Hearing: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing Underground Utility District No. 46 (Arastradero Road/ El Camino Real/ W. Charleston Road) by amending Section 12.16.02 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code 9:10-10:10 PM 17.Council Review and Direction to Staff Regarding the Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials at 607-811 Hansen Way (CPI) and Possible Zoning Ordinance Amendments 4 October 6, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 10:10-10:40 PM 18.Policy Discussion on Whether to Conduct a Closed Session Prior to an Open Session to Discuss the 2014-2015 Management & Professional Compensation Plan; Possible Referral to Policy & Services Regarding Closed/Open Session Practice for Compensation Matters 10:40-10:50 PM 19. Cubberley Community Center Lease Status and Update Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Closed Session 10:50-11:30 PM 20. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 Properties: Cubberley Community Center, 4000 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto 94306 (including 8 acres owned by the City of Palo Alto and remaining acres owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District); and Ventura School site, 3990 Ventura Court, Palo Alto 94306 Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Hamid Ghaemmaghami, Greg Betts, Rob De Geus, Thomas Fehrenbach, Molly Stump Negotiating Parties: City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District Under Negotiation: Lease and/or Purchase/Sale* *Purchase/sale is listed to comply with Brown Act legal requirements, and include other trabsactions such as easements, options, rights of first refusal and land exchanges. The City os not considering selling any of its interests in Cubberley or Ventura. 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. 21. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY - EXISTING LITIGATIONSubject: Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No.109-CV-154134 Subject Authority: Government Code section 54956.9 At-Place Item 5 October 6, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Meeting, October 7, 2014 Regional Housing Mandate Committee Meeting, October 9, 2014 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary First Quarter Sales (January – March 2014) City of Palo Alto's Energy Risk Management Report for the Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 2014 Update on Stanford Housing Project Located at 1451-1601 California Avenue Time Study for Paramedic, Ambulance, and Fire Apparatus Turnarounds Versus Backing Up Public Letters to Council SET 1 SET 2 SET 3 SET 4 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 6, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California City Council Study Session with Senator Jerry Hill Potential List of Topics for discussion during the meeting with Senator Jerry Hill: 1. Discussion of whether the impending change in Caltrains’ leadership should be accompanied by a review of the organizational relation to Samtrans and the governing structure related to the selection of a CEO and other aspects. (Council Member Burt) 2. Review of the need to convene a discussion and collaboration among mid-peninsula cities to address shared growth and transportation issues. (Council Member Burt) 3. Discussion of Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements. (Council Member Schmid) 4. San Francisquito Creek JPA Flood Control Project and related Golf Course Reconfiguration Project. ( Rob De Geus) 5. Thank you from Utilities Staff. (Val Fong) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5101) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Planned Community Zoning Reform Title: Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This is a study session regarding Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform and no formal action is requested. Executive Summary The Planned Community (PC) zoning district defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38 dates from 1951 and has been used to approve around 100 different projects since then. As amended in 1978, the process allows the City Council to re-zone property to PC if the Council agrees that:  More traditional zoning districts do not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development;  Development of the site will result in specific public benefits not otherwise attainable; and  The proposal is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which is the City’s guiding document when it comes to land use and development issues. While the PC zoning process has resulted in many successful projects like the Opportunity Center and the Tree House, it has come to be viewed as too transactional, allowing neighborhood impacts to be “traded” for benefits that may accrue to people outside of the immediate vicinity. Other concerns have been expressed about the ad hoc nature of each separate negotiation, recent overuse of the PC process, the inadequacy of public benefits obtained, and the inadequacy of monitoring and enforcement. In response to these concerns, the City Council enacted a “time out” on all PC zoning requests on February 3, 2014, and directed staff to return with an analysis of potential reforms and alternatives. Staff began this effort by preparing an outline of the issues associated with PC zoning and a summary of planning tools used by other jurisdictions to address the need for City of Palo Alto Page 2 flexibility in zoning (Attachment C – PC Zoning Reform Summary Report). Staff then enlisted the help of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to further identify issues and potential reforms and alternatives, providing an opportunity for public input as well. A summary of the PTC’s discussions are provided as Attachment A and supported by draft verbatim minutes appended as Attachments H and J. This study session provides the City Council with an opportunity to provide their thoughts about needed reforms or alternatives to the PC zoning process, and also provides an additional opportunity for public input prior to preparation of a draft ordinance. To support the discussion, staff has prepared a table, “Working Draft: Planned Community Zoning Districts 1990-2014”, summarizing the projects that have used the PC zone over the past 20 years (Attachment B) and a brief synopsis of public benefits achieved from 1952-2014 (Attachment D). Background Since the early 1950’s, the City of Palo has zoned sites as Planned Community (PC) to enable them to be used or developed in a manner that would not be allowed under their original zoning district. The process has allowed the City to be responsive to opportunities that have presented themselves, and to proactively address community objectives related to such land uses as affordable housing, small grocery stores, etc. Since the late 1970s, the process has granted flexibility to applicants in exchange for “public benefits,” although the City’s Municipal Code (Section 18.38) does not define what is meant by this term. On February 3, 2014 the City Council received a staff presentation regarding the Planned Community (PC) zoning district (Attachment E –City Council Staff Report - CMR #4414) and voted to: 1. Defer requests for rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) zoning district until the process and requirements regulating the PC zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are revised, and 2. Direct Staff to return to the Council with an analysis of potential revisions and alternatives to the PC zone for public input and discussion. A copy of the excerpt from the minutes of the City Council meeting are contained in Attachment F, February 3, 2014 City Council Minutes (excerpt of item 9). Planning staff prepared a working paper summarizing issues around PC zoning and collected information on how other communities provide for flexibility in meeting zoning requirements when it is appropriate (Attachment C). Then at a study session on August 13th and August 27th, the PTC provided their input on potential reform alternatives. Copies of the PTC staff reports are appended to this report as Attachments G and I. An Executive Summary of the PTC’s City of Palo Alto Page 3 comments is provided in Attachment A, and identifies the following eight key issues (also see the verbatim minutes in Attachments H and J):  The need for a better definition of public benefits.  The need for an independent economic analysis of the proposed public benefit and the value of the requested entitlement.  The need for a clearer process, including clarity about the role of the PTC and the City Council.  The desire to ensure adequate disclosure of ex parte communications.  The need for enhanced monitoring and enforcement of public benefits, and some discussion regarding the desired duration for those benefits.  The idea that some types of projects should be handled via development agreements or precise plans rather than PC zoning.  The possibility that the Comprehensive Plan should identify areas of the City where use of PC zoning is allowed.  The possibility that the PC regulations should cap the degree of variation from the underlying zoning district standards that could be allowed (e.g. the maximum additional density, height, or etc. that could be requested). Overall, the members of the PTC acknowledged that PC zoning has provided a unique opportunity for flexibility in developing specific sites within a zoning code that is otherwise determinative. The Commission also agreed that defining ‘public benefit’ is the greatest challenge in PC zoned projects, along with the enforcement of related agreements. The Commissioners’ comments also touched on the proper sequence of the review process, and the PTC observed that PC Zoning has been used inrefrequently. Since 2007, an average of one PC district action has been approved each year. The PTC also noted another need for flexibility in zoning. The Comprehensive Plan and the zoning adopted to implement it are not always as facile as the community’s need for change. Therefore, the city needs some more flexible tool to use judiciously and thoughfully on occasion. At the PTC’s request, staff prepared a log of PC projects from 2000 to 2014 with project descriptions, a list of public benefits required for each PC, the type of PC, and the trigger that caused the project to require a PC designation rather than compliance with its currently assigned zoning. Because of the value offered to the PTC, this table has been expanded from 1990 to 2014 for the Council’s use (Attachment B). This table includes 47 PC district actions including new and amendments to earlier PC approvals. A synopsis of the type of public benefits that have been required over the 62 years that the zone has been in place was also provided (Attachment D). This historic data demonstrates that project developers have provided a variety of public benefits. Among the most frequently gained public benefits are below market rate housing units, senior housing units, pedestrian oriented landscaping, and various kinds of public parking, public art, and (early on) pre-zoning for annexation to the City. In the case of affordable housing, it is estimated that City of Palo Alto Page 4 a total of 1,097 of affordable housing units have been developed using this zoning tool. Public comments at the PTC’s study session included a suggestion that the City eliminate the use of the PC zone except where it already exists, a suggestion that the City retain the PC zone to address situations where the zoning regulations have not kept pace with community objectives, and a recognition that PC zoning has been used successfully to support the production of affordable housing in Palo Alto. Representatives of the applicant hoping to use the PC zone at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino also submitted comments and suggestions (Attachment K). Timeline Based on the City Council’s discussion at tonight’s study session, planning staff will prepare a draft ordinance for public hearings by the PTC and the City Council as soon as possible. Environmental Review The City Council’s study session does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments:  Attachment A: PTC Executive Summary (PDF)  Attachment B: Working Draft - PC Zoning Log 1990-2014 (PDF)  Attachment C: PC Zoning Reform Summary Report (PDF)  Attachment D: Synopsis of Public Benefits (PDF)  Attachment E: February 3, 2014 City Council Staff Report (CMR #4414 without attachments) (PDF)  Attachment F: February 3, 2014 City Council Excerpt Minutes (PDF)  Attachment G: August 13, 2014 PTC Staff Report ID#4978 without attachments (PDF)  Attachment H: August 13, 2014 PTC Excerpt Draft Verbatim Minutes (PDF)  Attachment I: August 27, 2014 PTC Staff Report ID#5058 without attachments (PDF)  Attachment J: August 27, 2014 PTC Excerpt Draft Verbatim Minutes (PDF)  Attachment K: Public Comments (PDF) August 2014 1 Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session on Planned Community Zoning Reform Executive Summary The City Council approved a “time-out” on all PC zoning requests and directed staff to return with an analysis of reforms and alternatives. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) was asked by staff to review and discuss the current Planned Community (PC) District Zoning requirements to advise the Council on possible alternatives and revisions. The PTC held a study session to discuss PC zoning on August 13, 2014 that was continued to August 27, 2014. As background for its discussion the PTC considered the following: a staff-prepared paper on “Planning Community Zoning Reform: Summary of Issues & Ideas for Further Discussion”; the PC zoning district regulations; a working draft of the log identifying PC approved projects since 1952; a paper on “Flexibility vs. Certainty in zoning in Palo Alto” by Dyett & Bhatia, July 2001; and the “PTC Colleagues Memorandum on PTC Study Session About Determination of Public Benefit”. The PTC expressed particular appreciation for the staff's work in providing relevant data about the City's past experience with PC zones. At the August 13th meeting the PTC focused on identifying the current issues surrounding PC zoning. One concept that emerged from the PTC discussion was that PC zoning provides a unique opportunity for flexibility in developing specific sites within a zoning code that is otherwise determinative. It was noted that changing community needs and values, as well as business needs, frequently move faster than the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map can be updated. Consequently, there should be a flexible development option within the zoning regulations to allow the community to meet new needs included among the city’s development regulations. At the August 27th PTC meeting the Commissioners worked to refine their consensus around the issues identified earlier. Staff prepared several items to assist them (PTC Staff Report August 27, 2014) including: 1.A summary of comments organized into five categories (public benefits, enforcement of public benefit agreements, processing a PC, PC-type projects and the Comprehensive Plan, and PC district regulation); 2.A working draft of a table which reviews the approved PC projects from 2000-2014 (by address, project description, type of project, public benefits provided, and the trigger for using PC zoning); and 3.A synopsis of Public Benefits Required and Gained with PC zoning 1952-2014, providing a closer look at the type of public benefits gained from 2000-2014, including the number and type of low income units the community gained from PC projects. ATTACHMENT A August 2014 2 With this background, at their August 27th meeting the PTC worked to focus and refine their recommendations to Council. Eight issues are discussed below: (i) revisions to public benefits, (ii) use of economic analysis, (iii) the application process for PC zoning, (iv) concerns about ex parte communications, (v) monitoring and enforcement of public benefits, (vi) development agreements as an alternative, (vii) relationship of PC zoning to the Comprehensive Plan, and (viii) restrictions on height, density and minimum setbacks within PC zones. The general consensus of the group was that PC zoning provides a unique opportunity for flexibility to be used to facilitate community needs and, while the process may need refining in a number of areas, PC zoning or something like it should remain in the community’s development tool box. This was predicated on the observation that PC zoning has been and will continue to be used infrequently. There was some discussion about whether the current PC district should continue to be used while it was being revised, about whether the district requirements could be revised while the current regulations were being implemented, and about the link between PC zoning and the Comprehensive Plan which might affect the PC zoning regulations. There was an underlying feeling that a flexible zoning tool with clear review process could be an important implementation tool for the Comprehensive Plan. A number of issues were identified as focal. The PTC took a closer look at these issues and worked toward consensus on them. These were:  Revisions to Public Benefits. There should be a better definition of public benefits, while there was disagreement about providing a menu of such benefits included in the ordinance. In general, it was felt that public benefits for PC projects should not take the form of payments to the City ("extrinsic benefit"). In addition, such benefits should have some flexibility regarding how they might fit the project’s effect ("intrinsic benefit").  Economic Analysis. There was consensus that independent economic analysis or pro forma disclosure should be required of all PC projects, with the intention that public benefit might be reasonably correlated to the estimated value of any up-zoning.  Processing a PC application. There was consensus that there should be clarification about the respective roles of the City Council, PTC and ARB in the definition of public benefits. Whereas the ordinance specifies that the PTC initiates a PC zoning application, there have been instances where preliminary review has been conducted by Council. The PTC feels that it should retain responsibility for the initiation of PC zoning applications, or that the ordinance should be revised to require initiation by Council.  Policy regarding Ex Parte Communications. There was considerable discussion about ‘ex parte’ meetings by applicants of PC projects, whether these should occur at either the PTC or Council levels and, if so, whether adequate disclosure of the matters discussed may avoid inference of improper bias. August 2014 3  Enforcement of Public Benefits. There was consensus that the PC regulations should be reviewed to provide a reasonable process for enforcement of public benefits, including effective monitoring. The expected duration of public benefits relative to their need for enforcement was discussed. There was consensus that the public benefit should last for the life of the project, but less agreement for setting a fixed time such as 30 years.  PC zoning v. Development Agreements. There was concern that PC zoning should not be used when a Development Agreement could achieve the same end, in part because of the differences in the way that the public benefits can be addressed with each tool. Some Commissioners felt that the PC process could be revised to include payments toward public benefits more distant from the project site, which is allowed in Development Agreements. There was less agreement on whether there should be greater use of Development Agreements.  Relationship of PC zoning to the Comprehensive Plan. Should the Comprehensive Plan indicate where use of PC zoning is appropriate and how PC zoning should be used in areas defined by a Precise Plan or other plan? The response to this question was colored by how much the members knew about how Precise Plans and Specific Plans work within the Comprehensive Plan. There was some endorsement of the concept that the Comprehensive Plan should indicate areas where it is most appropriate to allow use of the PC zoning tool. Many of the Commissioners thought that the use of PC zoning should be limited by the Plan, but there was little further discussion on what areas should be excluded. There was consensus that there should be an increase in the use of Precise Plans and Specific Plans to accomplish zoning implementation.  Physical limitations within PC regulations. A general question was asked about the value of establishing physical limitations in the PC zoning regulation. There was some agreement that this would be useful and possible items to limit had been discussed earlier, such as maximum height, density, and minimum setbacks. An issue discussed throughout the PTC review of PC zoning was the need for clarity in the zoning regulations and processing procedure to benefit all the parties: the developer, the public, the reviewing bodies and Council. Revision to the PC regulations to address the issues identified is called for. Overall, the use of PC zoning has been infrequent: about once a year recently. The benefits to the community from the flexibility gained have been substantial as documented by the data. However, the public confidence in the effectiveness of the PC zoning and process is weak, and needs to be addressed. PC NO. ORIGINAL ADDRESS PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPROVAL DATE PUBLIC BENEFITS TRIGGER FOR PC PC-3974 529 Bryant Street and 251 University 529 Bryant Street and 251 University 8/6/1990 New Commercial Provision of pedestrian and activity oriented improvements to the nearby Civic Center Plaza; preservation and reuse of Category II and Category III historic buildings; reduction of the development potential in the downtown area; street trees; provisions of recycling containers for downtown businesses. Setbacks PC-3995 520 Webster Street 520 Webster Street Parking Lot J: Amendment to PC Ordinance 3499 to add 2 levels to the existing 5 level parking garage 12/11/1990 Amended, 3499 Commercial Addition of two-floors of public parking; reversion of the 2 additional floors of parking from private to public parking after 15 years; developer to maintain seven floor garage structure for 15 years; upfront cash lease payment of $150,000 for public amenities, improvements, and maintenance within the University Avenue Parking Assessment District; seismic upgrade of structure; use of additional parking spaces for public purposes on evenings and weekends during 15 year lease term. Amendment PC-4052 531 Cowper Street 535 Cowper Street Construction of three-story building.9/3/1991 New Commercial Upgrading of Cowper St. entry to the Webster/Cowper garage including widened sidewalk, special paving treatment, lighting and landscaping, a covered pedestrian arcade; $150,000 to the City's Child Care Trust Fund for child care facility downtown. Land Use PC-4053 330 Everett Avenue 330 Everett Avenue Lytton IV Senior Housing: Construction of housing for low and very low income seniors. 9/23/1991 New Residential Housing for low and very low income seniors.Density, parking PC-4063 251 University Avenue 485 Ramona Street Amendment to PC Ordinance 3974 to delete the ground floor retail restrictions.12/16/1991 Amended, 3974 Commercial Voluntary seismic upgrade of historic category III building to reduce potential harm to life and property. Amendment, Land use, setbacks PC-4113 260 Sheridan 260 Sheridan Amendment to PC Ordinance 2224 to allow a roof top communication antenna facility.11/2/1993 Amended, 2224 Commercial Expanded cellular radio and telephone services in the community.Amendment, Land Use PC-4127 275 Cambridge Avenue 275 Cambridge Avenue Parking lot C-3: Construction of two-level parking garage.2/8/1993 New Commercial Public parking in the California Avenue Business District.Lot coverage, setbacks PC-4173 555 Byron Street 555 Byron Street Hamilton Senior Living Community: Construction of 36 independent living units for seniors plus common dining facilities and accessory uses typical of a senior living facility. 9/27/1993 New Residential Housing with support services; contributions totaling $500,000 plus resale fees will be used to provide benefits for seniors and senior services. Density PC-4182 12 University Circle 625 El Camino Real Holiday Inn: Amendment to PC Ordinance 3902 to allow for retention of 343 existing guest rooms and allow reduction of 351 parking spaces to 346 spaces. 11/8/1993 Amended, 3902 Commercial Sales tax revenue from additional hotel rooms; 13 unused kitchenettes; 23 rooms have spillover benefits to other businesses. Amendment, parking TYPE OF PC WORKING DRAFT: PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS 1990-2014 (Including new or amended PC Zoning Districts ) Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, September 2014 ATTACHMENT B 1 PC NO. ORIGINAL ADDRESS PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPROVAL DATE PUBLIC BENEFITS TRIGGER FOR PCTYPE OF PC WORKING DRAFT: PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS 1990-2014 (Including new or amended PC Zoning Districts ) PC-4190 4156 El Camino Real 4168 El Camino Real Townhouse Motel: construction and operation of new 15 unit motel.12/13/1993 Amended, 3041 Commercial Elimination of land use conflicts; the comprehensive plan land use designation is retained; and improve traffic flow and safety along El Camino Real. Amendment PC-4195 533 Bryant Street 533 Bryant Street The Byxbee Housing: Restoration and Rehabilitation of historic house into two apartment units and construction of a 1,635 square foot four- unit apartment building. 1/18/1994 New Residential Retention and restoration of historic structure; improve visual and functional quality of the alley; increase the supply of housing available to low- income households; and benefit transportation. Density, parking PC-4238 400 Emerson Street 400 Emerson Street Construction of an 8,100 square foot mixed use building including one residential unit and approximately 5,833 square feet of commercial uses. 10/11/1994 New Mixed 1 housing unit; a public drinking fountain and an art niche.Mixed use PC-4243 202 Everett Avenue 316 Ramona Street Construction of 22 medium sized 3 and 4 bedroom homes. 11/7/1994 Amended, 3111 Residential Variety of housing types for sale; street improvements and landscaping along Ramona Street. Design PC-4262 330 Emerson Street 330 Emerson Street construction of 4 below market rate units Note: Project is related to PC-4243 3/6/1995 New Residential Increase the supply of low and moderate-income housing; four rental units for individuals with very low incomes. Land Use, Density PC-4268 200 Sheridan Avenue 2660 Park Boulevard Sheridan Plaza: Construction of 30 multi-family residential units in a 52,900 sq. ft. four-story building with two levels of underground parking.4/3/1995 New Residential 5 BMR units (2 more than required); new public improvements including street trees; public art; and public plaza. Density, building height, lot coverage PC-4283 725 Alma Street 753 Alma Street Alma Place: Construction of 107 Single Room Occupancy units and 1,800 sq. ft. of leasable office space. 7/17/1995 New Residential Housing for low-income and very-low income persons.Land Use, density, and parking PC-4296 480 Cowper Street 499 University Avenue Construction of a three-story mixed use or commercial building.10/1/1995 New Mixed Strong architectural design; sidewalk brick pavers; $100,000 to the funding of improvements to the University Avenue/Cowper Street intersection area consistent with CIP for the downtown area; art work on the outside of the building. Height PC-4339 308 Bryant Court 336 Bryant Court Construction of detached single family residential units.4/1/1996 New Residential Clustering of detached Single Family Residential homes on small lots; variety of housing types; desirable street improvements. Mixed use, density, design PC-4354 2700 Ash Street 2700 Ash Street Page Mill Court Apartments: Construction of 18,684 square foot multiple family residential project accommodating 24 unit residential housing for very low income and developmentally disabled housing. 7/8/1996 New Residential Housing for very-low income and developmentally disabled; leveraging of housing funds to serve Palo Alto community. Parking PC-4374 101 Alma Street 150 Palo Alto Avenue Amendment to PC Ordinance 1802 to allow rooftop multi-user wireless communication facility as a permitted use. 6/1/1996 Amended, 1802 Commercial None listed; Land Use Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, September 2014 2 PC NO. ORIGINAL ADDRESS PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPROVAL DATE PUBLIC BENEFITS TRIGGER FOR PCTYPE OF PC WORKING DRAFT: PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS 1990-2014 (Including new or amended PC Zoning Districts ) PC-4389 901 Alma Street 909 Alma Street Construction of mixed use project including 4,425 sq. ft. of office and 4 residential units.12/9/1996 New Mixed Good design project; desirable street improvements; colored concrete paving along Channing Ave and Alma Street and a 1,786 square foot pedestrian plaza facing Channing Ave; public art; and resurfacing of ally adjacent to site. Mixed use, density, design PC-4426 600 Sand Hill Road 650 Clark Way Stanford West Senior Housing: Independent living/condominium units; health care center including assisted living units and a skilled nursing facility. 7/14/1997 New Residential Specialized housing and health services needed in the community; increase the network of paths and trails. Land Use PC-4436 390 Lytton Avenue 390 Lytton Avenue Construction of 18,921 square foot office, retail, financial, and personal uses building.7/28/1997 New Commercial 10-foot wide pedestrian walkway dedication; public art; $75,000 for traffic study for Downtown North; new bus stop bench on Lytton Avenue; repair existing tree wells and new street trees. Density PC-4448 4290 El Camino Real 4290 El Camino Real Crown Plaza Palo Alto: 200 guest room hotel, dinning room, restaurant, and bar/lounge including 180,000 square feet for hotel rooms and 12,000 sq. ft. for conference room and banquet facilities. 9/22/1997 Amended, 2006 Commercial 2 new pedestrian-scale street lights along Adobe Creek bridge; gateway improvements.parking, height PC-4463 435 Sheridan Avenue 435 Sheridan Avenue Construction of 58,422 sq. ft. multiple residential building and 31,183 sq. ft. for underground auto parking. 11/3/1997 New Residential Public Art, 10-foot sidewalk dedication along Page Mill Rd.; street trees.Density PC-4465 675 El Camino Real 691 El Camino Real Palo Alto Holiday Inn: 194 room 5-story hotel complex including 127,019 sq. ft. for hotel rooms and 97,646 sq. ft. of underground auto parking 1/1/1997 New Commercial 5-foot wide right-of-way dedication for sidewalk; Non-Profit Meeting Space through 2001; $150,000 towards pedestrian crossing; public art; $20,000 for improvements to pedestrian tunnel on south side of University Avenue. Density, height PC-4511 502 Driscoll Place 562 Driscoll Place Construction of 44,000 square feet including 26 residential units, private residential yards and public open space 7/27/1998 New Residential Traffic Reduction Program; 4 BMR units (1.4 more than required); Pedestrian oriented landscaping along El Camino Real. Density, setbacks, daylight plane PC-4611 445 Bryant Street 445 Bryant Street Construction of a public parking structure with ground floor commercial.3/1/2000 New Commercial public parking; landscape plaza and pedestrian access through the block; electrical connections for electrical vehicles; and public art. Land Use (public parking garage) PC-4612 528 High Street 528 High Street Construction of a multistory parking garage.3/20/2000 New Commercial public parking; landscape plaza and pedestrian access through the block; electrical connections for electrical vehicles; and public art. Land Use (public parking garage) PC-4637 3000 El Camino Real 755 Page Mill Road Amended PC-2533 District to permit child care uses on site.5/22/2000 Amended, 2533 Commercial Establishment of child care facility.Land Use (add child care center) PC-4753 2051 El Camino Real 2051 El Camino Real 4,555 sq. ft. three-story building; 2 residential units; 511 sq. ft. ground floor retail; 1,191 sq. ft. for neighborhood business and personal services. 6/13/2002 New Mixed Mixed use building within walking distance of California Avenue; 1-BMR unit not required by the City's housing programs. Land Use (mixed use), density, setbacks, daylight plane, lot coverage Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, September 2014 3 PC NO. ORIGINAL ADDRESS PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPROVAL DATE PUBLIC BENEFITS TRIGGER FOR PCTYPE OF PC WORKING DRAFT: PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS 1990-2014 (Including new or amended PC Zoning Districts ) PC-4779 140 Homer Avenue 800 High Street 800 High Street; Demolition of an existing 17,600 sq. ft. manufacturing building; construction of 96,200 sq. ft. mixed-use building including 61 for- sale dwelling units; 1,900 sq. ft. of retail space; and subterranean parking garage. 2/18/2003 New Residential Replace unoccupied/deteriorated site; 10 BMR units; Public Access to plaza with required seating, and public parking. Land Use (mixed use), height, daylight plane PC-4782 33 Encina Avenue 33 Encina Avenue Opportunity Center; replace existing 5,260 sq. ft. of commercial space and 2 parking lots with 45,800 sq. ft. building with 8,100 sq. ft. of community service area and 89 of income restricted multi- family rental housing. 3/17/2003 New Residential A service center for homeless and those at risk of homelessness; 89 housing units for low and very low income persons. Land Use (mixed use), density, parking PC-4831 2701 El Camino Real 2701 El Camino Real Sunrise of Palo Alto; 65,000 sq. ft. senior assisted living facility including 81 rental units.6/21/2004 New Residential Accessible Public Amenity Areas; 12 BMR units; $20,000 for median improvements and trees for EC Project; Public Art. Land Use (special needs), square footage, FAR, Height, parking PC-4843 690 San Antonio Avenue 690 San Antonio Avenue Amended PC-2592 to permit certain automobile dealership design standards.10/4/2004 Amended, 2592 Commercial Automobile Display Pad.Land Use, design standards, auto sales PC amendment PC-4846 1730 Embarcadero Road 1730 Embarcadero Road Renumber and amend PC-2554 to permit certain automobile dealership design standards.10/4/2004 Amended, 2554 Commercial Automobile Display Pad.Land Use, design standards, auto sales PC amendment PC-4847 1766 Embarcadero Road 2480 Faber Place Renumber and amend PC-3550 to permit certain automobile dealership design standards.10/4/2004 Amended, 3550 Commercial Automobile Display Pad.Land Use, design standards, auto sales PC amendment PC-4917 896 Altaire Walk 3895 Fabian Way Alta Torre; demolition of existing 265,000 sq. ft. office building; construction of 216,700 sq. ft. of residential living including 103 for sale dwelling units and 56 BMR senior apartment units; at-grade parking garage. 10/6/2006 New Residential 56 BMR Senior Apartments; 5,000 sq. ft. shared plaza; low interest second mortgage program for local employees with $500,000 initial fund; $480,000 towards Charleston Arastradero Plan. Land Use (mixed use), density, parking PC-4918 901 San Antonio Avenue 3921 Fabian Way Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life; Demolition of commercial parking lot; construction of 432,200 sq. ft. mixed-use building including 193 condominium style congregate care and assisted living senior dwelling units; 134,100 sq. ft. community center space, and an at-grade parking garage. 10/10/2006 New Mixed Shared Use of the Jewish Community Center (JCC); conversion of commercially planned and zoned land for residential uses containing diverse housing types. Land Use , height, variance, daylight plane PC-4919 /8659 532 Homer Avenue 850 Webster Street Channing House; Demolition of an existing cottage and construction of a two-story 32,185 sq. ft. health care building providing 53 beds for skilled nursing and assisted living residents. 12/18/2006 Amended, 4900 Residential Facilities for senior living.Land Use, parking , daylight plane. Amendment (8659) PC-4956 3388 Alma Village Circle 3557 Alma Village Circle Alma Village; 17,300 sq. ft. ground floor retail; 3,500 basement office, storage and services; 3 separate buildings comprising 5,580 sq. ft. of commercial; 1,330 sq. ft. community meeting room; 14 BMR units; 37 detached single-family residences. 6/18/2007 Amended, 1362 Mixed 15,000 sq. ft. for grocery store; park land dedication 0.2 acres; Mixed use building constructed to the LEED Silver standards; 14 BMR units; 1,330 sq. ft. community meeting room. Land Use (mixed) Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, September 2014 4 PC NO. ORIGINAL ADDRESS PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPROVAL DATE PUBLIC BENEFITS TRIGGER FOR PCTYPE OF PC WORKING DRAFT: PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS 1990-2014 (Including new or amended PC Zoning Districts ) PC-4973 449 Addison Avenue 449-451 Addison Avenue Subdivision of parcel into two parcels for the benefit of preserving both historic residences.3/10/2008 New Residential Preservation of 2 historic homes; Category IV and II.Land Use (reduce density, historic preservation) PC-5034 488 West Charleston Road 488 West Charleston Road Tree House; 35 Below Market Rate rental apartments.3/30/2009 Amended, 2565 Residential 35 BMR units (8 Extremely Low Income and 27 Very Low Income). Amendment, increase density PC-5069 2121 Staunton Court 2180 El Camino Real JJ&F Market; 57,900 sq. ft. including grocery store, other retail spaces and office space, and eight affordable housing units; NOTE project extended via ordinance 5061, the extension ordinance. 1/11/2010 New Mixed 8,000 sq. ft. neighborhood-serving grocery market; 4 BMR units; $5,000 for tree planting along El Camino Real median. Land Use (mixed), parking PC-5116 4025 El Camino Way 3075 El Camino Way Palo Alto Commons; New building to house a 44 unit expansion of the existing senior assisted rental housing facility 3/21/2011 Amended, 3775 Residential Rental senior assisted housing; roadway, pedestrian, and bus stop improvements; and $100,000 to Avenidas to be ear-marked for the age at home program for low-income seniors. Land Use, density PC-5150 2080 Channing Avenue 2190 West Bayshore Road Edgewood Plaza; Renovation of 3 existing Eichler Retail structures, on-site relocation of one retail structure, 10 new single-family homes, and .02 acre park. 4/12/2013 Amended, 1643 Mixed Preservation and renovation of historically significant shopping center; 20,600 sq. ft. grocery store; 0.20 acre Public Park, and 3 electric vehicle (EV) stations. Land use (mixed), density PC-5158 335 & 355 Alma Street 101 Lytton Lytton Gateway; Four Story Mixed Office and Retail Project containing 52,163 sq. ft. of floor area.6/11/2012 New Mixed 3,807 sq. ft. of ground floor retail uses and eating area proximate to the train station; 1,640 sq. ft. of subsidized non-profit office space; 2 EV charging stations at off-site parking spaces directly adjacent to the site along Alma street (one level 3 and one level 2 charging station); 2 additional level 2 EV charging stations in the below-grade garage; 1 zip car rental within the surface parking lot; 8 surface parking spaces available to the public at all hours daily, and 16 underground spaces available to the public on nights and weekends; Provision of CalTrain Go-passes, Eco Passes or the equivalent, as part of the TDM program, for all employees of the commercial spaces; Financial Contributions: 1)$625,000 towards affordable housing ; 2)$625,000 3)$250,000 for Neighborhood Parking Preservation; 3)$60,000 Downtown Parking Analysis. Land Use (mixed), height, daylight plane, parking Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, September 2014 5 PC Zoning Reform Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion August 2014 - Page 1 Planned Community Zoning Reform: Summary of Issues & Ideas for Further Discussion The Planned Community (PC) zoning process, whereby the City of Palo Alto and a developer negotiate site-specific design and development standards in exchange for “public benefits,” has been the subject of recent community criticism. Many view the process as too opaque and lacking of standards. Others criticize it as too transactional, allowing neighborhood impacts to be “traded” for benefits that accrue to those outside the immediate vicinity. Concerns have been raised about overuse of the PC process and proliferation of buildings that do not comply with underlying zoning. Concerns have also been raised about the inadequacy of the public benefits. Finally, the ad hoc nature of each separate negotiation has contributed to community concerns about the lack of a coherent set of values or vision for the future. Based on these concerns, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and others have offered their analysis and suggestions about ways to improve the process. During the City Council December 2, 2013 “Future of Our City” discussion, the PC Process and the need for possible reform was discussed. One of the questions posed by Staff was: “How should we re- examine the PC process and address the community’s concerns about the exchange of new development entitlements of public benefits.” While no formal action was taken by Council, staff was directed to bring action items back to the City Council for direction related to the issues discussed. On February 3, 2014 the City Council voted to place a “time-out” on PC projects to allow an examination of potential alternatives and reforms. At that time, the City Council also directed staff to return to Council with an analysis of potential revisions to the PC zoning process for public input and discussion. The purpose of this report is to provide an initial outline of the issues associated with PC zoning that have been identified, to summarize prior analyses and suggestions for PC reform at a high level, and to start to build reform alternatives. Inherently, this report acknowledges that to be successful, PC zoning reform must provide greater clarity regarding the City’s expectations for projects seeking approval under the PC zoning provisions, and must result in a process that ensures projects are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and achieve the right balance between flexible development standards and the public good. The process should also provide ample opportunities for public participation along with a rational process for applications to be accepted, or initiated, into the PC zoning process, and for their review and consideration. This report has been prepared in advance of developing a formal ordinance to allow for review and comment. This approach will afford the PTC and the public with an opportunity to review the data collected, review the analyses of the issue to date, and provide feedback before alternatives are fully developed. Recognizing that zoning regulations generally and PC zoning ATTACHMENT C PC Zoning Reform Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion August 2014 - Page 2 regulations specifically are not always well understood, staff is also taking a few additional steps to get community input on this issue. Staff has developed a brief factsheet which will be posted on its website and disseminated to the public. In addition, staff is requesting public comments regarding the following three questions: 1. What concerns you most about PC Zoning? 2. If the PC process is reformed to include a menu of potential public benefits, what do you think should be on that list? 3. Do you have any other ideas for PC reform? The Planning and Transportation Commission will hold a study session to discuss PC reform at a study session on August 13, 2014. The public is encouraged to attend the meeting and provide comments. Alternatively, comments may be submitted to Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner, by email at consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org. Comments submitted by close of business on September 12, 2014 will inform preparation of a staff report to the City Council. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a study session on PC reform on October 6, 2014. The Objectives of Planned Community (PC) Zoning Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code provides development standards and procedures for the development of land and is referred to as the “zoning code” or zoning ordinance. A typical zoning ordinance defines various zoning classifications, outlines restrictions such as permitted and conditional uses, site development regulations (i.e. height limitations and densities), and provides procedures for granting amendments and variances. Zoning codes also provide opportunities for comprehensively planned development where relief from the development regulations may be needed to accommodate the improvement. Local jurisdictions use a variety of techniques to allow variations from development standards including Planned Developments, Planned Unit Developments, Master Development Plans, Neighborhood/Area Plans and Specific Plans. These techniques afford local jurisdictions with the ability to encourage unified planning and development, promote economically beneficial development patterns that are compatible with the character of existing neighborhoods, allow design flexibility, and encourage the protection and conservation of natural resources. The City of Palo Alto has historically used PC Zoning to address some of these same goals. Chapter 18.38, PC Planned Community District Regulations, of Title 18 provides standards and procedures for consideration of PC proposals (Attachment A – P.A.M.C. Chapter 18.38). The City of Palo Alto established the regulations for PC districts with the adoption of the City’s Original Ordinance on February 19, 1951 (Ordinance No. 1324). The original purpose of the PC district, which remained unchanged for 27 years, was the following: “The PC district is designed to accommodate various types of development such as neighborhood and district shopping centers, professional and administrative areas, multiple housing developments, single-family residential developments, commercial PC Zoning Reform Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion August 2014 - Page 3 service centers and industrial parks or any other use or combination of uses which can be made appropriately as part of a planned development.” The initial PC district regulations established the permitted uses, conditional uses, height and space requirements for the Development Plan (including a map of street system, land use plan, public amenities, plot plans, parking and circulation diagrams, and landscape plans), and requirements for the project’s development schedule. The PC district regulations were revised in 1978 and have largely remained intact until the present. The specific purpose of the PC district now reads: “The PC planned community district is intended to accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” Other Techniques for Achieving the Objectives of PC Zoning As noted above, local jurisdictions can use a variety of tools to achieve objectives similar to those of PC zoning. In Palo Alto, there are tools such as variances and design enhancement exceptions (DEEs) that allow relief from development standards where there is a hardship (in the case of variances) or where it would benefit the proposed design (in the case of DEEs). Palo Alto has also used development agreements to provide for comprehensively planned development in exchange for public benefits. Palo Alto Resolution No. 6597 (adopted March 9, 1987) established procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements (Attachment B – Resolution No. 6597) pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5. The statute authorizes cities and counties to enter into binding agreements with owner/developers for the development of real property, and these agreements are generally used for complex projects that will build-out over time. For instance, a development agreement was processed for the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Project, which contained a ten year build out period. Development agreements provide the jurisdiction with public benefits and provide the developer a level of certainty about what it can build and what conditions and mitigation measures will be required. Typically, development agreements allow greater flexibility to the local jurisdiction in determining conditions and requirements for the project than would otherwise be allowed, and in exchange, provide the developer greater assurances that the project can be built over a long time period once it is approved without fear that new regulations might significantly affect the later phases of development. PC Zoning Reform Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion August 2014 - Page 4 The planning process for a development agreement varies somewhat by jurisdiction, but generally includes evaluation of the proposed project and negotiation of the agreement. Development Agreements can only be entered into after environmental review and public input. They can also be costly and take a significant amount of staff time to process. In addition to development agreements, local jurisdictions in California use techniques such as Planned Development Districts, Planned Unit Developments, Master Development Plans, Neighborhood/Area Plans, and Specific Plans to foster flexibility or relief from development standards, while achieving community objectives. Some of these tools are summarized in Table 1 below and in the text that follows. (Note: There is considerable overlap in these terms and cities employ them differently. Please view this summary as general and not determinative.) Table 1 Other Planning Tools Used to Achieve Some Objectives of PC Zoning Planning Tool Function Planned Development  Tailored zoning district for large parcels of land  Designates the zoning regulations for the accompanying project Planned Unit Development  Special type of overlay district or approval action (like a glorified use permit)  Planned and built as a complete project Master Development Plan  Applies to a specific site or area  Conceptual plan consistent with the Comprehensive Plan  May or may not be accompanied by regulatory development standards Neighborhood /Area Plan  Adopted as a Comprehensive Plan amendment or as a regulatory framework (zoning ordinance)  Sets vision and/or development framework  Applies to small geographic area Specific Plan  Separate document not part of Comprehensive Plan  Adopted as an ordinance  Area is defined through planning process  Sets vision and development framework  Implementation regulated through development standards, design standards and guidelines Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, August 2014 PC Zoning Reform Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion August 2014 - Page 5  Planned Development Planned Development (PD) Districts are used to implement the objectives and policies of the General Plan. PD Districts are generally tailored for specific districts, and are adopted via an ordinance which designates the zoning regulations for the accompanying project, sets specific development standards, and ensures that zoning and the General Plan are consistent. A PD district is intended to ensure orderly planning and quality urban design that is in harmony with the existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhood. The question of “public benefits” does not factor into PD Districts explicitly, but the districts generally contain desired amenities. The City of Sunnyvale is a nearby jurisdiction that uses PD Districts.  Planned Unit Development The term Planned Unit Development (PUD) is used to describe a type of development and the regulatory process that allows a developer to meet overall community density and land use goals without being bound by all existing zoning requirements. A PUD can be a special type of overlay district which does not appear on the municipal zoning map until a designation is approved, or it can be the name given to a type of approval, like a glorified conditional use permit. Regulations enabling PUDs generally include provisions to encourage clustering of buildings, designation of common open space, and incorporation of a variety of building types and mixed land uses. A PUD is planned and built as a complete project thus fixing the type and location of uses and buildings over the entire project. Potential benefits of a PUD include more efficient site design, amenities such as open space, as well as necessary street construction and utility extension. The City of Gilroy is a nearby jurisdiction that uses PUDs for large (i.e. over 100 units) residential tracts.  Master Development Plan Cities generally prepare master plans for certain locations or types of development. They can address development of specific property for commercial or other uses, or the development of a class of projects like wireless facilities. A “master” plan is not a long- range guide like a Comprehensive Plan, but rather describes the final expected outcome of a large site and may be used to direct development on smaller sites. It is conceptual in nature and serves as the structure for policies to guide the future development. These types of plans may or may not be accompanied with supplemental regulatory plans outlining development standards and land uses. Many times master plans relate to city-owned land. For example, the City is preparing a Long Range Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Treatment Plant. Cupertino is a nearby jurisdiction that has used master development plans.  Neighborhood/Area Plans There are two types of neighborhood or area plans. The first consists of policy documents adopted as a general plan amendment. They address land uses, PC Zoning Reform Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion August 2014 - Page 6 intensities/densities, and related issues in a specific geographic area and define how land should be used in the future. As a policy document, rather than a regulatory one, these types of plans refine the policies of the general plan as they apply to smaller geographic areas and are implemented by local zoning ordinances. Another type of neighborhood or area plan is regulatory in nature, and provides specific development standards for a given geographic area. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 19.10 (Coordinated Area Plans) provides the regulations and requirements for these types of plans. The South of Forest Area (SOFA) is the only Coordinated Area Plan in the City.  Specific Plan A Specific Plan is a regulatory tool that local governments use to implement the General Plan and to guide development in a localized area. While the General Plan is the primary guide for growth and development in a community, a Specific Plan is able to focus on the unique characteristics of a special area by customizing the planning process and land use regulations to that area. A Specific Plan is enacted pursuant to Section 65450 et seq. of the California Government Code1. In general, a Specific Plan is designed to establish a vision and development framework for a designated area and the means to implement that vision. Specific plans generally contain detailed development standards, as well as design guidelines. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 19.06 (Specific Plans) provides the regulations and requirements for these types of plans. Based on staff’s research, most jurisdictions have planning tools that are similar to PC Zoning district ordinances in the sense that they permit enactment of site-specific development standards, usually with a focus on good site design and public amenities. While none include an explicit requirement for a “public benefit” per se, most ordinances establish overlay zones or their equivalent, set a minimum area of land that can be planned in this way, and include a list of eligible deviations from development standards and a pre-determined description or menu of desired public amenities. The PC Zoning Process & History Rezoning to a PC district currently follows a set of procedures and standards. Chapter 18.38, PC Planned Community District Regulations (Attachment A), outlines the application process for a PC District. The process begins with the PTC review of the concept plans, development program statement and draft development schedule. In practice, the City Council often provides a preliminary review of a PC proposal prior to the initiation of formal review by the PTC. If the PTC recommends initiating the PC request, the development plan, site plan, landscape plan and design plans are submitted to the ARB for design review in the same manner as any commercial or mixed-use project. The ARB reviews the Development Plan and forwards their 1 http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/specific_plans/sp_part1.html PC Zoning Reform Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion August 2014 - Page 7 recommendation to the PTC. The Development Plan, with an environmental review document, is then returned to the PTC together with a draft PC ordinance, for review and recommendation to the City Council. The PC ordinance identifies the permitted and conditionally permitted uses and site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the project. The City Council is then required to make three findings in order to approve a PC zone change. The City Council has approved over 100 PC districts beginning in 1951 with PC-1362 at 3401-45 Alma Street for commercial uses and an automobile service station. The general types of PC districts that have been established include approximately 40% commercial, 50% residential and 10% mixed-use projects. (See Attachment C – Working Draft: Approved PC Zone Change Log.) It’s important to note that PC Zoning has resulted in many projects that are broadly accepted and appreciated over the years, such as the Opportunity Center. In addition, the PC process is a powerful tool by which the City can secure valuable public benefits that may or may not have a direct nexus to the potential impacts of the proposed project. Issues & Concerns with the PC Zoning Process Over the years, concerns have been raised by the community about the PC Zoning process and some have offered solutions/suggestions about ways to improve the process. For instance, in July 2001 Dyett & Bhatia in completing the Zoning Ordinance Update presented a discussion paper for Palo Alto around “Flexibility vs. Certainty” (Attachment D – Discussion Paper). Similarly, on March 27, 2013 the PTC presented a colleagues memorandum about determination of public benefit (Attachment E – Colleagues Memorandum) and held a study session (Attachment F – PTC March 27, 2013 Meeting Minutes). Staff has grouped the concerns raised in these document and those heard from the Council, PTC and public into three general areas: 1) the Establishment of PC Districts; 2) Application process; and 3) Public Benefits. Establishment of Districts As described in PAMC Chapter 18.38, a PC district, which allows an unlimited range of uses, can be established anywhere in the City subject to a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, a determination that a “public benefit” is provided, and site development regulations tailored to the development plan. The code does not explicitly set any other form of eligibility determination such as minimum land area or use requirement to clarify the types of projects that should be considered under PC zoning. One major issue with such flexibility, as noted by Dyett & Bhatia in their 2001 report, is that there is no explicit requirement contained in the PC district regulations tying density/intensity limits to the existing Comprehensive Plan. As such, a developer can propose a project that is above the maximum density and address the requirement for Comprehensive Plan consistency by requesting a concurrent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. PC Zoning Reform Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion August 2014 - Page 8 The PC ordinance also fails to identify a specific location or area in the City that is appropriate or desired for rezoning to a PC. The regulations do set authority to impose conditions as needed to ensure neighborhood compatibility. For instance, section 18.38.150, Special Requirements, defines five special requirements for “sites abutting or having any portion located within one hundred fifty feet of any R-E, R-1, R-2, RM, or any PC district permitting residential.” Application Process According to the City’s Municipal Code, an application for rezoning to a PC district can be submitted for any type of project for any given zone or area in the City as long as it follows the application process described above. In practice, the City has recently added a number of additional procedural steps, including an early check-in with the City Council prior to initiation of a PC project by the PTC, and more recently, the City Manager directed that PC’s have an independent third party assessment of value and benefit. Clearly, the code should better identify how a PC request should be evaluated and the process that should be used. Many have also mentioned the need for a comprehensive economic analysis with a comparison to underlying zoning. Public Benefit There are three general concerns associated with the public benefit component of the PC ordinance; definition, required finding, and enforcement. According to Section 18.38.010, Specific Purposes, “the planned community district is particularly intended for unified comprehensive planned developments which are of substantive public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” Unfortunately the code does not define how a project can be categorized as being of “substantive public benefit.” Is the project considered a public benefit, or are public benefits provided to offset the impact of the development in exchange for flexibility in meeting the intent of the development standards? Some contend that benefits inherent to the project are not sufficient, while others argue that if the project has no inherent public benefit then no PC should be approved. Stated another way, some members of the public feel that a proposed amenity should be unrelated to the incentive or development flexibility provided, while others contend that the neighborhood immediately surrounding the PC project suffers the most from the impacts, and should therefore directly benefit from amenities provided by the developer. These two perspectives must be reconciled via revisions to Section 18.38. According to Section 18.36.060(b), approval of a PC project by the City Council requires a finding that the “development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts.” In this instance the code again fails to clearly define what “public benefits” are and whether or not there should be a nexus between the amenity PC Zoning Reform Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion August 2014 - Page 9 and the incentive. In addition to defining “public benefit” or listing acceptable benefits, Section 18.38 could be revised to include more specific, additional findings. Section 18.38.160, Inspections, of the code states that “each PC district shall be inspected by the building division at least once every three years for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created.” The City has not dedicated sufficient resources to this function and will need to reassess how (and who) to monitor and enforce site-specific PC regulations. Enforcement fees should be recouped from developers. Potential Reforms and Alternatives The City could implement reform to PC Zoning by (1) revising the existing ordinance to address the issues and concerns identified above or by (2) developing an alternative approach for the consideration of PC-like proposals in a new code section. Some potential revisions and alternatives to the existing PC zoning framework are summarized below for discussion purposes: 1. Criteria for Establishment of PC Districts Specifically define the types of projects that may apply for a PC district either by designating a specific geographic location/area or by setting a minimum land area requirement to be eligible for the development of a PC district. Some jurisdictions set a minimum land area requirement used to determine the eligibility of a development proposal. Other jurisdictions have identified specific areas within their Land Use Element for higher density to ensure neighborhood compatibility. For instance, the City of Menlo Park processes Conditional Development Permits for development under two instances: a. Development on a parcel in excess of one (1) acre in area; and b. Development on a parcel that is less than one (1) are in area but greater than or equal to 20,000 square feet in area; provided that the development complies with the below market rate (BMR) housing programs. Similarly, the City of Los Gatos’ PD or Planned Development Overlay requires that “a planned development zone shall not consist of less than 40,000 square feet of contiguous site area unless the purpose of the planned development is to provide housing for low income senior citizens, in which case there is no minimum site area. In both of these cases, the code clearly identifies what types of project/properties are eligible to apply for these types of development permits. 2. Modified Application Process Palo Alto’s PC ordinance is not different from others across the County. Local jurisdictions follow a similar application process however, in most jurisdictions, a study PC Zoning Reform Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion August 2014 - Page 10 session is first held with the City Council to review the merits of the projects and to obtain comments from the public. Having a third party assessment of value and benefit would facilitate this review. 3. Definition and Menu of Public Benefits The code could be amended to include a definition section with a specific definition of “public benefit.” If desired, the definition could make a distinction between projects that have extrinsic versus intrinsic benefits, establishing a basis for processing the two types of projects in a different way. (See item five, below.) Providing a menu of desired public benefits that would be allowed under a PC could also provide greater clarity and facilitate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. For instance, the City of Santa Monica’s Land Use and Circulation Element provides a section on community benefits which outlines the five identified priority categories of community benefits along with a three-tiered approach to development incentives. 4. Enforcement & Monitoring The code could be amended to require a monitoring schedule as part of any PC ordinance, similar to the kind of mitigation monitoring and reporting program required under CEQA. Caution should also be taken to ensure that the public benefits selected for implementation are things that can be effectively monitored and enforced. For example, a public benefit that requires a specific business to remain open may not be enforceable in the long term, if that use is not viable from a market perspective. 5. Two-Tiered System While other jurisdictions do not explicitly require or identify a public benefit finding, a development agreement is often negotiated to obtain benefits for the community that exceed those required by the adopted standards in exchange for granting benefits that allow increases in density. Typically the agreement is recorded and serves as a means of ensuring that the public benefit will be provided as outlined in the ordinance. The City could update the PC process to require certain types of projects to use the full development agreement process, and allow others choosing from a menu of public benefits to use the PC process. Community Discussion Questions 1. What concerns you most about PC Zoning? 2. If the PC process is reformed to include a menu of potential public benefits, what do you think should be on the list?? 3. Do you have other ideas about PC reform? PC Zoning Reform Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion August 2014 - Page 11 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: P.A.M.C Chapter 18.38 – PC Planned Community District Regulations Attachment B: Resolution No. 6597 - Development Agreements Attachment C: Working Draft - Approved PC Zone Change Log Attachment D: Discussion Paper - Dyett & Bhatia “Flexibility vs. Certainty” Attachment E: Colleagues Memorandum - PTC Study Session Determination of Public Benefit Attachment F: PTC March 27, 2013 Study Session Meeting Minutes PC Zoning Reform Summary of Issues & Ideas For Discussion August 2014 - Page 12 GLOSSARY: Development Agreement - A contract between a municipality and a property owner/developer regarding development of real property. Typically, the municipality would agree to specific land uses and densities, and also freeze the existing zoning regulations in exchange for desired benefits. Development Plan –A plan submitted with the application for a PC district and, in summary, includes an aerial photograph of the site, a map showing any public or private streets, a map showing existing and proposed topography of the proposed district, a land use plan for the proposed district, a plot plan for each building site, a landscape development plan, a circulation plan, a parking and loading plan, and preliminary design plans. (See Section 18.30.90 of the PAMC for more details) Development Program Statement – A document submitted with the application for a PC district and describes the proposed use or uses to be conducted in the proposed PC district. (See Section 18.38.080 of the PAMC for more details) Development Schedule – A document submitted with the application for a PC district and includes a schedule indicating the approximate date on which construction or development is expected to begin, the duration of time required for completion of the development, the approximate date of occupancy, and a phasing program. (See Section 18.30.90 of the PAMC for more details) Economic Analysis - A systematic approach to determining the optimum use of scarce resources, involving comparison of two or more alternatives in achieving a specific objective under the given assumptions and constraints. Economic analysis takes into account the opportunity costs of resources employed and attempts to measure in monetary terms the private and social costs and benefits of a project to the community or economy. Planned Community (PC) District – A site-specific zoning district allowed by Palo Alto’s Municipal Code provided certain requirements are met. The purpose of a PC District is to “accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other [zoning] districts.” PC Districts are “particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” Overlay Zoning - Overlay zoning is a regulatory tool that creates a special combination zoning district, placed over an existing base zone(s), which identifies special provisions in addition to those in the underlying base zone. Required Findings – Written “findings of fact” required to support the recommendation of the planning commission and city council prior to approving an ordinance designating and regulating any PC district. Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sections: 18.38.010 Specific purposes. 18.38.020 Applicability of regulations. 18.38.030 Permitted uses. 18.38.040 Conditional uses. 18.38.050 Establishment of districts. 18.38.060 Required determinations. 18.38.065 Application process. 18.38.070 Application requirements. 18.38.080 Development program statement. 18.38.090 Development plan. 18.38.100 Development schedule. 18.38.110 Action by commission. 18.38.120 Action by council. 18.38.130 Change in development schedule. 18.38.140 Failure to meet development schedule. 18.38.150 Special requirements. 18.38.160 Inspections. 18.38.170 Recycling storage. 18.38.010 Specific purposes. The PC planned community district is intended to accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Page 1 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx ATTACHMENT A (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.020 Applicability of regulations. The specific regulations of this chapter, and the additional regulations and procedures established by Chapters 18.54 to 18.99, inclusive, shall apply to all planned community districts. Notwithstanding the regulations of Chapters 18.54 to 18.99, inclusive, where specific regulations are adopted pursuant to Sections 18.38.110 and 16.68.120, the specific regulations so adopted shall apply to that planned community district. (Ord. 3108 § 22, 1979: Ord. 3070 § 3, 1978: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.030 Permitted uses. Any use may be permitted in any specific PC district; provided such use shall be specifically listed as a permitted use and shall be located and conducted in accord with the approved development plan and other applicable regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter to govern each specific PC district. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.040 Conditional uses. Any use may be established as a conditional use in any specific PC district, provided such use shall be specifically listed as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), and shall be located and conducted in accord with the approved development plan and other applicable regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter to govern each specific PC district. (Ord. 4826 § 108, 2004: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.050 Establishment of districts. Planned community districts may be established, modified, or removed from the zoning map, and the regulations applicable to any specific PC district may be established, modified, or deleted in accord with Chapter 18.80. All PC districts shall be identified on the zoning map with the letter coding "PC" followed by a specific reference number identifying each separate district. All use regulations, development plans, development schedules, and other regulatory provisions adopted pursuant to this chapter, or pursuant to Chapter 18.80, which apply to any specific PC district, shall be considered to be a part of this title as if fully set forth in this title, and shall be identified by reference to the corresponding designation of each specific PC district on the zoning map. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) Page 2 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 18.38.060 Required determinations. The planning commission, prior to recommending approval of any PC district application, and the city council, prior to approving an ordinance designating and regulating any PC district, shall make all of the following required findings with respect to the application, in addition to findings required by Chapter 18.80: (a) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. (b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. (c) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.065 Application process. (a) The applicant for a PC district shall initially submit to the planning commission a development program statement, development plan, and a development schedule which are described in Sections 18.38.080, 18.38.090, and 18.38.100. The plot plans, landscape development plan, and design plan in the development plan should only be preliminary during this phase of review by the planning commission. (b) If the planning commission acts favorably in its initial review of the PC application, the development plan shall be submitted to the architectural review board for review, except in the case of single-family and accessory uses. In this phase, a detailed plot plan, landscape development plan, and design plan of the development plan are required. The architectural review board shall make a recommendation on the development plan based on the findings for architectural review in Section 18.76.020 (d). (c) The development plan as approved by the architectural review board is then returned to the planning commission for final planning commission review and recommendation before being submitted to the city council for final action. (Ord. 4826 § 109, 2004: Ord. 3048 (part). 1978) 18.38.070 Application requirements. In addition to the provisions of Chapter 18.80, each application for a PC district shall be accompanied by a development program statement, a development plan, and a development schedule. Page 3 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx The development plan shall, as approved by the city council, become a part of the zoning regulations applicable within the respective PC district. Subsequent changes in the development plan shall be made in accord with Chapter 18.80, or, for minor changes, through the architectural review process, as set forth in Section 18.76.020 (b)(3)(D). The development schedule shall, as approved by the city council, become a part of the zoning regulations applicable within the respective PC district. Subsequent changes in the development schedule, if included as part of the regulations, shall be made in accord with Chapter 18.80 or, for minor changes, through the architectural review process, as set forth in Section 18.76.020 (b) (3)(D); provided, that specifically authorized changes may be made by the director pursuant to Section 18.38.130. (Ord. 4826 § 110, 2004: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.080 Development program statement. The purpose of the development program statement shall be to describe the proposed use or uses to be conducted in the district in a manner sufficient to enable preparation and consideration of regulations governing permitted uses, conditional uses, site use and development regulations, off-street parking and loading requirements, and other special regulations which may be appropriate to govern development, use, and maintenance of the site or sites included within the PC district. The development program statement shall include the following: (a) A statement by the applicant demonstrating the necessity of the application for the PC district, including information demonstrating the compliance of the proposed development with the required determinations set forth in Section 18.38.060; (b) A complete listing of all uses proposed, or potentially to be included, within the PC district, incorporating insofar as possible the terminology used in other parts of this title to define, describe, and regulate permitted uses and conditional uses, and the definitions pertinent thereto; (c) A complete description of the nature of uses proposed, and the conditions or characteristics of occupancy, use, or operation, with particular reference to those conditions or characteristics which may warrant regulation differing from those regulations which might apply to such uses if located in one or more general districts within the city; (d) A schedule or statement indicating number, type, floor area, number of bedrooms, and projected sale or rental price of all housing units proposed in the district; (e) Such additional information as the director may prescribe as necessary, in his judgment, to facilitate review and action on the application by the planning commission, the architectural review board, and the city council. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.090 Development plan. The development plan submitted with the application for a PC district shall include the Page 4 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx following, unless waived by the director for cause: (a) An aerial photograph of the site and adjacent land within two hundred fifty feet of the site, at a scale to be prescribed by the director. The director may specify that information required by subsections (b) through (i) be superimposed on the aerial photograph, or a duplicate copy thereof; (b) A map showing any public or private streets, proposed building sites, and any areas proposed to be dedicated or reserved for parks, parkways, paths, playgrounds, school sites, public buildings and other such uses. Compliance with this requirement shall not be construed to relieve the applicant from compliance with the subdivision code in Title 21, or any other applicable ordinances of the city; (c) A map showing the existing and proposed topography of the proposed district at contour intervals as determined appropriate by director; (d) A land use plan for the proposed district indicating the areas proposed for each use or combination of uses identified by the development program statement; (e) A plot plan or plans for each building site in the proposed district, or any portion thereof, in such form as required by the director. The required plans shall show the location of all proposed buildings and principal site improvements, shall indicate dimensions of buildings, site lines, and improvements, and shall indicate the location of physical or natural site features, including trees, and any changes proposed thereto. (f) A landscape development plan, showing the boundaries and location of proposed landscaped areas and exterior site improvements, including but not limited to lights, swimming pools, and service and refuse areas. (g) A circulation plan, indicating the proposed movement of vehicles, goods, and pedestrians within the district, and to and from adjacent public thoroughfares. Any special engineering features and traffic regulation devices needed to insure safety or to facilitate ease of access and circulation, whether on or off the site, shall be shown. (h) A parking and loading plan, showing the number of spaces and the location, internal circulation and dimensions of all parking and loading areas. The parking and loading plan shall be based upon the requirements of Chapter 18.54, unless requested modifications to meet the needs of the individual project are supported by traffic engineering studies or relevant data, as may be required by the director, demonstrating the feasibility and adequacy of the plan. (i) Preliminary design plans, including such schematic floor plans, schematic exterior elevations and sections, and/or perspective drawings, as may be necessary to indicate the height of proposed buildings and the general appearance of the proposed structures to the end that the entire development will have architectural unity and will be compatible with existing and proposed neighborhood development. Such drawings need not show final architectural detail. Construction drawings and contract plans, subsequently submitted with applications for required permits or other construction approvals pursuant to approved PC district regulations, shall conform substantially to the preliminary design plans, and shall be subject to all applicable review and permit requirements in effect at the time of approval and permit issuance. (Ord. 3108 § 20, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.100 Development schedule. Page 5 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx The development schedule submitted with the application for a PC district shall include the following: (a) A schedule, indicating to the best of the applicant's knowledge, the approximate date on which construction or development is expected to begin, the duration of time required for completion of the development, and the approximate date or dates of occupancy; (b) A phasing program, indicating, in the event the proposed development within the district is expected to require more than two years for completion and occupancy, a logical or programmed sequence of phases and incorporating a schedule as described in subsection (a) for each phase of development. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.110 Action by commission. In addition to the requirements of Chapter 18.80, the planning commission shall review and consider all materials submitted by the applicant pursuant to this chapter, and shall prepare and recommend to the city council, as appropriate, the specific regulations to be applied within the proposed planned community district. The specific regulations may modify those regulations contained in Chapters 18.54 to 18.99, inclusive, as is appropriate to meet the individual district and shall include the following: (a) Permitted Uses. A listing of all uses to be permitted generally within the district, or the uses to be permitted in specific locations within the district as shown on the development plan; (b) Conditional Uses. A listing of all uses to be conditionally allowed within the district, or the uses to be permitted in specific locations within the district as shown on the development plan; (c) Site Development Regulations. Maximum or minimum regulations, as appropriate, governing site dimensions, required yards and distances between buildings, site coverage, building height, residential density, and floor area ratio, open space requirements, accessory facilities and uses, and other aspects of the proposed development within the district. The regulations may be in text, or by reference to the development plan, or both. In no event shall the maximum height exceed fifty feet except as provided in Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals); (d) Parking and Loading Requirements. Regulations establishing off-street parking and loading requirements for the district, and governing design, location, screening, landscaping and operation of parking and loading activities. The regulations may be by reference to Chapter 18.54, or in text if the regulations of Chapter 18.54 are modified for the individual district, or both; (e) Special Requirements. Additional regulations, as may be appropriate to assure a harmonious relationship between uses within the district, and a compatible relationship with existing or potential uses within adjoining districts, may be recommended by the commission. Such regulations may include additional height limitations, yard requirements, landscaping and screening, provisions governing outdoor activities, and other requirements; (f) Development Plan and Development Schedule. The development plan submitted pursuant to Section 18.38.090 and the development schedule submitted pursuant to Section 18.38.100, as amended or approved by the planning commission, shall be recommended for inclusion in the regulations applicable to the PC planned community district; Page 6 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx (g) Definitions. Definitions applicable specifically to the regulations recommended for the district may be included. (Ord. 4826 § 111, 2004: Ord. 3108 § 21, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.120 Action by council. In the event the city council adopts an ordinance pursuant to Chapter 18.80 establishing a specific PC planned community district, the council shall include the regulations described in Section 18.38.110, either as recommended by the planning commission or as modified by the council. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.130 Change in development schedule. For good cause shown by the property owner in writing and unless otherwise specified by the specific applicable regulations for the district, prior to the expiration of the original time schedule for the development, the director may, without a public hearing, modify the time limits imposed by any adopted development schedule; provided, that such modification shall not extend the schedule by more than one year; and provided, that only one such modification may be made. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.140 Failure to meet development schedule. Sixty days prior to the expiration of the development schedule, the director shall notify the property owner in writing of the date of expiration and advise the property owner of Section 18.38.130. Failure to meet the approved development schedule, including an extension, if granted, shall result in: (a) The expiration of the property owner's right to develop under the PC district. The director shall notify the property owner, the city council, the planning commission and the building official of such expiration; and (b) The director's initiating a zone change for the property subject to the PC district in accordance with Chapter 18.80. The property owner may submit a new application for a PC district concurrently with the director's recommendation for a zone change. (Ord. 3418 § 1, 1983: Ord. 3345 § 21, 1982: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.150 Special requirements. Sites abutting or having any portion located with one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RM, or any PC district permitting single-family development or multiple-family development shall be subject to the following additional height and yard requirements: Page 7 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx (a) Parking Facilities. The maximum height shall be equal to the height established in the most restrictive adjacent zone district. (b) All Other Uses. The maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RM, or applicable PC district shall be thirty-five feet; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of an RM-4 or RM-5 district shall be fifty feet (c) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or applicable PC district, a minimum interior yard of 10 feet shall be required, and a solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line. Where a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the interior yard shall be at least as restrictive as the interior yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line. The minimum interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen. (d) On any portion of a site in the PC district which is opposite from a site in any RE, R-1, R- 2, RM or applicable PC district, and separated therefrom by a street, alley, creek, drainage facility or other open area, a minimum yard of 10 feet shall be required. Where a use in a PC district where the gross floor area, excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the minimum yard requirement shall be at least as restrictive as the yard requirements of the most restrictive residential district opposite such site line. The minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding areas required for access to the site. (e) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the daylight planes may be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting each such side or rear site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. If the residential daylight plane, as allowed in this section, is selected, the setback regulations of the same adjoining residential district shall be imposed. (Ord. 3683 §§ 12, 13, 1986: Ord. 3465 §§ 40, 44, 1983: Ord. 3418 §§ 2 and 3, 1983: Ord. 3130 §§ 11, 25(f), 1979: Ord. 3108 § 9, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.38.160 Inspections. Each PC district shall be inspected by the building division at least once every three years for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created. (Ord. 3345 § 23, 1982) 18.38.170 Recycling storage. Page 8 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to architectural review approval pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). (Ord. 4826 § 112, 2004: Ord. 4069 § 12, 1992) Page 9 of 9Chapter 18.38 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 2/7/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx ATTACHMENT B .. ;' -.... ORIGINAL RESOLUTION NO. 6597 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ClTY OF PALO ALTO ESTA BL I SH ING PROCEDURES MW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS W~EREAS, the State legislature has found and declared that: "(a)· The lack of certaintJ in the approval of developmental projects can result in a waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other de~~lopmert to the consumer, and discourage in- vestmen_t in· and comr.-'~··c.ment to comprehensive planning which would make·maximum efficient utilization of resources at.the least eco- nomic cost to the public. (b) .Assurance to the applic~nt for a development proj~ct that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the ~roject in .accor~ance with existing policies, rules and regu- lations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public p1anning proces~., encourage private participation· ir comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of develop- ment. (c) The lack of public facilities, including, but not limi- ted to , s t. re e ts , sew e r. a g e , t r .:rn s po r ta t i on , d r in k i n ·11 w a t e r , s c ho o 1 and utility facilities, is a serious impediment to the development o f new ho us i n g • Whenever poss i q 1 e , a pp l i can ts and .i o ca i · gov e: r n - ments may include provisions in agreements whereby applicants .are reimbursed over time for financing public facilities." (Govern- ment Code Section 65864)1 and WHEREAS, the legislature therefore adopted Gnvernment Code Sections 6586i through 65869.5 authorizing cities to enter into development ~greements: and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65865{c) requires .that cities shall, if requested by an applicant, establish proceduces ~nd requirements for consideration of develcpment agreementsA NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does her~by RESOLVE as :allows: SECTION 1. Authorization for adoption. These procedures are adopted under the authority of Government c~)de se·ctions 65864- 65869.5. SECTivN 2. Authorization. (a) The tity may enter into a development ~greement with any person ha\~ng a legal or equitable interest ·in ~eal property with- in the City for the development of ~he property as provided in thi.s resolution. 1. (b) .The City may enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property in unincorporated .territory with'in the City's sphere of influence f:or: the development of the property as provided in this resolution. However, the agreement shall not b~come operativ~ unless annexa- tion proceedings annexing the property to the ci~y are completed within the period ot tim~ specified by the agreement. I f t he a n n e x a t ion i s no t comp L · t e·d w i th i n the t i me spec i f i e d in the agreement or any extension of. the agreement, the agreement is null and void. SECTION 3. Application. Application for a developme~t agreement shall be made to the Department of Planning and .Com~ munity Environm~nt on a form prescribed by the department. The applicAtion shall be acc0mpanied by the fee prescribed by the municipa1 fee schedule; no part of which shall be returnable to the· applicant. SECTION 4. C0ntents. A development agreement shall specify the d~ra~ion of the agreement, the permitted uses of· the property, the d~·.,si~.y _.r intensity of use, the maximum height and· size of proposed buildings, and provisions .for reservation or dAdication of land for public purposes. The development agreemdnt may in- clude conditions, terms, restrictions,· and requirements for subse- quent discretionary action~, provided that such conditionR, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development ~et fo~th in th~ agiee- ment. The agreeMent may provide that construction shall be com- menced within a specified time and that th~ proJect or any phase ther~of be comoleted within a spe~ified time. The agreeme.nt may also include terms and conditions r:elating to applicant financing of necessary public facilities and subse- quent reimbursement over time. SECTION 5. Rules, rr~ulations and official policies. Unless otherwise provided by the development agreement, rules, Legula- tions, and official policies governtrii: permitted uses of ·the land, go'_verning density, and governing design, improvement, and con- struction standards ~nd specifications, applicable to development of the pcoperty subject to a development agreement, ~hall be those rules, r-egulations, and official policies in fot·ce :it t.he time of execution of the agreement. A development. agr:-c-ament shall not prevent the City, in subs:::quent actio_ns applicable to the pro- perty, f~o~ applying new rules, regulations, and policies. which do not conflict with those rules, r~gulations, ~nd policies appli-· cable to the pco~carty as ·.set· forth in the development. agceement, nor shall a development agreement prevent the City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent d~velopment project ~ppli­ cation on the basis of such existing or new rulas, regulations, a n C po l i c i e s • 2 • WORKING DRAFT: APPROVED PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE CHANGE LOG PC ORDINANCE NO.ADDRESS DATE APPROVED PC-1417 699 San Antonio Avenue 8/1/1952 PC-1643 1101 Embarcadero Road 10/10/1955 PC-1752 1139 Amarillo Avenue 8/12/1957 PC-1889 2800 West Bayshore Road 9/28/1959 PC-1941 11 Arastradero Road 5/23/1960 PC-1992 600 Quarry Road 1/23/1961 PC-2049 220 Palo Alto Avenue 8/28/1961 PC-2050 1791 Arastradero Road 8/28/1961 PC-2130 501 Forest Avenue 2/25/1965 PC-2145 535 Everett Avenue 6/24/1963 PC-2152 637 Addison Avenue 7/22/1963 PC-2197 2875 Middlefield Road 7/13/1964 PC-2218 580 Arastradero Road 10/5/1964 PC-2224 260 Sheridan Avenue 12/28/1964 PC-2236 455 Charleston Road 6/15/1965 PC-2293 450 Sheridan Avenue 6/27/1966 PC-2545 550 Hamilton Avenue 2/24/1970 PC-2640 630 San Antonio Avenue 12/20/1971 PC-2649 656 Lytton Avenue 4/3/1972 PC-2656 574 Arastradero Road 6/5/1972 PC-2666 4158 Crosby Place 7/1/1972 PC-2711 765 San Antonio Avenue 4/9/1973 PC-2744 135 Hemlock Court 9/11/1973 PC-2836 600 Channing Avenue 1/6/1975 PC-2930 4005 Villa Vera 7/6/1976 PC-2952 400 Pepper Avenue 10/26/1976 PC-2962 1800 Embarcadero Road 1/3/1977 PC-2967 218 Forest Avenue 2/7/1977 PC-2968 649 University Avenue 2/1/1977 PC-3007 706 Cowper Street 8/1/1977 PC-3020 2425 Embarcadero Way 10/3/1977 PC-3023 4100 Thain Way 11/7/1977 PC-3028 360 Sheridan Avenue 12/5/1977 PC-3036 4331 Cesano Court 2/6/1978 PC-3041 4156 El Camino Real 2/27/1978 PC-3102 220 Bryant Street 1/8/1979 PC-3111 321 Ramona Street 4/3/1979 PC-3133 4153 Interdale Way 7/16/1979 PC-3183 1040 Colorado Place 2/4/1980 PC-3266 27 University Avenue 2/23/1981 PC-3405 3163 Middlefield Road 1/10/1983 PC-3429 421 Alma Street 5/9/1983 PC-3437 401 Webster Street 5/23/1983 PC-3517 3045 Middlefield Road 3/12/1984 PC-3571 718 Ashby Drive 10/1/1984 PC-3623 3722 Ortega Court 7/1/1985 PC-3688 2047 East Bayshore Road 6/9/1986 PC-3693 772 Talisman Court 7/7/1986 PC-3707 745 Emerson Street 9/8/1986 PC-3707 223 Homer Avenue 9/8/1986 ATTACHMENT C WORKING DRAFT: APPROVED PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE CHANGE LOG PC ORDINANCE NO.ADDRESS DATE APPROVED PC-3726 922 Bautista Court 12/8/1986 PC-3753 630 Lytton Avenue 6/1/1987 PC-3872 250 University Avenue 5/15/1989 PC-3974 529 Bryant Street 8/6/1990 PC-3995 520 Webster Street PC-4052 531 Cowper Street 9/3/1991 PC-4053 330 Everett Avenue 9/23/1991 PC-4063; CD-C (GF)(P)251 University Avenue 12/16/1991 PC-4127 275 Cambridge Avenue 2/8/1993 PC-4173 555 Byron Street 9/27/1993 PC-4182 12 University Circle 11/8/1993 PC-4190 4156 El Camino Real 12/13/1993 PC-4195; CD-C (GF)(P)533 Bryant Street 1/18/1994 PC-4238 400 Emerson Street 10/11/1994 PC-4243 202 Everett Avenue 11/7/1994 PC-4262 330 Emerson Street 3/6/1995 PC-4268 200 Sheridan Avenue 4/3/1995 PC-4283 725 Alma Street 7/17/1995 PC-4296 480 Cowper Street 10/1/1995 PC-4339 308 Bryant Court 4/1/1996 PC-4354 2700 Ash Street 7/8/1996 PC-4374 101 Alma Street 6/1/1996 PC-4389 901 Alma Street 12/9/1996 PC-4426 50 El Camino Real 7/14/1997 PC-4426 600 Sand Hill Road 7/14/1997 PC-4436 390 Lytton Avenue 7/28/1997 PC-4448 4290 El Camino Real 9/1/1997 PC-4463 435 Sheridan Avenue 11/3/1997 PC-4465 675 El Camino Real 2/20/2001 PC-4511 502 Driscoll Place 7/27/1998 PC-4611 445 Bryant Street 3/1/2000 PC-4612 528 High Street 3/20/2000 PC-4637 3000 El Camino Real 5/22/2000 PC-4753 2051 El Camino Real 6/13/2002 PC-4779 140 Homer Avenue 2/18/2003 PC-4782 33 Encina Avenue 3/17/2003 PC-4831 2701 El Camino Real 6/21/2004 PC-4843 690 San Antonio Avenue 10/4/2004 PC-4846 1730 Embarcadero Road 10/4/2004 PC-4847 1766 Embarcadero Road 10/4/2004 PC-4917 3895 Fabian Way 10/10/2006 PC-4918 3921 Fabian Way 10/10/2006 PC-4919 528 Homer Avenue 12/18/2006 PC-4956 3388 Alma Village Circle 6/18/2007 PC-4973 449 Addison Avenue 3/10/2008 PC-5034 488 West Charleston Road 3/30/2009 PC-5069 2121 Staunton Court 1/11/2010 PC-5116 4025 El Camino Way 3/21/2011 PC-5150 2060 Channing Avenue 4/9/2012 PC-5158 101 Lytton Avenue 6/11/2012 Flexibility vs. Certainty: Discussion Paper Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners July 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION o PURPOSE AND KEY QUESTIONS o HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE THE BASIC DILEMMA: FLEXIBILITY VS. CERTAINTY o USERS' PERSPECTIVES o TRADEOFFS CURRENT ZONING FRAMEWORK o TYPES OF ZONES o PROVISIONS FOR FLEXIBILITY AND RELIEF o ROLE OF DESIGN GUIDELINES OPTIONS FOR INCREASING FLEXIBILITY o APPROACHES TO ZONING o BASE VS. COMBINING OR OVERLAY DISTRICTS o RELATED CONSIDERATIONS o PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING o USE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS o ANNUAL REVIEW SUMMARY Introduction PURPOSE AND KEY QUESTIONS This discussion paper has been commissioned by the City of Palo Alto as part of the zoning ordinance update the City has initiated to implement the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. One of the key issues outlined in the "issues identification" phase of the update is the conflict between a desire for certainty in the review process and providing for flexibility in the Zoning Code to allow varied criteria and design based on site conditions, the applicant's design preferences, or community objectives. This concern was registered to some extent by all parties in the development review process: applicants, design professionals, public officials, residents, and staff. Key questions that Dyett & Bhatia has been asked to address include: How to strike the right balance between flexibility and certainty in zoning regulations? How do perspectives of different Code users differ on this basic choice? What are some specific policy options the City might consider to achieve flexibility in zoning districts, use regulations and standards and nonconforming provisions? Should the Planned Community District be retained to offer development flexibility, or is it too open- ended? Would an annual review process help keep the ordinance current and responsive to the City's needs? The perspectives presented in the paper reflect lessons learned from a national zoning practice within the context and policy direction for new zoning set by the City's Comprehensive Plan. The paper is submitted in the form of a "peer review" of zoning issues and options to guide the Planning and Transportation Commission in providing policy direction for the zoning ordinance update. ATTACHMENT D HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE America's first zoning codes were developed by cities in response to the problems of unregulated growth and development. Retailers were clamoring for protection from invading factories, while homeowners and apartment dwellers were growing concerned with the influx of nonresidential uses and high-rise development into their neighborhoods. Since the inception of zoning in the U.S., every zoning ordinance has had two central aims:  Minimizing one property's adverse impacts upon another; and  Encouraging development patterns and activities considered desirable by a community (usually as expressed within a comprehensive plan or adopted planning policies). Historically, the success of zoning was measured by how well it dealt with these issues. Consequently, the vast majority of zoning ordinances in effect today operate on the premise that the grouping of similar uses and activities and the establishment of common building siting and bulk standards will minimize adverse impacts and implement established community development policies. More recently, zoning has had to respond to new mandates, ranging from clean air and concerns about how to foster more pedestrian-oriented environments to calls for "new urbanism" and a return to traditional City development. Adding these dimensions has placed new burdens on Code writers. Zoning can be a positive influence on development, by setting expectations for the quality of design and the fit of new development within neighborhoods. In taking on this new role, zoning administrators sometimes want more flexibility than they traditionally have had in order to achieve the greatest public benefits. Design professionals want flexibility to deal with site-specific issues; they also do not want to be constrained by overly restrictive design standards and guidelines. Finally, the community often wants to be able to influence project design in order to ensure a good fit with the neighborhood. This flexibility must be balanced with the need to maintain basic legal principles of equity, uniformity and due process while also carrying out the Comprehensive Plan's land use policies. How this can be achieved is the focus of this paper. The Basic Dilemma: Flexibility vs. Certainty As the City of Palo Alto considers how best to update its zoning regulations, it needs to address how to find the right balance between flexibility and certainty that will best implement the Comprehensive Plan. The dichotomy between these concepts creates tension, not only for City officials and staff who use the ordinance on a day-to-day basis, but also for homeowners, business owners, and others who may only come into contact with zoning a few times over the years they may live or work in the City. Everyone wants to know what the rules and standards are by which new development will be judged - how are decisions made to approve, conditionally approve or reject applications? And, for many, knowing the timeframe as well as the criteria for approval also is important - who has appeal rights, and when is a decision final so a project can proceed. For others, flexibility is important: the site or existing building may be unique, the design innovative and responsive, or the public benefits so compelling that some relief from underlying requirements may be appropriate. The purpose of this paper is to explore these perspectives as a way of framing some basic choices for the Planning and Transportation Commission to consider as it provides policy direction to staff working on the zoning ordinance update. USERS' PERSPECTIVES Expectations about what zoning should or should not do, and how far it should go, are different, depending on individual perspectives. Applicants view zoning differently than design professionals, and City staff perspectives are not always the same as residents' or City officials'. At the risk of oversimplification, we offer the following set of expectations for different Code users as a starting point for thinking about regulatory options. Applicants Individuals applying to the City for a zoning approval, a use permit, variance or design approval generally want to know:  What are the rules that the City follows for development review? These include use regulations, development standards, review procedures and criteria for decision-making.  What is the timeframe for decision-making, and when is a decision is final? Is it the day the approval is granted, or is there some stated time they have to wait before they know they can proceed with the next steps, refine an architectural design, solicit bids and initiate construction?  What relief can they request if a regulation or standard constrains a design solution or otherwise limits what they would like to do with their property or their building? In thinking about relief, it often is useful to distinguish concerns about what the allowable uses are (recognizing that use variances are illegal and the only way to accommodate different uses would be through a zoning ordinance or map amendment) from concerns about how to accommodate a design or improvement on a lot. Relief may be needed from physical development standards (e.g. setbacks or fence limitations) or from performance requirements that relate primarily to the impact of a use or building design on an adjacent lot.  How important are neighbor concerns in the decision-making process? If they follow the rules, does the City have the right to change a design solely because of a neighbor's objections? Are there limitations on conditions of approval or are all elements of a project "negotiable"? Does the City distinguish "as-of-right" development applications from those requesting variances or exceptions from standards in weighing how far to go to respond to community concerns? Design Professionals Architects and other design professionals typically want to know the answer to the same questions applicants pose, but because of their specific role in a project, they often want to know more specifically how much flexibility they can have for site planning and architectural design. If the City wants to mandate certain design solutions as opposed to "encouraging" a type of design, it should say so to avoid misunderstandings during the development review process. An example of a mandated design solution is a requirement for windows or display spaces and a prohibition of blank walls on retail frontages. In this context, design professionals also want to know whether the mandate is a guideline or a development regulation. If it's a regulation, then they would have to request a specific form of administrative relief, typically a variance, in order to deviate from the dimensional requirements. By contrast, if the mandate is a design guideline, then they may be able to propose a design solution that they believe is superior, but may not need formal review to incorporate it into the project. The flexibility that a design professional typically seeks includes:  Relief from overly prescriptive standards, including setbacks, building height, bulk and articulation, landscaping, location or parking, and design standards (e.g. colors, finishes, roof pitches, etc.);  Relief for buildings with historic or architectural character; and  Relief for uses or activities with unique needs (e.g. theater scenery lofts, Internet server farms, pharmacy drive-through windows, etc.). City Planning Staff And Planning Commissioners City planners and Planning Commission members also want flexibility:  To respond to community concerns;  To implement the Comprehensive Plan and to further public policies;  To reconcile competing priorities, as is frequently the case with a Comprehensive Plan; and  To protect unique and special resources, which may range from environmental resources to historic buildings, affordable housing, and special retail uses. Palo Alto Community While planners and City officials strive to respond to community concerns, residents and business owners don't always have the same perspective on zoning, particularly if they feel their self-interest is not served. Many critical issues were decided when the Comprehensive Plan was prepared, but the Plan also includes over 50 implementation actions that directly pertain to the zoning ordinance update. These range from reviewing height and density limits to establishing new standards for residential, commercial and mixed use development. When details are worked out, community thinking about Comprehensive Plan direction may evolve, and there may not be consensus on all of the regulatory solutions proposed. Neighbors want to know with some certainty what can be built, so there are no surprises once construction begins. However, if they have concerns, they would like to know what the process is for community input - how much flexibility the City has to condition approval and what they can do to affect the final result. Business owners likewise want to know whether they can expand or adapt space to new uses or activities. Being able to respond quickly to changing markets is important, and lengthy review times are an anathema to that objective. TRADEOFFS As the Planning and Transportation Commission considers what direction to provide for the zoning ordinance update regarding how much flexibility to provide, we suggest that discussion of choices should address these basic philosophical issues:  Flexibility vs. predictability: Is the zoning ordinance intended as a rule of law or a rule of individuals? Should the area for negotiation be wide or narrow? To what extent should this be determined by the Code or by practice?  Flexibility vs. administrative cost: What are the costs to the applicant, to opponents, and to the City's tolerance for hearings?  Development cost vs. quality: Standards should be written with an understanding of their effect on developers' and consumers' costs and on the quality of the environment for both user and community at large.  Preservation vs. development: Will a particular regulation stimulate or dampen change in uses, users, or appearance?  Under regulation vs. over-regulation: How does the community find the least number of rules that will do the job? Striking the right balance will not be easy, but it can be done if the vision for Palo Alto, presented in the Comprehensive Plan, is kept in mind. Details will need to be worked out, but Plan policies provide fairly clear direction, and lessons from similar communities that have recently amended their zoning can enable the City to avoid mistakes others have made. Current Zoning Framework Palo Alto currently has a traditional (Euclidean) zoning ordinance, reflecting a districting approach established in the 1970s that has been refined over the years but not comprehensively changed. Some flexible zoning techniques, such as performance zoning and incentive zoning, will be addressed in a separate discussion paper being prepared by City staff. What we want to do in this paper is address the City's zoning framework and options for changing it in the context of providing flexibility. TYPES OF ZONES The City's zoning ordinance is land use based, following the land use classification concepts in the Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance includes regulations for permitted uses and conditional uses as well as site development regulations. The districting framework includes 19 base districts (7 residential districts, 5 office and commercial districts, 2 industrial districts, and 5 districts for other purposes) and 13 combining districts. The combining districts for the most part were not included in the original draft prepared in the 1970s. They have added detail to the Zoning Map to implement preferred planning concepts. PROVISIONS FOR FLEXIBILITY AND RELIEF The current zoning ordinance offers a number of ways to introduce flexibility into zoning administration. The most open-ended option is provided by the PC (Planned Community) District, which allows an unlimited range of uses, subject to a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, a determination that a "public benefit" is provided, and site development regulations tailored to the development plan. PC districts abutting residential neighborhoods have to meet special requirements for "edge" conditions. There are no explicit requirements tying density/intensity limits to the Comprehensive Plan, but there is authority to impose conditions, as needed to ensure neighborhood compatibility and harmonious land use relationships. Other provisions that offer zoning flexibility include:  Variances  Home Improvement Exceptions  Yard Encroachments  Exceptions to Development Standards (NP Combining District)  Use Exceptions (GF Combining District)  Transfer of Development Rights  Design Enhancement Exception Process  Provisions For Nonconforming Uses And Noncomplying Structures  Appeal Provisions  Zoning Text and Map Amendments We have not evaluated how well these provisions actually have worked; we simply note they are available. ROLE OF DESIGN GUIDELINES Palo Alto has adopted Design Guidelines for El Camino Real and for Downtown, and voluntary guidelines for R-1 Property Owners and Builders. The El Camino Real Design Guidelines will likely be updated as a result of the City's future corridor study. Within the zoning ordinance itself, the City has established multifamily residential design guidelines applicable to the RM-15, RM-30 and RM-40 districts. However, these guidelines are advisory, and the architectural review board is granted explicit authority to interpret them on a project-by-project basis. These create the potential for conflicts within underlying standards and with performance requirements established elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. As a general rule, it is best to exclude guidelines from a zoning ordinance in order to avoid any misunderstanding about what the development standards actually are and to ensure internal consistency. For example, is it City policy to require underground parking for projects with six units or more? If it is, then this should be a zoning requirement, not a guideline. If the threshold is flexible, and the undergrounding requirement may not apply in certain circumstances, it is preferable to explain what these circumstances are or what findings have to be made to justify waiving a guideline. The guideline on landscaping for parking structures likewise is not clear in that it calls for "adequate setbacks" to accommodate planting. Are these greater than the setback standards that otherwise would apply? Is the five-foot wide perimeter landscaping strip set for parking facilities applicable here? How does the design standard for parking facilities, set in Chapter 18.83, fit with the design guideline? Further, guidelines should not incorporate numerical standards (e.g. "trash disposal should be screened by a six foot enclosure") unless the City clearly intends this number to be advisory, and would allow deviations of 10-20 percent from the guideline. Provisions for small deviations, under 5 percent, should be handled as waivers or exceptions, or if they are based on unique and special circumstances and specific hardships, as variances. Options for Increasing Flexibility APPROACHES TO ZONING In considering a new zoning framework for Palo Alto that will accommodate the City's interest in flexibility, it may be helpful to identify the various available approaches to zoning and districting. The most basic concept in zoning is the idea of a district. Within each district, the zoning code applies a uniform set of regulations. There are three approaches to be considered in designing a zoning framework, each of which involves tradeoffs in ease of use and administration and ability to ensure neighborhood diversity and community character. The initial approach is the traditional (Euclidean) framework for a zoning ordinance, while the other two options are more "design-oriented" approaches favored by New Urbanist practitioners:  Land Use Approach. Districts are intended to segregate different uses, consistent with Comprehensive Plan land use designations. This approach emphasizes the needs of a single group of uses or a mix of uses.  Development Type/Community Character Approach. Districts are intended to create urban or suburban environments meeting specified standards or performance criteria. This approach emphasizes the development types over a range of uses.  Geographic/Neighborhood Approach. Districts reflect specific characteristics of the natural or built environment, such as neighborhood districts, heritage districts, redevelopment areas, Downtown, etc. The following briefly outlines the basic characteristics of these approaches. As circumstances generally require a blend (hybrid) of these approaches-as is the case in Palo Alto-the challenge becomes striking the right balance while avoiding complex regulation. These tradeoffs are illustrated in the diagram on the following page. Land Use-Based Approach The emphasis of this approach is the control of uses within each district. Generally only a single use type is permitted in each district, such as single-family residential or light industrial. Other uses allowed would be accessory to or compatible with the primary use. The result is a uniform pattern of development within each district. One advantage of this Euclidean approach is the predictability it offers both property owners and developers with respect to what the zoning permits on any undeveloped parcel in a district. Another is the fact that this approach is well understood, resulting in minimized need for staff training and administration, and an easier transition with respect to community concerns. A disadvantage of this approach is that it does not work as well in areas that contain a wide variety of uses or a wide variety of development standards, such as differing lot sizes or building heights. As a result, land use districts alone are not usually the best way to implement community design concepts. Another is the fact that this approach may not be responsive to many of the Comprehensive Plan policies calling for mixed use and other new zoning categories with a range of uses. Development Type/Community Character Approach The emphasis of this approach is not the control of uses within each district, but control of the unique development characteristics and design. While each district may incorporate a broad range of uses, these uses must conform to strict, detailed development standards designed to recognize and enhance the development characteristics. Heritage districts are perhaps the most common form of this approach, whereby the historic qualities of the buildings in the area are to be protected, but a wide range of uses are permitted. An advantage of this approach is that within established urban areas-where the uses themselves are less important than how they fit into a neighborhood-the physical form is more predictable. As a result, the standards and expectations for development character are easily established and time spent on development review reduced. In terms of the subject of this paper, this approach to zoning offers considerable flexibility in accommodating a broad range of uses, but limited flexibility in architectural design where the zoning "envelope" is highly prescribed. The disadvantages of this option are that extensive upfront time and cost may be required to define all of the various design forms desired, especially where there is considerable design variety existing. Geographic/Neighborhood Approach Specific areas in Palo Alto, such as Downtown, Stanford shopping center, the El Camino Real corridor and California Avenue, could be the subject of special area zoning under the geographic/neighborhood approach. Under this approach, regulations for each district are individually tailored to reflect the existing conditions and planning concepts for area development expressed in the respective specific plans. The resultant regulations may include design examples or criteria to guide the development. One advantage of this approach is that it can facilitate the implementation of area-specific plans, and the tailoring of district regulations and standards to plan policies. Another is the fact that this approach may be more effective than relying on the PC (Planned Community) District, which does not have the underpinning of a specific or area plan prepared with community input and participation of the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council in its formulation. A disadvantage of this approach is the extensive time and effort involved with preparing such specific plans, zoning and design details, and the administrative cost of training staff to administer the plans and code on an ongoing basis. BASE VS. COMBINING OR OVERLAY DISTRICTS The districts created under the three approaches to zoning described above are "base districts." These districts set the basic regulations that apply within the district. A community may want to vary some of the regulations within the base district to respond to particular conditions within defined areas. "Combining districts" and "overlay districts" are often selected for this purpose, and Palo Alto has used them quite extensively to achieve specific objectives. Combining districts are lain over the base district to modify the uses permitted or the standards required in the base district. Combining districts currently are used to regulate building height and minimum site area in residential neighborhoods, retail frontages in the City's shopping areas, locations for hotel development, and ground floor uses within Downtown. Overlay or combining districts also are used in other communities in the regulation of floodplains, historic preservation areas, hillsides, and transit-station areas. Combining districts make effective use of the Zoning Map; as a result, they can reduce the complexity of the text and the rules that apply. For example, instead of having a complicated formula for calculating average setbacks and variations in setbacks that may be appropriate, Zoning Map designations can be used to indicate specific frontage where different setback standards apply. Where combining districts address similar subjects, however, it may make sense to combine them, as in the case of the 'R' retail shopping and the 'P' pedestrian shopping combining districts, or to merge them into a base district, as in the case of the 'GF' ground floor combining district or the 'H' hotel combining district. Combining districts are most effective when they apply to two or more base districts; when they are limited to a single base district, it may make more sense to merge the standards and map designation into the base district regulations. RELATED CONSIDERATIONS Other considerations related to providing flexibility in the basic zoning framework may include:  Whether to maintain a 1:1 correspondence between Comprehensive Plan land use designations and zoning districts, or to allow greater flexibility through zoning?  How to protect residential neighborhoods, while also providing incentives for appropriate alterations and additions that add variety, street life and vitality either with a simplified residential districting scheme using housing prototypes and performance standards, or with land use districts that rely on updated residential design guidelines and case by case review?  Whether to maintain the current system of combining districts, or to consolidate and simplify them, where appropriate?  How to establish development prototypes and performance standards for residential and commercial uses in mixed use areas and in new zoning categories suggested in the Comprehensive Plan?  Whether to incorporate a stronger geographic focus into the zoning ordinance and eliminate flexibility provided by the PC Planned Community District? Because the Planned Community District introduces so much flexibility into the current zoning framework, further discussion of this approach is warranted. PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING In thinking about how to achieve flexibility in zoning, a key question is whether the City's PC (Planned Community) zoning is a model that should be retained. The PC zoning offers the flexibility of a planned development with a mix of uses; as such, it works well for "greenfield" development in rapidly growing communities where a city wants to defer to private developers the details of site planning. In a mature community like Palo Alto, this broad grant of authority to the private sector may no longer be consistent with current policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan or may not satisfy the community's desire for some greater degree of certainty in the process. Approval of development under PC zoning does require a finding that the PC (Planned Community) district "will result in public benefits not otherwise obtainable" through applicable zoning districts. PC zoning must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council also are to cite the specific "public benefits" that are to be obtained. The PC district regulations do not have a list of specific public benefits desired, such as affordable housing, public amenities or extraordinary contributions to financing public improvements beyond the amount normally required for a project's fair share. As a consequence, the community may be concerned that when the City is asked to allow increased density, as an example, the applicant is not providing a significant community value in return. A solution would be to clarify what the City's specific expectations are if an increase in development density/intensity is requested. This could be in the form of a menu of public benefits or a formula that links additional FAR or density to specific commitments to housing, open space protection or other public benefit. Alternatively, the PC zoning could be restructured so that there is no presumption that increased density or FAR would be granted and the primary purpose is limited to allowing flexibility in meeting physical development standards. With this approach, the underlying zoning remains, but the PC (Planned Community) process could allow for some variations in standards affecting building relationships, height or massing within a project. Buffering or transitional requirements would still apply, as they now do with PC zoning, where a project abuts a residential neighborhood. Another idea would be to recast PC zoning so it focuses specifically on implementing new urban land use concepts, such as Village Residential, Transit-Oriented Residential, and Mixed Use. The zoning ordinance update would define when planned community zoning can be used for these land use designations and explain to what extent flexibility can be provided and how applications will be judged. The new ordinance would rescind the broad grant of authority for planned communities, replacing it with more specific and limited authority for specified types of land use. The new zoning ordinance also could provide explicitly for specific plans, area plans and neighborhood conservation plans to be incorporated into the City's regulatory framework through Zoning Map amendments. Zoning Map designations (e.g. SP-1, SP-2, NC-1, NC-2, etc.) would show where these plans apply. The process envisioned here would include more opportunities for public participation, design workshops and charrettes than with the current developer-driven PC zoning, which would be consistent with the public participation policies of the Governance Element of the Comprehensive Plan. It also would allow for multiple property owners to participate in the process and development plans would not be limited to sites under unified control. If the development community is concerned about possibly losing flexibility if PC zoning were eliminated, offering new provisions for specific plans, area plans and neighborhood conservation plans may allow for a reasonable alternative. There is, however, extensive upfront time and cost associated with preparing specific plans or other area plans. The current effort anticipates that area plans would be a follow-up to the zoning update. USE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS A certain degree of flexibility is inherent in the way that zoning ordinances treat land uses, including permitted and conditional uses, special uses and nonconforming uses. Permitted Vs. Conditional Uses Palo Alto is typical of jurisdictions its size in making distinctions between permitted uses and conditional uses. Relying on a conditional use permit process offers the potential for flexibility in administering use regulations, but at a cost to applicants as well as to the City. Also, without clear standards and criteria for evaluating conditional uses, there is some potential for inconsistency in zoning administration and decisions. If the Planning and Transportation Commission is interested in reducing the number of conditional uses and the hearings they entail, they may choose instead to permit with limitations some or all of those uses currently permitted with conditions. Conditional uses in commercial districts, such as service stations, drive-in facilities and automotive services that are accessory to a permitted use, for example, could be permitted subject to specific standards or limitations. These standards or limitations could offer some flexibility in siting or building design as long as the performance criteria established for the use are met (e.g. buffering adjacent uses, hours of operation, landscaping and screening, etc.). This approach would require a special use review process, which would likely be similar to an administrative review process. Administrative review of "special" uses would certainly simplify the use regulations, avoid excessive reliance on conditional use permits, and streamline approvals by deeming such uses permitted with limited conditions. Some examples of "special" uses frequently identified in updated zoning ordinances include: service stations, home occupations, large family day care, and outdoor storage. The Code then could have three designations for use regulations, which would provide additional flexibility:  Permitted uses - no discretionary review;  Special uses, which are permitted provided specified requirements are met - administrative review, but no discretionary review or public hearing requirement; and  Conditional uses, which are subject to public hearings and discretionary review - additional conditions of approval may be imposed. This three-tier system is simple from an administrative standpoint, and enhances predictability in the application review process. Nonconforming Uses and Structures While many nonconforming uses are benign, some may pose land use issues, and an even smaller number may pose public health and safety issues, particularly when located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Palo Alto has provided for some flexibility in administering its nonconforming use provisions with the 'N' Nonconforming Use Amortization Overlay District. Additional flexibility in administering nonconforming provisions might be obtained by establishing classes of nonconforming uses and expanding current licensing requirements to complement and reinforce zoning. Classes Of Nonconforming Uses In some cities, such as Cincinnati and Oakland, classes of nonconforming uses are being considered as a way of recognizing that certain types of nonconforming uses are benign, and some flexibility in applying zoning restrictions may be warranted. Other communities have used notification and exception provisions, which rely on case-by-case determinations of whether a nonconforming use is, in fact, benign. If Palo Alto were to establish a classification system for nonconforming uses, the City may want to start with a three-tier system such as the following:  Lawfully established residential uses in any zoning district except in districts where no residential uses are permitted - Alterations and additions would be permitted, subject to design review, and a nonconforming use could expand with approval of a conditional use permit. A nonconforming use also could rebuild if damaged by fire, flood or a seismic event whatever the extent of damage.  Uses designated by the Planning and Transportation Commission - After a public hearing and based on findings, including that continuation would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, such lawfully established uses would need a conditional use permit for any alteration, no expansion would be allowed, and rebuilding would be permitted if up to 75 percent of the building were damaged or destroyed.  Lawfully established nonresidential uses that are located within or adjacent to a lawfully established residential use or district - For those that involve activities that may be detrimental to public health and safety because of the potential to create conditions incompatible with residential use. In these cases, no alteration or expansion would be allowed, nor would reconstruction be permitted if over 50 percent of the building were damaged or destroyed. Nonconforming use provisions and options are frequently a major issue as a zoning ordinance is updated. Licensing To complement zoning provisions for nonconforming uses, the City could expand its licensing provisions (health or safety) and link them more closely to zoning concerns. New licensing provisions might be limited specifically to nonconforming businesses that use hazardous materials, or they might apply to other problematic uses. Many uses are controlled to some degree by both a license and zoning. The idea here would be to establish a special license for industrial uses operating within residential or commercial areas to ensure that there are no adverse impacts. Licensing has generally been used where some form of inspection for health or safety is appropriate, (e.g. restaurants or gasoline pumps). Where licensing has a very narrow specific purpose, it is appropriate for zoning to regulate the use with performance standards, intensity limits, noise, buffering or screening requirements. Zoning should not, however, duplicate health or safety-related licenses. Potential uses that might be subject to licensing include adult uses, commercial filming, massage, restaurants with entertainment, pawn shops, and/or tattoo parlors. The City may find that licensing provides improved enforcement of nuisance conditions and discourages illegal activities for these uses. The City Attorney's advice should also be sought on this subject. ANNUAL REVIEW Most communities adopt zoning text amendments in response to new state or federal law or Council direction or to implement new land use policies. Map amendments are typically adopted in response to property owners' requests or neighborhood petitions or to implement new land use policies. These amendments are usually piecemeal, and rarely is there a systematic evaluation of zoning amendments. At the state and federal level, legislative review sometimes results in "cleanup" bills to correct technical errors and ensure internal consistency within major legislative programs. This approach also can be used effectively at the local level, not only for zoning regulations but also for other implementation programs. In fact, some communities have been successful in establishing a monitoring and review process following adoption of a comprehensive zoning update. All of the community concerns as well as problems noted by developers, design professionals and City staff are addressed in a set of zoning amendments adopted each year. The annual General Plan report required by the Government Code could be used as the vehicle for reporting on zoning issues related to Plan implementation. Such an annual review process would build in flexibility over the long term. As it would heighten awareness of whether zoning is doing the right job with the fewest set of rules and regulations and whether the City is getting the quality of development it expects under the ordinance. Summary The City of Palo Alto has several means available to enhance flexibility in its zoning ordinance, while at the same time providing increased certainty in the review process. Options discussed include: limiting discretion in the PC (Planned Community) zone process, use of a more design-oriented approach to the code or the use of design guidelines to supplement the code, clarifying the current flexible zoning processes (variances, exceptions, etc.), reducing or merging the number of combining districts and base districts, reevaluating how permitted, conditional and "special" uses are addressed, and/or providing a reasonable method for accommodating nonconforming uses and structures. These techniques and modifications should be tested in the community through focus groups and workshops prior to finalization in the zoning update and subsequent implementation. An annual review process will assist the City to evaluate the effectiveness of its ordinance on a regular basis. Cityof Palo Alto ColleaguesMemorandum proformas application of the codified such review must focus onnature adequate have d approved s the code y "A new look at 'negotiable'PCZones." ATTACHMENT E combined with defined are likely toresult in publicbenefits nototherwiseattainablewill result fromusinga plannedcommunitydistrict the despite this categorization, the definition of a public benefit remains elusive. Without a precise definition, measuring a public benefit and determining whether it meets the general purpose and intent of a PC zoning designation is cumbersome and unpredictable. incentivezoning adhoc i.e., e.g. financialbenefits aestheticbenefits functional benefits o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a Editorial:Anew look at'negotiable'PCzones," Guestopinion:Why Planned Communityzoning makes so much trouble," CommunityBenefits and Incentives:Issues, Options,and Case Studies. GrowingSmart Legislative Guidebook:Model Statutesfor Planningthe Managementof Change,American Planning Association City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 11 1 Chair Martinez: So Mr. Passmore are you going to help Commissioner Keller out at his house 2 with his tree problems? 3 4 Mr. Passmore: We will do our best to help all of our residents and yes, Commissioner Keller is 5 included. The easy answer to a lot of that is there is no perfect tree. We work very diligently to 6 try to select the best species for the individual site. We realize that trees do have impacts. We 7 try to minimize those while also maximizing the benefits of those trees. And it’s always a very 8 challenging task. There’s obviously some things that we can’t control because its nature and it is 9 somewhat of its own mind. So we do the best we can to take care of what we have and get the 10 most out of it. 11 12 Commissioner Keller: If I might add I’m certainly not asking for any particular preferential 13 treatment of me above anybody else, but I’m illustrating that things based on my own experience 14 because I’m much more familiar with it but it probably affects a lot of other people as well. And 15 I’ve heard about other issues. 16 17 Chair Martinez: Ok from that personal experience then. So you’ve probably figured out by now 18 that this Commission does much better with drafts of documents than with being presented a 19 final document. So I heard you say that you’re going to have a draft in the next 30 to 60 days 20 and we hope to see you back here within the next 30 to 60 days. So thank you very much. 21 22 Mr. Passmore: Thank you. 23 24 Chair Martinez: No. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: May I suggest something schedule wise? 27 28 Chair Martinez: Ok. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: I would actually suggest that rather than giving us a document and a week 31 later having a talk about it you might want to circulate a draft to us and then come back a little 32 later. If it’s a hundred some odd page document it may take us a little while to absorb it. So 33 you’ll get better feedback if we have a chance to read it thoroughly.34 35 Chair Martinez: Ok. Good suggestion. Thank you all and thanks to you Mr. Passmore for this 36 work.37 38 Commission Action: None. Questions and comments only.39 40 2. Discussion of Colleagues Memo Requesting Study Session or Retreat Topic on Improving 41 Process for Determining Adequacy of Public Benefits Associated with Planned Community 42 Zones.43 44 Chair Martinez: We’re going to move onto the second agenda item since we moved kind of 45 quickly through this. Do you want a couple minutes to set up or Mr. Assistant Director are you 46 ready to go? 47 48 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: I think we’re ready to go. I could put on the slides. 49 ATTACHMENT F City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 12 1 Chair Martinez: Ok good. Let me give you a little overview of sort of how I wanted to structure 2 tonight’s conversation. Normally we’re presented with a staff report in which it’s fairly clearly 3 laid out what the issue is, what we’re to consider, and whether there’s a recommendation to be 4 made. This is kind of an unusual situation in that this is a Colleagues Memo prepared by 5 members of this Commission without, at our own initiation. And so we are proposing something 6 which hasn’t yet gone before the Council and the Council may have their own thoughts on this 7 particular item. And it’s somewhat of an unstructured opportunity for us to talk about something 8 important to our City. 9 10 Given that there’s a couple of caveats I think we need to observe. One is we should respect the 11 role of the City Council to set the agenda on how Planned Community (PC) districts and public 12 benefits are to be addressed. This is an ideational meeting about community benefits and 13 Planned Community Zones. Secondly, related to that there are a couple of projects that are 14 currently under consideration and they need to be left out of our conversation tonight. We know 15 what they are, but we can’t show our bias or kind of thinking on how it should go, what should 16 be the direction. That’s going to come back to us in the form of a staff report based on previous 17 hearings, based on further work of the applicant. And to be fair to everyone and not to be 18 considered prejudging something we need to refrain from discussing those topics. So I think it 19 might be better to make up an example of what your concern might be. 20 21 I want to try to proceed tonight giving the three members of, who drafted the Colleagues Memo 22 the opportunity to give you a little background on it and their thoughts on it and then perhaps go 23 to our, open the public hearing and give the public a chance to weigh in before it comes back to 24 the full Commission for our questions, comments, and suggestions about what to do next. So 25 and also staff, give you all the opportunity. So I’ve asked Vice-Chair Michael to introduce the 26 discussion of Planned Community Districts and public benefits to be followed by Commissioner 27 Alcheck and then myself and then we’ll go to the public for their comments. Vice-Chair 28 Michael. 29 30 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you Chair Martinez and also thanks to Commissioner Alcheck for 31 collaborating on the Colleagues Memo. Also Assistant Director Aknin and Senior Assistant City 32 Attorney Silver helped point us in the direction of some useful materials that we, what we 33 reflected. So this afternoon there was a meeting of a Subcommittee of the Planning Commission 34 on the Governance Element of the Comprehensive Plan and one of the values that was important 35 and is likely to be in the Governance Element is the importance of transparency and engagement 36 with the public. Often how the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) operates and the 37 procedural rules that we follow and the public meeting requirements creates a challenge for us to 38 conduct a serious discussion that goes deeply into important issues. And one of the issues that 39 seems to come up frequently in front of the Planning Commission involves the question of public 40 benefit.41 42 I was at a meeting I think last week at the Stanford Law School that started off with a title page 43 with the Latin phrase “Cui bono,” which translated “for whose benefit.” And I think that the 44 question that we often face as Commissioners is to keep in mind for whose benefit certain 45 matters or issues or projects will impact. We have multiple stakeholders in the City all of whom 46 have valid but sometimes different perspectives. And in doing the Colleagues Memo one of the 47 ground rules was that we didn’t try to force any agreement among colleagues as to the outcome 48 that we wanted on any issue. We just wanted to go deeply into what the issues were and to try to 49 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 13 identify the alternatives. So in that spirit these slides that I’ve extracted are just intended to 1 provide an overview and a framework for the discussion that may happen tonight and hopefully 2 will ensue for long into the future. 3 4 So in the municipal code regarding the specific purposes of a Planned Community District is one 5 of the important references to public benefit and if you look at the ordinance the Planning 6 Commission is charged with making three specific findings, which are on this slide and you can 7 all read. The second of which is “public benefits not otherwise attainable will result from using 8 the Planned Community District.” Put another way quoting from the housing municipal code the 9 Planned Community District is particularly intended for unified comprehensively planned 10 developments which are of “substantial public benefit.” Next slide. 11 12 This gets to the important challenge of what is a public benefit? It’s not defined in the municipal 13 code and it’s not laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. A number of things may be unclear about 14 what may be a perspective public benefit. What is the nature of the benefit? Might it be 15 adequate? Does it have any value? If so, how much? And it may be controversial. And some 16 of the issues swirling around the public benefit are whether the nature of the project itself is 17 intrinsically beneficial to the public, which I think frequently is the case although not always. 18 And sometimes the impacts of the project and any associated benefits are viewed with some 19 validity as externalities and that may impose different requirements on the process that should be 20 followed. 21 22 Then you get into, I guess I’ve touched on this a little bit, the different perspectives that are 23 relevant. And we talked about benefits intrinsic to the project, benefits… sometimes we talk 24 about how to make the project itself a better project. Thinking that making a better project is 25 beneficial to the public rather than something which ultimately fails at its purpose or is 26 unattractive. And then there are benefits that may contribute to specific needs that are identified 27 for the City. And then you get into yeah, you might analyze the benefit in terms of what type of 28 benefit it is. Is it a financial benefit? I mean is it appropriate to request a payment from a 29 developer into a public fund that would mitigate an adverse impact on the City’s infrastructure 30 for example or providing additional parking. Are there aesthetic benefits? And this can be 31 pretty important, but it’s again pretty hard to quantify, but public art, landscaping, so on, planting 32 trees, incredibly important to Palo Alto in a lot of ways. 33 34 And then you get into the area functional benefits and this is almost unlimited in terms of the 35 possibilities: public amenities, infrastructure improvements, public safety enhancements, transit 36 passes, electric vehicle charging, recreational facilities, sidewalk benches, you could just go on 37 and on. There are different forms in which the benefit can be delivered to the public. So the 38 Planning Commission has an important function which it’s important for us to understand and 39 discharge effectively with respect to the zoning of the city. And by approving or recommending 40 the approval of a PC that would go to the Council for final action this may be in something 41 which is referred to as incentive zoning, which is important and across America and around the 42 world there is a lot of instances of incentive zoning. And the basic idea is that you may want to 43 provide incentives to developers to build something that the community wants or needs. When 44 you increase the zoning intensity you, that may confer a benefit to the developer to build more 45 profitably and in exchange for that it seems fair that the developer give something back to the 46 public in the form of and we talked about the different types or categories of benefits and that 47 whole discussion is almost inevitable. 48 49 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 14 And one of the things that frustrated me the first number of times that this type of discussion 1 arose was, was there a straightforward objective quantifiable sort of process that you could go 2 through to, what’s the math? I mean how do you, I mean for example if it’s an externality and 3 you have, you know, there’s some value created, but there’s some impact and you, you know, 4 fairness dictates making a payment. How much and to what end? So you get into what is the 5 value and what is the cost. And these are questions for which there may not be easy answers, but 6 they are important questions. 7 8 Now one of the things that Palo Alto’s pretty good at and we certainly endorse and encourage is 9 looking at comparable cities and learning from them about best practices. And the Palo Alto 10 City staff pointed us at a 2012 study that was commissioned for the City of Santa Monica which 11 is about 20 some odd pages long, which is quite interesting and it’s footnoted in the Colleagues 12 Memo. Santa Monica’s different from Palo Alto in many respects and their study didn’t relate to 13 PC zoning but it related to Development Agreements and Conditional Use Permits (CUP). But 14 what they ended up doing a lot of work that is maybe analogous to our situation, which is they 15 tried to objectify and identify what sorts of benefits would be wanted and needed by the 16 community. They looked at their decision making and administrative process relative to the 17 whole public benefit question in their context. And this related importantly to other issues that 18 they face and we face related to the density bonus and sometimes transfer of development rights. 19 And they ended up with publishing a sort of a menu system of community benefits with a sort of 20 tiered point system by which in a transparent and objective way if a developer wanted to proceed 21 with a certain project they would kind of know in advance what it might entail and then the 22 officials maybe reviewing the, approving the project could have the same kind of set of 23 principles to guide their decision making. 24 25 So in the Colleagues Memo we concluded with a longer list of potential next steps not presuming 26 what the outcome was and I just extracted from that for tonight’s purposes just a few things. 27 One is the Planning Commission and the City Council annually have a joint meeting to discuss 28 issues that are common to the two bodies and I think it would be useful as we do this this year 29 and in the future to engage about this question and our respective roles and responsibilities. I 30 think the next point is very important to me and that is that frequently we have topics that we 31 think are pretty important and although I want to really acknowledge a lot of the residents of the 32 City, some of whom are here this evening, who are consistently engaged in giving us their 33 thoughts and ideas, but I would love for the public to be more engaged and more involved in the 34 Planning Commission. Because I’m a resident, we’re all residents. We all have our own ideas. 35 We don’t presume to think that our ideas should dictate the public outcome, but we like to 36 represent you. So please tell us what you think and what you want and what you need and if 37 we’re in the wrong direction which direction you think is important. 38 39 Now one of the controversial areas just in our little colleagues group is the relevance or necessity 40 of using economic analysis in relation to reviewing public benefit decisions. And I personally 41 come from a situation much like Commissioner Keller who said you can’t manage what you 42 can’t measure and you need data to make decisions. I think oftentimes we’re asked to make 43 decisions and we’re not given data. So I think economic analysis and data is sometimes pretty 44 important. 45 46 We’re in the process of working with the staff on the update to the Comprehensive Plan and that 47 within the foreseeable future it’s going to go to the Council for their discussion and approval. 48 And I would personally like to see a more robust treatment of public benefit in the 49 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 15 Comprehensive Plan if that’s something that the Planning Commission has more input to. And 1 just a suggestion as a possibility for the staff is to moving somewhat away from ad hoc treatment 2 or what seems to be ad hoc treatment of review and approval of projects and benefits and 3 consider the establishment of a matrix or menu for eligibility regarding development concessions 4 that are deemed to have a substantial public benefit. And that is really a sort of summary of a 5 much longer Colleagues Memo which has been made available to the public and which we are 6 hoping is going to stimulate lively discussion and lots of engaged residents coming to the 7 Planning Commission to tell us what they think. 8 9 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Alcheck. 10 11 Commissioner Alcheck: As many of you are well aware, I am one of the newest members of this 12 Commission and I’m not sure what sort of precedent exists to help determine how early in a 13 Commissioner’s term he or she should suggest changes to the process, but that didn’t stop me 14 from doing so, because like my fellow Commissioners I’m fiercely dedicated to our 15 Commission’s responsibilities; namely providing our City Council with astute recommendations 16 regarding development and zoning in this wonderful City. And addressing the issues we’ve 17 raised in this memo will go a long way to improving this Commission’s efforts. And when we 18 set out to draft this memo our vision, our shared vision was that this effort would jumpstart the 19 process of ultimately defining the term “public benefit” for Palo Alto. 20 21 I think this endeavor presents significant challenges and our hope is that by bringing greater 22 clarity and predictability to this process we will enhance the community’s benefits and their 23 satisfaction, our satisfaction with these benefits. So I’m going to stop there because I think Mark 24 did a great job of sort of setting it up and I’m eager for this process to begin. 25 26 Chair Martinez: Great, thank you. I’m a land use person. My training, my background, my 27 experience, my passion is about how we use better land use. So on this Commission I’ve really 28 tried to look at what has been proposed in different situations, and they’ve all been different here, 29 and look at it from a purely point of view is this a good land use or why are we proposing to 30 change the type of zoning that we’re using here, is it to suggest that there can be a better, higher 31 land use, something that makes more sense because it’s near transit or because the City could use 32 this, it makes a better neighborhood. So every PC that comes before us I take a very simple sort 33 of measure and that is first is it a good project in itself. Does it become a good neighbor? Can 34 we mitigate things that the project creates in its doing? And if we can do all that does that 35 suggest that the project itself is a public benefit? 36 37 So I looked again at our municipal code trying to understand why is it so vague, why does it sort 38 of leave us out this way and it reads slightly different than our Colleagues Memo. Can you put it 39 up Aaron? That’s important too. So, it’s basically a paragraph. It’s not broken down into three 40 bars that the development must meet or exceed. It’s basically really one thought and the thought 41 is if you can read it in the bold temp the Planned Community District is particularly intended for 42 unified comprehensively planned development which are of substantial public benefit. In other 43 words, the land use itself is of substantial public benefit. So it takes me back to the thought that 44 our role and our responsibility as Commissioner is the evaluation of this proposed development. 45 How it will fit into our City infrastructure and how it will be part of a neighborhood. So the 46 discussion of public benefits has grown to be something greater than what it was originally 47 intended to be. Public benefits isn’t defined in the municipal code or the Comprehensive Plan 48 because it never was intended to be seen as separate from the development itself. So we can talk 49 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 16 about intrinsic benefits but extrinsic benefits moves the discussion away from what the 1 municipal code itself says.2 3 So I wanted to be part of this discussion because we’re having it in addition or in spite of what 4 our Comprehensive Plan says or what the municipal code says, but it’s a reality of how planning 5 is working in Palo Alto today. So on one hand we need to look at this and see whether we are 6 moving in the right direction, whether it needs better definition, whether it needs to be moved 7 back to its original purpose. And secondly because as a Commissioner I really like to see this 8 body engage in the pursuit of questions about the nature of development, the success of our 9 development, the future of development in the City of Palo Alto. So this is an entirely relevant 10 important discussion and I hope that as the Vice-Chair suggested that we can move forward with 11 a public outreach to really broaden our perspective of where we go from here. 12 13 So I’m sorry for taking too much time on that, but I just wanted to inject that perspective as well. 14 Let’s open the public hearing. We have five speakers. Thank you. Vice-Chair? Three minutes 15 each, but we also want you to complete what you have come here to say so if you need an 16 additional amount of time to finish we will try to work with that within our time budget. Thank 17 you.18 19 Vice-Chair Michael: So the first speaker will be Neilson Buchanan followed by Bob Moss. 20 21 Neilson Buchanan: Neilson Buchanan, 155 Bryant. I’d like to acknowledge one thing, you just 22 got through saying it is I do hear your challenge to us citizens out there to come forward and 23 particular those of us who are trying to represent other viewpoints. It’s not easy to begin to 24 mobilize neighbors and saying look at the complexity of this, this is something that’s going on. 25 I’ve got hopefully I’ve got a houseful of people waiting for me at 8:00 to sort of start this citizen, 26 more responsible citizenry action so it just isn’t me up here reacting to what I’ve been able to 27 think through over the weekend. 28 29 I’ll start with an apology. I sent an e-mail out on Saturday. I’d been on a mountaintop with no 30 internet connection trying to edit a document e-mail to you from my iPhone. It did not turn out 31 well. My English teacher in high school would have given the e-mail an F for grammar and 32 words omitted, but the thought and principle behind it were put together as best as people could 33 do over the weekend. I promise to do better e-mail in the future. 34 35 Speaking for again a handful of neighbors in Downtown North we have another concern that 36 we’d like to put in context tonight. And I look at Aaron and Curtis over there and I’ve said this 37 before that the work that’s on their plate concerns us. Not only this wonderful document that I 38 am just pleased as punch about wherever it does end up with the Council and you all, but this is a 39 great step forward. But how we’re going to manage this with staff getting a burden of an 40 economic boom, we’ve got 27 University. We’ve got the Development Cap to capture. We’ve 41 got the community benefit situation here and I hope someone is really looking after the welfare 42 of our staff, some of whom are departing rapidly. So the ranks are going to be thin as certain 43 things Curtis is recommending he’s not going to be around to worry about. I don’t say that 44 lightly and I’ve been in staff position in a public agency and I know what it’s like when the 45 world comes crashing down. And we don’t want to do a few things poorly and I know you don’t 46 either. 47 48 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 17 Let me just wrap up by saying I hope from Downtown North point of view to bring a collective 1 wisdom of more and more people. It’s going to take probably most of this year in my opinion. 2 But I encourage you and the Council and staff to be really aggressive about the rocks that you 3 have uncovered in this Colleagues Memo. Just so happened my own due diligence tapped into a 4 few other cities and one of whom is Santa Monica where I’ve got substantial contacts. And I 5 never thought I’d be in favor of much of anything coming out of Santa Monica, but I am. But 6 the notion of cost benefits, detriments, and burdens is a fruitful discussion even when you can’t 7 quantify it.8 9 Just finally the float up notions and I’m sure you’ve seen and I didn’t see terribly detailed in the 10 memo, but the float up concepts that are operationalized in Santa Monica are really worthwhile. 11 Ironically the hotel article was published in the Santa Monica Daily, whatever it is, and I hope 12 you’ll read though that because it did show how very responsible architect citizen of Santa 13 Monica presented to the public his notion of a project. And that rich conversation is one I hope 14 we’ll have in Palo Alto. So thank you again.15 16 I wanted to give you the Downtown North “Not Kicking the Can Down” award with a little 17 balloon facilitator that knowing every cost and benefit if you push on one side you get the other 18 one and I don’t know what you want to do with this silly tin can. Our budget didn’t allow me to 19 spray paint it gold, but enjoy it. Thank you. 20 21 Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. 22 23 Vice-Chair Michael: So next speaker is Bob Moss followed by Winter Dellenbach. 24 25 Robert Moss: Welcome aboard. I’ve been fighting the PC process for over 30 years and I’m glad 26 to see that you’re taking it seriously. The best way to describe the PC’s, the vast majority of 27 them that have been approved in the last 30 plus years is it’s a scam. And more than 20 years 28 ago I tried to quantify the public versus the private benefits. And so my idea was to get a 29 spreadsheet where you could put the public benefits on one side and the private benefits on 30 another and try to get a real number you could equate. Now I did not take into account the 31 normal things that you talked about in your letter. Things like traffic impacts, parking, schools, 32 infrastructure because each of those can be very difficult to quantify, but they obviously should 33 be considered. And obviously if you have a zone, the zoning on the land is CS and somebody 34 wants to come in with a project which is 50 percent more dense there have got to be impacts to 35 the community, traffic and parking are just two obvious ones, school requirements depending on 36 what’s in there. So there are a lot of things you have to do in order to try to quantify the two 37 aspects of it. But if you never try you never know.38 39 So I sat down with some developers trying to get their perspective and I talked to some people 40 you may have heard of, Jim Baer, Tony Carrasco, Chop Keenan. They didn’t want to touch 41 quantifying private benefits. They didn’t even want to talk about it. They thought it was a 42 terrible idea because it would expose what they were getting versus what the public’s getting. 43 44 So you remember Nancy Lytle? She used to be a manager in the Planning Department. She got 45 curious about this so she had her staff try to quantify what the developers actually got and she 46 found there was a very strong correlation between who the developer was and what the private 47 benefits were. The insiders, people like Baer and Keenan got huge private benefits, especially 48 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 18 relative to the public benefits whereas somebody who was coming in from Milwaukee or Santa 1 Clara was not nearly as well treated. That’s true, that’s continued to be true even today.2 3 Another major problem is that when the developer violates the PC there has never, ever been a 4 penalty. You saw the picture of Caffe Riace sitting on what was supposed to be a public park. 5 800 High is another example; there’s supposed to be a public park area there. That also was 6 turned into restaurant seating within a few months of the building being completed. Alma Plaza, 7 the big benefit there was the grocery store. And when they said that’s the benefit I said what 8 happens if the grocery store goes out of business? “Oh, that’s not going to happen!” It’s true, 9 it’s not going to happen until April 1st and now we won’t have the public benefits. 10 11 So if you really are serious about fixing the PC problem you have to do three things. Quantify 12 and consistently quantify the public benefits, quantify the private benefits, and enforce anything 13 that is agreed to by the developer so that if he doesn’t do what he says, if he turns the public park 14 into a café there are real penalties. Otherwise it’s nonsense. 15 16 Chair Martinez: Thank you.17 18 Vice-Chair Michael: So Winter Dellenbach followed by Herb Borock. 19 20 Winter Dellenbach: Hi, I live in Barron Park. For three years I made it a personal project of 21 mine to look at many, many PC’s, some old, some much newer and conducted my own what I 22 think of as an investigation. I was a little hurt that you didn’t mention me in your report. You 23 mentioned lots of other people, but not me and I thought I worked really hard. 24 25 But I wanted to point out a couple of things in your, in the Colleagues Memo. Unlike Bob I had 26 trouble with the benefits versus impact language. It’s Number 6 in the objective comparison of 27 benefits versus impacts under the process, the possible objectives, benefits versus impact. I think 28 that’s apples and oranges. Impacts are situational and get mitigated or at least are supposed to 29 get mitigated by the developer and impacts have nothing to do with public benefits. Public 30 benefits are completely different animal. The way, I think there’s a very, I think in part this is 31 extremely simple. I don’t think this is that complex if you really want to seriously deal with this 32 it’s as Bob said quantifying things: quantifying the value of the public benefit, quantifying the 33 public benefit versus the private benefit, the public benefit versus the private benefit. That is 34 apples to apples. The benefit to the public should approximate the increased value the developer 35 derives by being granted the PC zoning change. So figure out the gazillion dollars more that the 36 developer will derive from being granted the PC zoning change and there you have a very good 37 rational yardstick about the value that the public benefits should equal.38 39 And enforcement is absolutely critical. In my investigation I found I mean unbelievable things, 40 problems with past benefits us not getting them being transformed into other uses and also the 41 drafting of PC zoning agreements is critical. I’ve saw many agreements that within the 42 agreement sabotaged the public benefits. I mean clearly sabotaged them. But public benefit 43 versus private benefit it’s a good equation and you come up with the math. Thank you. 44 45 Chair Martinez: And thank you. 46 47 Vice-Chair Michael: So the next speaker is Herb Borock to be followed by Jane Sideris. 48 49 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 19 Herb Borock: Good evening. The agenda description for this agenda item is a discussion of 1 Colleagues Memo requesting study session or retreat topic. So if you want to discuss the 2 substance of the Colleagues Memo then what’s the purpose of having a study session or retreat 3 topic? If you want to have a study session or retreat topic this is not the place to discuss the 4 substance. I mean it’s a trap to have a memo written with multiple pages with the lawyers 5 interpretation of some sentences in the zoning code as Chair Martinez pointed out is not what the 6 zoning code says. In fact when the Planned Community Zone was originally in the zoning code 7 it said nothing about public benefits, it was clear that it was a way for developers to get a more 8 intense development and more profitable development then you could under general zoning law, 9 zoning district in Palo Alto.10 11 Now in the State law for planning and zoning you might ask Senior Assistant City Attorney to 12 clarify this, there is a provision for uniformity of zoning that you can’t have contract zoning. We 13 have some cities mentioned. I believe they’re both, the ones in California, both charter cities. 14 What good does a PC zone provide for public benefit? Well one thing that it used to be the only 15 way to do was to get 100 percent affordable housing. But now we have Government Code 16 65915 that provides a way to exceed the zoning limits for 100 percent affordable housing. I 17 know there are some housing advocates that are unaware of that, but you can replace one with 18 the other. So what I would suggest is that we do away with the Planned Community Zone and 19 that we enact the identical language that exists in State law requiring uniformity of zoning that 20 essentially prohibits contract zoning.21 22 The way this issue is framed is essentially taking as given, which is understandable City Council 23 position since you and your colleagues on the Architectural Review Board (ARB) are appointed 24 by the current City Council that increased intensity of development more than the current zoning 25 code allows is assumed; that that’s what’s going to happen. And I think that’s a mistake. You 26 really can’t quantify by dollars public benefits versus private benefit because the developer 27 won’t do that development if you get them to be equal. So the simplest way to handle this is just 28 simply to do away with the zone district. And if you feel it’s worthwhile to exceed the existing 29 zoning districts by, for the purpose of providing affordable housing you can do that under the 30 Government Code Section 65915. Thank you. 31 32 Chair Martinez: And thank you. Assistant Senior City Attorney we were a little bit clumsy in the 33 way we worded this agenda item. Do we have any issues here that? 34 35 Cara Silver, Sr. Assistant City Attorney: Yes, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. I am 36 trying to pull up the agenda wording. There was a revised agenda that was issued that does, that 37 defines this item as “Discussion of Colleagues Memo requesting study session or retreat topic on 38 improving process for determining adequacy of public benefits associated with Planned 39 Community Zones.” And so I think that in order to get to that general topic in that Motion that is 40 entirely appropriate to discuss some of the contents in the Colleagues Memo, even some of the 41 more particular ideas around community benefits in order to get to the question of whether this is 42 an appropriate decision that needs to go to the City Council for further direction or whether it’s 43 appropriate to discuss with them at a, at your upcoming joint session. 44 45 Chair Martinez: Great, thank you very much. 46 47 Vice-Chair Michael: Jane Sideris. 48 49 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 20 Jane Sideris: Good evening Commission and thank you for letting me talk. I think I’m going to 1 be talking about something smaller than what I should be talking about, but I appreciate listening 2 to your plans for, I thought it was very important and I agreed with all of these plans for PC 3 planning. But my specific interest is how already rezoning or applying rezoning is effecting my 4 life in Palo Alto and the, I would like to address the plans for our City that require rezoning 5 especially that make room for higher density. I don’t think that’s always a public benefit and 6 we’re doing a lot of that it seems these days. 7 8 And there are now several projects that are so unlike Palo Alto and so dense that they are not 9 only unattractive, but they are not safe and in some cases even claustrophobic. For instance, 10 Miki’s; that’s just a shame, that beautiful market and it was a disaster about to happen during the 11 planning. We all said the road in there was too narrow, the parking wasn’t sufficient, and 12 where’s the park? I thought there was supposed to be a park in there for community benefit. All 13 I see are three story buildings going up. And I’ve been in those buildings and they’re scary. I 14 wouldn’t want to be in there in an earthquake. I don’t think that’s a public benefit. It’s poor 15 planning.16 17 And now the planning is one more project on Maybell. It’s not a safe place for a senior center to 18 be or a senior housing to be walled in, once again, with narrow opening onto a busy street, 19 backed up onto a bicycle boulevard that’s already so crowded and these people in the senior 20 building being crowded and walled in by 15 three story houses. I think that that’s poor planning 21 and it isn’t for the public benefit in my mind. And it isn’t a benefit for our neighborhood. It’s 22 very unsafe; it’s unsafe for the emergency vehicles that are going to have to go in and out of 23 there. It’s unsafe for the fire engine department there on that Clemo Street. All of this is not a 24 public benefit in my mind. And so I would just like for you to reconsider some of these planned 25 projects and reconsider some of the rezoning that are not a benefit for our neighborhood.26 27 Our children have been fenced out of Gunn High School. They can no longer play ball on the 28 parks. There’s no parkland left except Strawberry Hill. There’s very little park space at Juana 29 Briones and it’s very crowded. Tonight when I walked my dog there, there were already 20 cars 30 parked up and down of people playing in the park. It would be a nice if you would rezone that 31 empty place on Maybell for a playing field. Open space. That’s a public benefit. Thank you. 32 33 Chair Martinez: And thank you to all members of the public for speaking tonight. 34 Commissioners I would like rather than for us to take considerable amount of time per each of 35 our the things that we have to say to try to go perhaps three minutes per Commissioner and do as 36 many rounds as we can so that we can see if we can try to focus it on the topics that we each 37 bring up and give a little continuity going that way. Anyone care to start off? Commissioner 38 Keller, yes. Three minutes. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I know the Chair admonished us not to talk about projects 41 currently going through the approval pipeline, but I assume that that admonishment does not 42 extend to dealing with past projects that are PC’s. 43 44 Chair Martinez: That is true. 45 46 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So, first of all as a general statement I think that impacts need 47 to be mitigated and that mitigations are not benefits. And I think that that’s something we should 48 be clear and I often see situations where, for example, transit passes. Transit passes that are part 49 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 21 of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures are not public benefits. Ok? So let’s 1 just be clear about that. And I think that’s part of the blurring. I heard a lot about for example 2 during the Stanford process that there are lots of things such as the Go Passes for the Stanford 3 employees as being public benefits. No, those are TDM measures to reduce traffic and I think 4 we need to be clear about that. 5 6 I think there are several criteria that I think are worthwhile considering. One is who gets to 7 enjoy the public benefit? Is it of general utility, general use or is it a small group of people that 8 get to enjoy it? And what happens when the project changes during approval such as what 9 happened with 101 Lytton, the project at Alma and Lytton was originally a project that was 10 certain height and had concessions because it had housing in it and because that housing drew 11 concessions, but when the housing went away the concessions, some of the concessions stayed 12 and they didn’t, we didn’t go back to square one and say, “Does this still make sense?” Now that 13 may have been a good idea or not be a good idea, but it’s a situation in which the project 14 changed and some of the conditions that applied to it because of what it was before those are no 15 longer equally justified. 16 17 What happens when a project changes after approval process? The Caffe Riace example, the 800 18 High example, those are examples of projects that changed after they’re approved. And in 19 particular that’s an example of when benefits that are supposed to be to the public are privatized 20 and how we deal with that. There are issues that we’ve dealt with in the past, for example the 21 Alma Village example situation which the Planning Commission turned down that PC initiation. 22 It then went to Council and which something was given to Council at places, Council Members 23 few of them read it, some of them had talked to the developer beforehand and then it was an 24 approval process of something that most of the Council hadn’t had a chance to really understand 25 and something got approved in a way that locked in and without the opportunity, the initiation 26 actually locked things in the process that are a little different from what we usually had. So the 27 process has changed considerably since then, but that’s a particularly egregious case of what 28 happened with past Planned Community Zones. Thank you. 29 30 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka are you ready? 31 32 Commissioner Tanaka: So first of all let me thank my fellow Commissioners for putting together 33 this Colleagues Memo. I think it’s actually very timely, especially given some of the recent 34 announcements with Miki’s Market, JJ&S and others. So it’s a tough topic and I think a lot of 35 the speakers from the public made very good points and I think unfortunately this is something 36 which I think deserves a very in depth study session because it’s not an easy answer to resolve. 37 38 So in general I’m actually in favor of trying to make these more quantifiable so it’s more clear as 39 to how the public benefit works and who benefits from it. And I think that’s actually a key thing 40 because some of these project I think, you know the number of people who have benefitted is 41 very, very important to know. Is it just a few or is it the general public? Are the people who are 42 getting the public benefit are the people who are affected? Maybe not in a technically mitigate 43 impacts, but does it perhaps make it more palatable to those around there? But in general I think 44 this seems to be headed in the right direction and I think too, I think have an effective study 45 session probably be good to have some sort of, this is kind of an open ended topic. It might be 46 worthwhile to have some sort of process in place of how we’re going to resolve it and how can 47 we get our hands around this. Otherwise we kind of have a very open ended discussion and I 48 don’t know if we’ll have tangible deliverables from this otherwise. Thank you. 49 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 22 1 Chair Martinez: Commissioner King. 2 3 Commissioner King: Thank you. So two other Commissioners have used the quote that I was 4 going to use tonight already, which is if you can’t measure it you can’t manage it. So we’re 5 certainly on the same page there. and I think relative, how my intent relative to this Colleagues 6 Memo is that I think it’s important for us to go back and understand and interview those people 7 who are still around that have been involved in PC’s. all that stuff’s water under the bridge, but 8 on the other hand it’s valuable information on what worked and what didn’t work in the process 9 and how the projects turned out relative to how people thought or intended them to turn out. So I 10 think it’s important as part of the process to do some history. 11 12 It’s also important I think in my mind it’s great to have this information on Santa Monica. I 13 think it’s very easy for elected and appointed officials and staff to operate in a vacuum and not 14 really look at oh what’s being done in other municipalities or other regions. And so I think that’s 15 important to bring into the process and I would love either through interviewing those people, 16 figuring out how we can get that type of historical information and then coming together with 17 probably a facilitator, maybe the Chair as a facilitator or somebody who’s got a little bit 18 specialized in that bring together stakeholders to include developers. I think it’s easy or if you 19 listen to the public generally the people who will come and speak out are those who feel that the 20 developers have clearly gotten the better end of the bargain in the past. And that may well be the 21 case, but I think we need to maintain the intent of the PC or view the intent of the PC which is to 22 come to a win-win solution so that there may be some things that we actually do need as the 23 City, some public benefit, and we want the developers on board. It’s not as if they’re always 24 getting a better end of the deal. So I think we want to understand what works for them. There 25 are certain things like certainly time delays cost them incredibility and so to the extent that we 26 can streamline the process it’s going to make it much more attractive for them in that amount of 27 private benefit that they need is going to be decreased. And I think that’s it for now. Thank you. 28 29 Chair Martinez: Ok, since I’m kind of used to being a minority so it doesn’t bother me that I’m 30 the minority in this if you can’t measure it you can’t management debate. Let me tell you a little 31 story, ok? I grew up in LA. I’ve told that story many times. Growing up there in the Sixties 32 there was this amazing development. Amazing because even being in the neighborhood I really 33 didn’t even know this was about to happen, but on the site of the 20 Century Fox Studios 34 emerged this huge development called Century City. And it was shopping and offices and a 35 hotel that became iconic in Los Angeles called the Century Plaza. Now Century Plaza was if 36 you saw the Die Hard movie, the first Die Hard movie it was that hotel featured in that and it’s 37 the place where dignitaries all came, but in the years that happened after it, it went into a decline 38 as the convention center downtown flourished and new hotels were built closer to downtown. 39 This 672 room white elephant went into decline.40 41 So a few years ago the developer, property owner, wanted to demolish the Century Plaza Hotel. 42 And the preservationists in LA… yeah, there are preservationists in LA. They were up in arms 43 about this because this hotel really was an example of modernism in the 1960’s of a historic 44 place where many historic events had occurred and they wanted to preserve it. So the City came 45 up with what I’ll call, I don’t know what they called it, incentive zoning and they permitted the 46 developer to increase the density and change the use of the hotel if they would preserve it. And 47 so the developer was able to build at least two big high rise buildings next to it, downsize the 48 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 23 hotel to a third as many rooms, built condominiums on the top floor so it turned into an unusual 1 mixed use building. 2 3 Now I tell this story because the Century Plaza Hotel has been restored to its previous glory and 4 it’s a beautiful building and symbol of LA. But you can’t measure the public benefit of that. 5 You can’t say that it was a win-win, because I’m sure the developer… thirty seconds please. 6 The developer won ten times as much. But nevertheless this historic building is still there, it’s 7 part of the LA landscape, it lives on for another generation or two, who knows? And it’s an 8 example of a public benefit in the development of this site that is immeasurable. And I’m 9 interested in defining sort of what public benefits are or what they can be. I’m not sure we can 10 measure what we can manage. Vice-Chair. 11 12 Vice-Chair Michael: So one of the things that I am very pleased and impressed with in becoming 13 a member of the Planning Commission is that there’s a real diversity of thinking and 14 backgrounds and talents on the Commission. And I’m very convinced that when matters come 15 before us the Commission acts very consistently with extreme diligence and good faith and when 16 we have meetings that go long into the night that’s just sort of evidence of our commitment. But 17 I worry that we are sometimes in our diversity and our good faith and our commitment we 18 manifest diverging approaches to problem solving or to our tasks and responsibilities as a 19 Commission and this may make us somewhat dysfunctional. 20 21 And I think this can be remedied in part because I think this concern arises when we lack 22 agreement on what are the basic principles to be applied. I mean this week in the news there are 23 a couple of major cases coming before the Unites States Supreme Court, which I’m sure you’re 24 all paying attention to. But without getting into that, interpreting the US Constitution there are 25 some clear standards that have evolved over time and equal protection or strict scrutiny, if 26 you’ve got a protected class or what have you. And the courts can apply those principles and 27 those decisions can be reviewed higher up on appeal, but that really isn’t how it works with the 28 Planning Commission in relationship to determining whether there’s a substantial public benefit 29 when we have to do this in connection with a PC Zoning request. And when we make a 30 recommendation and it goes to the Council I’m told that they respect our work and they read 31 very carefully the verbatim minutes of our discussion, but in some ways the Council starts all 32 over and it’s not, may not be clear to the community and sometimes not to me what are the 33 principles that the Council is following. 34 35 So lacking agreement on the principles and lacking some of the tools for analysis I think that this 36 breeds not transparency and trust with the public, which is clearly our goal and we’re actually 37 writing in stone in the Comprehensive Plan, but it breeds cynicism and maybe a legitimate 38 observation that these things in the past haven’t worked as well as they were intended or maybe 39 they were scams as people said this evening. But I think that the possibility exists that maybe 40 that we can light a fire in the community that people who are thinking about these things and 41 want to make suggestions and contribute into the debate in whatever way is appropriate will do 42 so and really engage with us as they have this evening, and thank you for that, and in the future.43 44 But I think I’m looking forward to our collaboration and supportive role and relationship to the 45 Council. And also I think that there’s a very important third leg of the stool here which is the 46 staff of the City of Palo Alto which is, has clear responsibilities and does most of the work. So 47 when we have issues that we have to apply principles and tools for analysis hopefully we can 48 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 24 maybe in the study session that’s coming up we can have some agreement as to what those 1 principles are and what tools we could apply.2 3 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck. 4 5 Commissioner Alcheck: I think it’s important to share with all of you that this is not the first time 6 a City has been presented with this challenge and it bears repeating. We are not alone. It’s sort 7 of astonishing to reflect on that because as we developed this memorandum we were struck by 8 the fortune of the City’s position to have developers come to Palo Alto eager to develop and to 9 be able to negotiate with them as opposed to being in the alternative position of having to bend 10 over backwards to woo developers. And I think that’s extraordinary. And I also don’t think that 11 it’s a guarantee. I’m reminded by the fact that the last 15 or 20 years we’ve consistently 12 developed the southern bay area, the peninsula to be home to many startups, especially in Palo 13 Alto and in the last 4 years we’ve seen a tremendous turn around that South of Market (SOMA), 14 a part of San Francisco which for years was so undesirable has attracted startup development and 15 development for the purposes of housing startup to an extraordinary degree that people who were 16 looking for that space on the peninsula are not moving it back up to San Francisco.17 18 I say that because it’s not a guarantee that we will be able to negotiate for the best possible land 19 use development forever. And I think that that’s why we’re eager to make sure that when we do 20 it today, when we do it in the foreseeable future, we do it as fast as we can. It’s clear by some of 21 the comments made by our speakers that there is a tremendous displeasure with the process as 22 it’s currently implemented. And I have yet to sit through a full beginning to end PC review, but 23 when that day comes the day that we’re going to make a PC recommendation I’m hopeful that 24 we will benefit from more guidance to execute that process so that it’s more transparent, it’s 25 more predictable.26 27 It’s too frequent that we hear about projects that failed to provide the “benefit” and that raises a 28 secondary issue. And issue of enforcement that also deserves attention. I, Commissioner Keller 29 started by saying mitigation efforts are not public benefits. I would agree with that contention, 30 but really that term needs to be defined and we can go back and forth and make suggestions on 31 what we think the definition should be, but until that definition is put in front of us as a 32 Commission we can’t execute the task of evaluating whether the “impacts” of a certain project 33 are justified or outweighed by a benefit, a public benefit. Nonetheless a substantial public 34 benefit. How do we even determine if it’s substantial if we can’t really agree on what it is? 35 36 It’s, I want to say one last thing. One of our speakers said today, in her comments she sort of 37 highlighted a key problem here, which is the public benefit analysis is so susceptible to 38 subjective determination. What is claustrophobic to one Palo Alto resident may not be to 39 another. It’s not, it’s too subjective. We should have something that is not subjective so that we 40 can execute this effectively. 41 42 Chair Martinez: Before we go on staff do you want to weigh in or have comments that you want 43 to reflect upon? 44 45 Mr. Aknin: No, I don’t think I have any specific comments other than saying thank you to the 46 Commission for starting this conversation. I think this is a conversation that we’ll have over the 47 next month if not years. I think it’s something that’s going to be an iterative process that goes 48 through both the Commission and Council and joint meetings as well as many meetings with the 49 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 25 community. But I think it’s important that we start it. As you know as we’ve said in past 1 meetings and the City Manager has said the starting to quantify public benefits is something 2 that’s on the radar so I think continued discussion will do nothing but improve the overall 3 process.4 5 Chair Martinez: Thank you, and our Senior Assistant City Attorney, you good? Ok. Let’s go to 6 a last round of comments. Commissioner Keller, three minutes. 7 8 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So in terms of historical data I was part of a previous 9 committee or subcommittee that was of the Planning Commission looking at PC’s and I actually 10 have data that came from Winter Dellenbach and I’d be happy through staff to provide that to the 11 rest of the Commission. Basically she gathered a bunch of historical collection of PC’s. So I 12 think I have that. 13 14 Secondly my next comments were exactly to the issue of transparency and reducibility. And I do 15 think that the public benefits may be harder to quantify particularly in situations where they are 16 intrinsic, but where they are extrinsic they should be more quantified. But it is probably easier to 17 talk about the increased value of the development to the developer and that’s probably easier to 18 quantify and I’ll leave that to people who know better how to do that. And I’m pleased that the 19 discussion is not merely based on pro formas but a broader economic analysis of that. 20 21 With respect to the Chair’s comment about intrinsic versus extrinsic. If you say everything 22 should be intrinsic then everything will be told to be intrinsic even if it’s not. I heard a comment 23 about 101 Lytton project as project is own benefit. And certainly I don’t think that that, my 24 personal opinion is that’s not the case. Some people may disagree. 25 26 I think it’s helpful with respect to the issue of impacts and mitigations is a California 27 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis which there’s a lot of case law on and mitigations 28 and dealing with those mitigations, dealing with impacts and mitigations is well understood in 29 CEQA and perhaps we can borrow some of that for PC’s. Obviously the thresholds are different, 30 but there’s some analysis there that may translate. And also there’s a notion in CEQA of things 31 that from which there is, you choose to allow it because I forgot the exact language, overriding 32 considerations. And I assume that in the PC there would be some sort of overriding 33 considerations where you do have significant impacts that are not mitigated. 34 35 Finally I think we should take a slightly broader view than merely the public benefits. And that 36 is we should look at the process. And part of the problem with the process is that we initiate a 37 PC without any clear guidance, without any ability to provide clear guidance. We don’t provide 38 straw polls; we don’t provide clear guidance to the developer in this that came back to us in 39 terms of College Terrace Center. The developer said, “I can’t hear what’s going on because 40 there’s seven different points of view.” And we need to have clearer guidance when we initiate a 41 PC what we want. Those, guidance needs to be clear, we need to make that guidance explicit 42 and precise. We need to have that guidance tracked throughout the PC process. And then when 43 it comes back to us for the final approval at the end of the project we need to track that tracked 44 guidance in terms of what needs to go and come back to us in a report at the end. 45 46 I think that’s also part of the issue of this tradeoff between the intrinsicness of a project, 47 extrinsicness of a public benefit is that if there are things to us that we say these things should be 48 in a project and we weigh that in the evaluation of whether to initiate if they don’t come back to 49 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 26 us in the project at the end then the project has morphed in a way that we may not consider the 1 same benefit trade off as coming to pass. And then what happens is that hundreds of thousands 2 of dollars that have been spent on getting approval and it’s too late to change it and people say, 3 “Oh no, let it go,” and that’s a problem. So I think we need to understand better to be better 4 gatekeepers at the beginning. And finally to make sure that we’re willing to say no at the 5 beginning until we get what we want and then we’ll know that it’s more predictable to be 6 approved at the end. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Great. Thank you. Commissioner King, final comments? 9 10 Commissioner King: Thank you. Yeah, one thing I wanted to acknowledge we haven’t 11 discussed at length is the difficult position that staff is put in on these. Because they’re in, if it’s 12 a something within the zoning oh yes it fits or it doesn’t fit. It’s relatively clear on a project. but 13 these PC I haven’t seen any numbers as to the person hours spent, but it’s got to be incredible 14 and they’re working with uncertainties and trying to help out the developer to the extent 15 appropriate and yet knowing that it goes through seven people here, nine people at Council, and 16 so I want to acknowledge that we should try and make the process as clear as possible to avoid 17 not only wasted energy but also it’s got to be tough on morale if you’re working, nursing a 18 project through for months and months and then it gets killed at the end and the developer 19 probably comes back and says, “Wait, but you told me.” So I just want to acknowledge that. 20 21 And secondly the other part of the one of the issues I think with the PC is that, and certainly now 22 it seems like probably every large project developers because there is potential profit its natural, 23 if I were a developer I would do the same thing, are coming in to request a PC. The, not only 24 does that, and I mentioned earlier that that’s the time delay and they certainly factor that in, but 25 the time delay is incredibly expensive for them and so a more clear, efficient, and timely process 26 benefits them. The other part of the equation is that if you add up what percentage of Planning 27 Commission and Council time is spent on PC’s alone it has got to be a material impact so to the 28 extent that we, the process becomes more clear the better it is so that we can work; we, Council, 29 and staff can all work on more beneficial things than these projects, many of which will not 30 come to fruition. Thank you. 31 32 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tanaka. 33 34 Commissioner Tanaka: I think most of what I was thinking has been said, but I’ll just emphasize 35 the ones I thought were really good. So one is I think the idea that or the observation that 36 Commissioner Alcheck made about right now in the past Palo Alto has been incredibly attractive 37 to developers and we pretty much have been able to kind of pick which development we want 38 and kind of filter them out. And I think that his observation that that might always be the case is 39 actually a really good one and something that we should keep in mind and think about as we 40 proceed forward. 41 42 At the same time though I do agree with, because I have been part of these PC processes several 43 times now about how we initiate and don’t really give clear guidance. Sometimes I walk out of 44 the meetings and I’m not even sure what the developer is going to take from our seven different 45 inputs and so I think actually taking straw polls or being able to kind of come to some sort of 46 rough consensus so that it is clear to developers what we mean and what direction they should be 47 headed because I think if you give seven different directions almost any direction is good then.48 49 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 27 And the last part is I think it is going to be very hard to quantify public benefits, especially the 1 intrinsic ones that the Chair has mentioned. But I was thinking that perhaps maybe it’s not such 2 a hard problem to actually quantify the private benefits because it’s very clear how much above 3 and beyond the code they’re going whether it’s Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or site coverage or 4 whatever, you know, daylight planes or whatever they might be. And that one’s probably an 5 easier thing to quantify and so we could at least know what the private benefit of this PC might 6 be. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Martinez: I wanted to close in quoting the Vice-Chair’s favorite land use policy out of the 9 Land Use Element, the current one, not the one that I invented. Policy L6, “Maintain the scale 10 and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their 11 size and scale.” Now if we don’t understand what that means, if we’re unclear whether a project 12 is overwhelming, whether it creates impacts on its neighborhood that the mitigations are too 13 overwhelming to overcome, then perhaps we don’t need to revise the PC Zone, we need to do a 14 retreat or training in our own understanding of what land use is. It’s clear that a project as 15 described in the municipal code now has to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. It has to be 16 appropriate and it has to contribute public benefits that aren’t, that the development couldn’t 17 contribute otherwise.18 19 I welcome the discussion and I thank my colleagues and Commissioners for what we had to say 20 today and the discussion about what these public benefits can be I think is a good one. But let’s 21 not forget our main responsibility and that’s to the land uses that are presented and the ones that 22 are appropriate in size and scale to the City. So thank you all, we are closing the public hearing 23 and this item and I want us to agendize a follow up discussion. I don’t know how we do that, 24 but…25 26 Ms. Silver: It would be appropriate to make a Motion and the direction in the agenda was to 27 make a recommendation to talk to the City Council about this. And you may want to have an 28 intermediary step before you have that dialogue with Council and so the Motion can be either to 29 direct staff to agendize a discussion at the Planning Commission or to directly go to City 30 Council.31 32 Chair Martinez: Ok I’m going to ask the Vice-Chair for a Motion. 33 34 MOTION35 36 Vice-Chair Michael: So I would move that when in the near future the Planning Commission 37 confers with the Council, which I believe takes place with a meeting between Mayor Scharff, 38 Vice-Mayor Shepherd, Chair Martinez, and myself about the agenda for the joint session 39 between the Council and the Planning Commission that we confer about the agenda and propose 40 one of the topics relate to a clarification of public benefit. That’s the Motion.41 42 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck? I’m looking for a second. 43 44 SECOND45 46 Commissioner Alcheck: I will second that Motion. 47 48 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Care to speak to your Motion? 49 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 28 1 Vice-Chair Michael: Well I think that we’ve touched on just about every aspect of this tonight 2 for which I’m very gratified, but I think one thing that I might propose is that we not put on the 3 agenda a revision and update of the PC process because I think that’s a separate and larger topic. 4 And I think we need to, I think it’s appropriate for us to start with the defined scope of discussion 5 being what is in the public benefit. 6 7 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck? 8 9 Commissioner Alcheck: I hope that the City Council will see this memo for what I think it is, 10 which is an opportunity. And I hope that when you meet with the Mayor and Vice-Mayor that 11 this item rises to the top of that meeting that we have with them or at least among the top few 12 items. I imagine it will have a lengthy discussion and I look forward to it. 13 14 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 15 16 Chair Martinez: Can I add a Friendly Amendment to that, that this Colleagues Memo be sent to 17 all Council Members and the Mayor? That’s ok with you? Any other discussion on this? 18 Commissioner Keller? 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Yes, firstly I’d like to now express my thanks to the writers of the 21 Colleagues Memo. I’ve participated in some attempts to revise the PC ordinance before and we 22 got bogged down in a bunch of different issues. I think we’ve made a lot of progress in terms of 23 focusing on the issue of public benefits and I can understand the benefit of focusing on public 24 benefits as opposed to a larger issue.25 26 I don’t want us to lose sight of the need to improve the PC process and also understand, I’m not 27 sure if that should be wrapped up in a discussion with Palo Alto Process or not. But it seems to 28 me that earlier definitiveness of the answers, saying no early is something we should be willing 29 to do more often because the later you do it its more costly to everybody. And so understanding 30 how we can do that and how we can improve our decision making process on that because on 31 this Commission and I’ve been here quite a while I know that I’ve heard people say, “Oh, let’s 32 move this forward because the project will get better.” Well, it’s hard for a project to get better 33 unless we’re clear about how we want it to be better. And it will come back in unrecognizable 34 form otherwise. So that’s my comment, but I do think this is a good, focused issue and I look 35 forward to discussion with Council and direction on how we can improve this for future projects 36 that hopefully will get better support by the community because the benefits are more clearly 37 articulated and quantified. 38 39 VOTE 40 41 Chair Martinez: Great. Anybody else? Let’s call for the vote. All those in favor of the Motion 42 signal and say aye (Aye). Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Great job. 43 44 MOTION PASSED (6-0-1, Commissioner Panelli absent) 45 46 Commission Action: Motion by Vice-chair Michael to confer and bring to City Council 47 topic related to public benefit, second by Commissioner Alcheck. Friendly Amendment 48 City of Palo Alto March 13, 2013 Page 29 by Chair Martinez to send Colleagues Memo to full Council. Motion approved 6-1, 1 Commissioner Panelli absent2 3 Planning & Transportation Commission review 4 5 DIRECTORS REPORT. 6 7 Chair Martinez: Moving right along the Director’s Report. 8 9 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Sure, few things. The first, something that I reported on was 10 coming up at a Council meeting at our last Planning Commission meeting and that is the Council 11 had a discussion on some near term parking, downtown parking related items on March 18th.12 And the Council did give direction to staff to proceed with several items. The first was to start 13 an attendant parking trial in a downtown parking garage or lot. The one that we selected was Lot 14 R. The second one, excuse me? 15 16 Commissioner Keller: Excuse me. Which lot is Lot R? I don’t know them by letter and I’m not 17 sure anybody else does. 18 19 Mr. Aknin: Ok, I’ll, offhand I don’t, I apologize I don’t know that. Jaime was in charge of that 20 one, but I can get that for you.21 22 The second one was a City commitment for 50 to 100 parking spaces to be vacated through 23 aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. So that’s something that 24 we’re working on right now is to free up 50 to 100 spaces over the next six months or so and 25 come back to Council with that as well as to the Commission. The third is to evaluate a 26 public/private partnership for a new parking garage on Lot P. That was not specific direction to 27 move forward with a public/private partnership, but it was to investigate it and come back both 28 to the Planning Commission as well as to the Council. 29 30 Something that prompted a lot of discussion that is evaluation of restrictions on the creation and 31 use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). This is the one where there was the most debate 32 about. There was people who came up and spoke that say, “Hey there’s been a lot of benefits 33 associated with Transfer of Development Rights specifically related to rehabilitation of historic 34 buildings as well as seismic upgrades to older buildings.” So that’s something that I think there 35 will be further discussion on. As the Commission knows right now there’s basically two rights 36 that can be transferred related to when you either fix up a historic building or seismically rehab 37 an unreinforced masonry building and you can transfer either a bonus Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 38 another property or you could transfer rights to build without providing parking. So I think 39 they’ll be discussions up to a certain amount, but I think they’ll be discussions related to both of 40 those upcoming both at the Commission, Council, and of course the community. 41 42 Other, eliminating other zoning code exemptions to move forward, Staff to bring back a proposal 43 both to the Commission and to the Council about that. As the Commission knows there’s right 44 now a moratorium on the use of something called the 1:1 Floor Area Exemption, something 45 that’s been on the books for a number of years. We’re looking at most likely bringing that 46 forward for permanent elimination or at least consideration for permanent elimination. And 47 there’s also smaller ones like there’s right now a 200 square foot zoning code exemption where 48 you don’t have to park the first 200 square feet of an addition, a commercial addition or a 49 1 Draft PC Zoning Public Benefit Synopsis August 2014 Brief Synopsis of Public Benefits Required and Gained with PC Zoning, 1952 – 2014 Planned Community zoning has been used in Palo Alto since 1952. Over that 62 year period project developers have provided a variety of Public Benefits. Among the most frequently used public benefits were: Below Market Rate housing units Senior Housing Pedestrian Oriented Landscaping Various kinds of public parking Public Art Annexation to the City Donations including for housing, parking, childcare trust fund, an endowment, finance benefits to residents of the project. Historic Preservation Land uses including public storage, grocery store (4), emergency veterinary services Public access including sidewalks Less frequently accepted public benefits were: Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations Senior Health Care Dwelling units Commercial Display Pads Traffic Impact Fee Right-of-way dedications/public street Street lights Child care facility Park land dedication Sales tax from additional hotel rooms Eliminating land use conflicts Improve traffic flow and TDM Bridge Bicycle parking The type of ‘public benefit’ has changed over the years. Between 2000 and 2014 the most frequently accepted types of public benefits were: BMR housing including for senior citizens Donations to senior programs, housing, parking, median improvements, creations of a second mortgage program, an endowment Improved access to and through projects, including public amenity areas and a landscaped plaza Public parking Services including establishing a child care facility, improved health care for seniors, staff security plan, ATTACHMENT D 2 Draft PC Zoning Public Benefit Synopsis August 2014  Land uses including grocery stores, residential historic preservation, a community room, a shared use facility, park land dedication, zip car rental use  Traffic and transportation included traffic impact fee, TDM program, bicycle parking, and electric stations for cars.  Commercial display pads Since the PC zone was established and the first project approved in 1952, the regulations are estimated to have facilitated the creation of the following affordable residential units: TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT NUMBER OF UNITS Below Market Rate 256 Below Market Rate – Senior 645 Single Room Occupancy1 196 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS: 1,097 Source: Planning and Community Environment, August 2014 1 Includes Opportunity Center (88 Dwelling Units) City of Palo Alto (ID # 4414) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/3/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: PC Time-Out and Zoning Reforms Title: PC Time-Out & Reform. Staff Recommends Adoption of a Motion: (a)Expressing the Council’s Intent to Defer Requests for Rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) Zoning District Until the Process and Requirements Regulating the PC Zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are Revised, and (b) Directing Staff to Return to the Council with an Analysis of Potential Revisions and Alternatives to the PC Zone for Public Input and Discussion From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council consider the following two motions: (a) expressing the Council’s intent to defer requests for rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) zoning district until the process and requirements regulating the PC zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are revised, and (b) directing staff to return to the Council with an analysis of potential revisions and alternatives to the PC zone for public input and discussion. Executive Summary As discussed at the Council December 2, 2013 “Future of our City” discussion, the PC process, whereby the City and a developer negotiate site-specific design and development standards in exchange for “public benefits,” has been viewed by many as too opaque and transactional. While many acknowledge the success of some past PC developments and advantages of PC zoning as a tool, the process and some of its outcomes have been critiqued as inadequate. Furthermore, the ad-hoc nature of each separate negotiation has contributed to the community concerns about the lack of a coherent set of values or vision for the future. Based on this concern, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and others have offered their analysis and suggestions about ways to improve the process. ATTACHMENT E City of Palo Alto Page 2 Staff is proposing to conduct an analysis of proposed alternatives and reforms to the PC district to better achieve the district’s intent and is suggesting a “time-out” on PC re-zonings until reforms can be enacted. Staff’s analysis would include a thorough public review process, culminating in a draft ordinance to be presented to City Council. There is only one PC proposal currently pending before the City that could potentially be affected by this time-out. Background On December 2, 2013, the City Council initiated a community conversation about topics related to the future of Palo Alto, including topics such as the update of the Comprehensive Plan, traffic and parking problems and solutions, and new development within existing commercial corridors. The topic of PC districts and the need for possible reforms to the requirements and process were also discussed. While many Council Members acknowledged that there have been successful Planned Communities and that Palo Alto is one of the few cities in the position to receive public benefits, there was general agreement that the process could be improved. The City of Palo Alto established the regulations PC districts with the adoption of the City’s original Zoning Ordinance on February 19, 1951 (Ordinance No. 1324). The original purpose of the PC district, which remained unchanged for 27 years, was the following: “The PC district is designed to accommodate various types of development such as neighborhood and district shopping centers, professional and administrative areas, multiple housing developments, single-family residential developments, commercial service centers and industrial parks or any other use or combination of uses which can be made appropriately as part of a planned development.” The initial PC district regulations established the permitted uses (all and any uses shown on the development plan as approved by the City Council), conditional uses (all uses except a single- family residence on an approved building site), height and space requirements (as shown on the development plan), requirements for the Development Plan (including a map of street system, land use plan, public amenities, plot plans, parking and circulation diagrams, and landscape plans), and requirements for the project’s development schedule. The PC district regulations were revised in 1978 and have largely remained intact until the present. The Specific Purpose of the PC district now reads: “The PC planned community district is intended to accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not City of Palo Alto Page 3 otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” The 1978 revisions included significant additions:  PC district findings, including the finding for public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the general districts or combining districts;  A description of the application process, including the requirement for PC district initiation by the Planning Commission, design review by the Architectural Review Board, and a final review and recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council;  A requirement for a development program statement, essentially a written project description, that demonstrates the necessity of the PC district and information demonstrating consistency with the PC district findings;  Conditions of reversion, in the case when a developer fails to meet the adopted development schedule, and  Special requirements, including more restrictive site development requirements, for PC districts within 150-feet of low-density residential districts. These special requirements include the establishment of a daylight plane, a more restrictive maximum height, setbacks, and landscaping screens. The requirements for PC district adopted in 1978 remain essentially intact to the present day, with minor revisions to refine the application process and requirements, Development plan, Special requirements, Development schedule, PC inspections, and Recycling storage, among other minor changes. Planned Community Rezoning Procedures As introduced above, rezoning to a PC district currently follows a set of procedures and standards, which are prescribed in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The PC process begins with PTC review of the concept plans, development program statement and draft development schedule. If the PTC recommends initiating the PC request, the development plan, site plan, landscape plan and design plans are submitted to the ARB for design review in the same manner as any commercial or mixed-use project. The environmental document is prepared and circulated prior to ARB consideration. The development plan recommended for approval by the ARB is then returned to the PTC, together with a draft PC ordinance and environmental document, for review and recommendation to the City Council. The PC City of Palo Alto Page 4 ordinance would identify the permitted and conditionally permitted uses and site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the project. The Council may approve a PC zone change only if it finds that: 1. The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. 2. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In make the findings required by this section, the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. 3. The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The current ordinance does not specifically define community benefits and over the years there have been different community perspectives on how to address this issue. The City Council has approved over 100 PC districts (including revisions to existing PC districts), beginning in 1951 with PC-1362 at 3401-45 Alma Street for commercial uses and an automobile service station (later zoned to PC-4956 as Alma Plaza) and concluding most recently in June 2012 with PC-5158, the development known as 101 Lytton. The general types of PC districts that have been established include approximately 40% commercial, 50% residential and 10% mixed-use projects. In the past year, one request for a PC district was withdrawn (395 Page Mill Road, Jay Paul Development Company) and another was rescinded by public vote (Maybell-Clemo residential project, Palo Alto Housing Corporation). There is only one PC zoning application currently pending, which is proposing a 33,000 sq. ft. office building on the former VTA lot on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real (2755 El Camino Real). This application was submitted to the City on June 3, 2013, and has since been undergoing a review process. The PC zoning initiation was considered by the PTC in October 2013 and was continued to a date uncertain with a request to provide additional economic information related to the proposed public City of Palo Alto Page 5 benefit. A description of the proposed development and the public benefits proposed by the applicant are attached to the staff report. The City has also recently hired a land use economics consultant who has prepared a draft financial review of these public benefits. Among other findings, the report concluded that a potential development could be profitable under both a PC zoning designation and a C-S zoning designation. Discussion The PC process, whereby the City and a developer negotiate site-specific design and development standards in exchange for “public benefits,” is viewed by many as too opaque and transactional, allowing neighborhood impacts to be “traded” for benefits that accrue to those outside the immediate vicinity. The process and some of its outcomes (i.e. the public benefits resulting from individual projects) have been critiqued as inadequate, and the ad hoc nature of each separate negotiation has contributed to community concerns about the lack of a coherent set of values or vision for the future. Planning staff is recommending a “time-out” on PC projects to allow an examination of the potential alternatives and reforms, which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. There may be intersections between this effort and the Comprehensive Plan Update, or reforms may be sought as near term actions. Possible alternatives/reforms to the PC process could include:  Specifically define the types of projects that may apply for a PC district;  Create minimum lot sizes that would be eligible for PC districts;  Establish a buffer (a minimum distance) between a proposed PC district and existing low-density residential districts;  Create a menu of public benefits that would be allowed under a PC, and/or  Establish a better mechanism for mitigation and condition monitoring. If so directed by Council, Planning staff would analyze these and other possible alternatives and present our analysis for Council direction and public comment. Pipeline Projects As noted above, there is one request for a PC district that is currently under review: 2755 El Camino Real at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. This development proposing a 33,000 sq. ft. office building on the former VTA lot on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real (2755 El Camino Real). This site is currently zoned P-F, reflecting that it was used by a public agency (VTA) for a public use (carpool lot). Although the current zoning designation City of Palo Alto Page 6 would not allow a commercial development, the City cannot legally deny the property owner reasonable use of their property and thus the City will likely have to entertain a reasonable re- zoning request at some point. The most “natural” zoning designation for this site is Commercial Service or “C-S”, which is the same designation found on many similar El Camino Real sites. A C-S development on this site would be smaller, particularly from an office square footage standpoint, and would most likely also contain a number of residential units. However, the City would also not be able to receive extra “public benefits” from a C-S development, and could only mandate conditions and mitigations measures that have a direct nexus to project impacts. For example, among other proposed public benefits, the PC development currently proposes allowing the Page Mill Road and El Camino Real intersection to expand into what is now the VTA lot, in order to accommodate a new right hand turn lane. It is unlikely that a condition such as this would be part of a standard C-S development. The staff recommendation includes a recommendation for Council to express their intent to deny or defer requests for rezoning to the PC district until the process and requirements regulating the PC zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are revised. Adoption of a formal moratorium is unnecessary because the PC zoning district is set up as an optional district and individual property owners do not have an absolute right to develop under the optional standards. If Council adopts a statement implementing a “time out,” the action would clearly communicate to the 2755 El Camino Real applicant that their request would be deferred or denied if the project was sent to Council for review. The applicant could then chose to wait for the “time out” to be over, revise and resubmit their application as a request for re-zoning to C- S, or request consideration of their project in the context of a development agreement. Next Steps There are two process options for moving forward with PC reform. The first option is a stand- alone option, where staff will proceed with development PC reforms and alternatives, as follows:  February: Council direction to staff to proceed with the analysis of proposed Reforms to the PC district regulations and a statement to defer or deny existing and future requests for rezoning to PC districts until such reforms are adopted.  July-August: Staff presents Council with an analysis and recommendation for public review and comment. Alternatively, the PC public outreach process and discussion could be completed in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan amendment public outreach process and overall discussion. If this City of Palo Alto Page 7 alternative were selected, the overall timeline would be extended; however it would be discussed in the context of many other related issues in the Comprehensive Plan. Resource Impact Staff’s recommendation to defer existing and future rezoning requests to PC would not have a substantial impact on staff resources or existing department budgets. Staff analysis of rezone requests are typically cost-recovery projects. The application fees collected for each rezone request represent a deposit, from which staff costs are recovered. During the deferral period, staff would not process PC rezone requests, which would allow staff to work on other department projects. The recommended activities to address PC reform have been included in the Planning department’s work plan for this year. Policy Implications The recommended activities could substantially alter the PC district requirements. However, staff does not foresee complete elimination of the PC district or functional equivalent from the Zoning Ordinance for the simple reason most cities have comparable processes. Typically processes are called Planned Development or Planned Unit Developments. Many cities also utilize site specific Development Agreements, which serve a similar function. Environmental Assessment Council’s action to temporarily defer or deny requests for rezoning to PC would not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:  Attachment A: Project Description for 2755 El Camino Real- Request for Planned Community (PDF) Excerpt Minutes from City Council Meeting of February 3, 2014 9. Planned Community (PC) Zoning Time-Out & Reform. Staff Recommends Adoption of a Motion: (a) Expressing the Council’s Intent to Defer Requests for Rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) Zoning District Until the Process and Requirements Regulating the PC Zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are Revised, and (b) Directing Staff to Return to the Council with an Analysis of Potential Revisions and Alternatives to the PC Zone for Public Input and Discussion. Aaron Aknin, Planning and Community Environment Assistant Director, reported that Planned Community (PC) Zoning was one of the primary topics discussed at the kickoff meeting of Our Palo Alto in early December 2013. PC Zoning was site-specific zoning where developers or property owners could negotiate site zoning in exchange for public benefits. There were many successful PCs, and PC Zoning could be a successful tool. Staff heard two overarching concerns from the community, the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), and the Council. The first concern was that the PC negotiation process was too ad hoc in nature and there was no framework for the process. The second concern was that the public benefits Page 14 of 30 City Council Meeting Minutes: 02/03/14 accepted by the City were sometimes inadequate given the private gain associated with PC Zoning and the long-term implications of the project. The PC Ordinance was first adopted in 1951 with no mention of a public benefit. In 1978, the PC Ordinance was revised to include public benefit and to require a process and findings. Approximately 100 PC Zones had been approved since 1951, with one-third being approved prior to 1978 and two thirds since 1978. The PC process included two required P&TC meetings, one required Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing, and Council adoption of specific findings when approving a PC. Staff sought specific direction regarding a time-out for PC Zoning. If the Council chose to implement a time-out, then Staff requested direction regarding PC Zoning reform as a standalone topic or as part of Our Palo Alto. One application for a PC Zone at 2755 El Camino Real was pending. As currently proposed, Staff recommended the application be delayed as the Council discussed PC Zone reform. The development was a 30,000-square- foot proposed office building at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Staff performed a pro forma analysis of the project and concluded that proposed public benefits were equitable to private gain. Staff concluded the project could be developed under Service Commercial (CS) Zoning and remain profitable. Mayor Shepherd requested Staff comment on the request for Council Members not to suggest specific PC reforms. Hilary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, reiterated that the recommendation grew out of the Council's Study Session on December 2, 2013. Staff requested Council Members provide their opinions and suggestions regarding a time-out for PC Zoning and a schedule for Staff to return with recommendations. Staff was not requesting Council Members comment on specific reforms. Tom DuBois reviewed a few results from the National Citizen Survey. While PC Zoning should be reformed, current zoning was not having the ATTACHMENT F intended effect. He requested the Council defer requests for land use exceptions or exchanges until the Comprehensive Plan update was completed. He hoped the time-out would apply to the pending application for PC Zoning. Jeff Pollock, speaking on behalf of group of five, stated the 2755 El Camino Real Project was not abusive, was moderately sized, fulfilled the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and Grand Boulevard Vision, and provided desired benefits. The project would be fully parked and would raise values in the area, and would bring prestige to the City. The project should be allowed to proceed. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects, reported that the 2755 El Camino Real Project as proposed was 10,000 square feet larger than allowed under CS Zoning. The project created no California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impacts for traffic; improved the level of service of the Page Mill Road-El Camino Real intersection; included a Transportation Demand Management Plan; and requested no parking reduction for the TDM Plan. The site was currently zoned Public Facility (PF) and required rezoning to construct a private building. He compared zoning requirements for CS and PC Zones. Public benefits were well vetted and developed with City guidance. Mr. Pollock reviewed public benefits proposed for the 2755 El Camino Real Project. The project would dedicate 12 feet to widen Page Mill Road. The proposed tenant for the project was First Republic Bank. A third-party municipal financial consultant reviewed the package of the project; compared the project to a project under CS Zoning; and concluded that the proposed public benefit was equal to $2.55 million. The proposed project would fulfill design criteria for the site. Jim Baer endorsed the 2755 El Camino Real Project for PC Zoning. Neilson Buchanan supported PC Zoning; however, he urged the Council to review PC Zoning. He asked which independent body would represent the City in determining whether to accept the offer proposed by the 2755 El Camino Real Project. Robert Moss felt the City had not received any public benefits from PC Zoning. The Staff Report did not mention enforcement for PC Zones. The City needed an independently quantifiable comparison of public and private benefits. The Council should adopt a moratorium for PC Zoning. Herb Borock noted that Staff recommended the Council vote for an expression of intent, which did not have the force of law. Staff proposed only one alternative, a moratorium. The most direct and legally supportable action was an Ordinance that would eliminate the current PC Zone District Regulations for new applications. Stephanie Munoz wished the Council would concentrate on the fact that the public benefit of a PC Zone could not be obtained by any other means. She hoped a PC Zone for senior housing at Maybell would be allowed. Martin Bernstein, speaking as an individual, did not believe a time-out was needed for PC Zoning, because the Council could deny any application for PC Zoning. James Keene, City Manager, clarified that the Council would not discuss a topic that was not properly advertised. The current topic for Council discussion was related to a PC time-out and Staff suggestions regarding a timetable for reform. Conversation within the realm of PC reform would be appropriate. Vice Mayor Kniss inquired whether Staff could return with recommendations by summer 2014. Mr. Aknin answered yes. MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Mayor Shepherd to accept Staff recommendation to: 1) defer requests for rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) zoning district until the process and requirements regulating the PC zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are revised; and 2) direct Staff to return to the Council with an analysis of potential revisions and alternatives to the PC zone for public input and discussion. Vice Mayor Kniss remarked that the current time was appropriate for a timeout. Many existing PC Zones provided a variety of positive benefits for the community. The City needed a process to evaluate PC Zones. She suggested Staff return with something that was measureable, had tangible results, and could be tracked over time. Mayor Shepherd looked forward to a robust conversation regarding PC reform. Concepts for PC Zones needed to demonstrate the material benefit of public benefits. Council Member Holman inquired about the relationship between the Permit Streamlining Act and delay of the 2755 El Camino Real Project. Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported the Permit Streamlining Act did not apply to a legislative action, which was the format for a PC Zone consideration. The Permit Streamlining Act was not an issue in this instance. Council Member Holman asked about the interface between PC reform and work regarding parking standards and density of office development. She requested Staff's vision for public outreach regarding PC reform. Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff could return to the Council during the summer of 2014 with an analysis of potential reforms. Staff would obtain Council input and direction before proceeding with community input. Council Member Holman recalled Council Member and public comments addressing development beyond PC Zones at the Study Session in December 2013. She inquired about a time for Council consideration of a time-out for larger development projects beyond PC Zones. Ms. Gitelman reported current zoning created expectations on the part of property owners and the public that there was a development potential for property. If the Council implemented restrictions on development, then it would have a larger conversation with more complicated issues. With respect to public comment regarding design exceptions, the Council reviewed exceptions it wanted to grant, such as exceptions that allowed for wider sidewalks. In some circumstances, exceptions were beneficial and encouraged quality design. Broadening the time- out to include additional tools and circumstances beyond PC Zoning would create unintended consequences and complexities. Mr. Keene did not believe the Council could lightly consider reducing or potentially removing entitlements that were granted and might be longstanding. Such consideration would require a foundation of facts and data, an understanding of the implications, and demonstrable fairness. Staff could return with a time-out on a discretionary decision. Council Member Holman suggested the Council could address some issues such as up-zoning. Someone could skirt the PC issue by requesting an upzoning. The structure of parking considerations did not necessarily benefit the community at the current time. Some of those issues would not necessarily have the impact that Staff referenced. Council Member Price would not support a time-out at the current time, because she was not comfortable with a time-out as a way of doing business. The pending application should continue through the application process with existing public input and reviews. The PC process provided a design outcome that could be attractive for the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. She strongly supported reform of the PC process. The issues of quantification and enforcement clearly needed work. The PC process should be reformed within the next three to four months, rather than waiting for the update of the Comprehensive Plan. Over the prior two to three years, the community refined its thinking regarding the elements of the PC process that needed improvement. Council Member Klein asked if the P&TC would review Staff's proposed PC reforms prior to the proposed reforms being presented to the Council. He asked if Staff's proposed deadline of summer meant June or August. Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff first considered a deadline of July; however, they would need to reconsider that timeframe. If Staff sought Council direction, then they would have to circle back to the P&TC for recommendations. Staff was seeking Council direction. If the Council wanted to proceed quickly, then Staff could draft alternatives, present them to the P&TC, and present those alternatives and the P&TC recommendation to the Council. In that case, Staff could probably return in August. Mr. Keene concurred that Staff could return to the Council in August. Council Member Klein did not believe PC reforms could become effective within a year. He would not support a moratorium. In general, he did not like moratoriums; however, they could be appropriate in limited circumstances. This was not one of those limited circumstances. He expressed concern regarding unintended consequences of moratoriums. If the Council did not like a PC proposal, it could vote no. The Council could not oppose a project proposed under existing zoning. He felt Staff could return in 60-90 days as PC reform did not require much research. A moratorium for a few years would be deleterious to the community, to property values, and to community vibrancy. He urged Council Members to vote no on the Motion. Council Member Burt was not a fan of moratoriums because of unintended consequences. A time-out could assure PC changes were binding on Council decisions and could help the community feel relief from PC abuse. On the other hand, the City did not receive many applications for PC Zones. The second consideration was an appropriate action for the pending PC application. AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff that the PC suspension apply to any PC application not yet submitted. Council Member Scharff supported a time-out for PC Zoning. The Council needed to build community faith in the PC process. He struggled with the fairness of imposing a delay on the pending PC application. The community would benefit from applying reforms to an actual project. Council Member Berman supported the Motion. The Council identified that the current PC process was broken and needed to be fixed. It was not appropriate to use a broken process for any project, regardless of its position within the application process. He worried about potential unintended consequences of a time-out, particularly in relation to affordable housing. Staff should accelerate the timeline. Ms. Stump recommended time-out rather than moratorium. Moratorium in land use law had a specific meaning and required specific findings. Findings were not necessary in the current circumstances, were not appropriate, and were not being made. The Council should avoid use of the term "moratorium" in order to maintain a clean record. Council Member Schmid stated the Council needed a sophisticated tool of economic analysis to make decisions regarding costs and benefits of PC Zoning. The Council needed a framework of economic analysis and needed it desperately. He hoped Staff would provide a framework that allowed the Council to assess quality economic data and determine costs and benefits. He opposed the Amendment. Mayor Shepherd opposed the Amendment, because the one PC project approved in 2013 was used to exemplify the disadvantages of PC Zoning. The Council needed to better inform the community regarding PC Zoning, and this was the appropriate time for that. AMENDMENT FAILED: 4-5 Burt, Klein, Price, Scharff yes AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to direct Staff to return to Council with an agendized item to consider suspension of any up-zoning that would result in FAR increases during the timeframe the PC suspension would be in existence. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the topic of the Amendment was properly agendized. Ms. Stump noted existing land use rights applied to given parcels. Staff framed the item such that the Council would determine how to exercise its discretionary authority to make a legislative action with respect to a discretionary zone change in the future. The Amendment moved into another area that was not fully explored or noticed. The amendment's direction to Staff should return to the Council after more specific public notification and potentially quite a few more procedural steps. Staff would need to explore the meaning of the Amendment and its impact on various pieces of the Zoning Code. Council Member Burt clarified that the Amendment did not impact existing zoning. It would only impact changes to existing zoning. Ms. Stump was not sure that was the case. She requested the Planning Director comment regarding the different ways that current features of the Zoning Code could result in increased density of zoning. Council Member Burt meant a change in actual zoning that would up-zone. Mr. Keene inquired whether density would be determined by Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Council Member Burt replied yes. Ms. Stump expressed concern that the item was not specifically called out for Brown Act purposes in terms of the Council taking action on it. Council Member Burt inquired whether the direction to Staff had to be initiated outside the current agendized item. Ms. Stump answered no. The Council could provide general direction regarding a related topic if the appropriate number of Council Members wanted Staff to return with information. Mr. Keene reported the Amendment could result in many permutations for Staff consideration. The simplest method for Staff consideration would be a straight increase in existing FAR. A project could propose a change in use that would not result in increased density. Council Member Burt explained that the Amendment would only apply if an applicant wanted to change the zoning for a parcel. Vice Mayor Kniss inquired whether the Amendment provided clear direction for Staff. Mr. Keene understood the general intent of the Amendment. If the Council directed Staff to do so, they would give their best effort to identify the different aspects of up-zoning. If somehow Staff did not provide all the information the Council wished to have, then hopefully the Council would have sufficient information to take some action. Council Member Burt felt some major up-zoning applications were on the horizon. If the Council reviewed the PC issue only, then more significant things could occur. The intent of the Amendment was to provide the Council with an opportunity to review rules on increases in density beyond the amount allowed by existing zoning. Council Member Holman expressed concern regarding the Amendment's effect on affordable housing projects. Council Member Burt explained that an affordable housing project could qualify for density bonuses. The Motion would deny affordable housing the use of a PC Zone. The Amendment would deny an alternative to a PC Zone. If the Council wished to exempt affordable housing projects from the concept, then the Motion should include that. Council Member Holman noted affordable housing projects had different parking requirements. That was the one advantage to having an exemption for affordable housing projects. Mr. Keene was concerned that a possible direction to Staff was taking on a great deal of form that could create problems. Council Member Burt suggested those issues be part of the discussion when Staff returned to the Council. Council Member Holman concurred. Council Member Price would not support the Amendment. The discussion was premature. The discussion was not appropriate as it moved beyond the topic noticed to the public. The community should have an opportunity to provide comments. Ms. Gitelman commented that zoning beyond the PC Zone was confusing. Staff could review issues of the current Zoning Ordinance; where it applied densities; and where those densities could be adjusted. Those topics would be associated with updating the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Schmid indicated that the goal of identifying potential up zoning was clear; however, he was concerned about additional up-zoning needed in preparation of the Housing Element. Council Member Scharff stated the Council wished to reform a process. The Amendment did not reform a process. The reasons for a time-out were unclear, because the Council could deny a request for up-zoning. AMENDMENT FAILED: 3-6 Burt, Holman, Schmid yes Council Member Scharff felt reforming the PC process was important. Instituting a time-out would prevent additional applications for PC Zoning. The Council needed to rebuild faith with the community so that everyone felt the process was fair. MOTION PASSED: 7-2 Klein, Price no City of Palo Alto (ID # 4978) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 8/13/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: PC Zoning Reform Title: Discussion on Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform Recommendations From: Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner Lead Department: Planning & Community Environment Recommendation This is a study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to review and provide comments on the Planned Community (PC) District Regulations, as well as possible alternatives and revisions. No action is requested. Executive Summary The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) is asked to review and discuss the Planned Community (PC) zoning process, including possible reforms. The community has raised several concerns about the PC zoning process, whereby the City and a developer negotiate site specific design and development standards in exchange for “public benefits.” The PC process is viewed by some as too opaque and lacking definition of community benefits. Others criticize the process as too transactional, allowing neighborhood impacts to be “traded” for benefits without a clear enough nexus of value and/or geographic location. Others criticize the overuse of the PC district and the proliferation of projects that do not comply with the underlying Zoning Code. The process and some of its outcomes have also been critiqued as inadequate and not well enforced. The City Manager last year directed that PC’s have an independent third party assessment of value and benefit. There has been criticism that such assessment could be more robust and that the City should establish a menu of desired public benefits to draw from in advance of negotiations on a particular application, to shift the negotiations from a reactive mode to a developer proposal and more clearly to the interests of the public. Based on these concerns, the City Council approved a “time-out” on all PC zoning requests and directed staff to return with an analysis of reforms and alternatives. As the PTC has noted in the past, the PC zoning reform would benefit from greater clarity regarding the City’s expectations for projects seeking approval under the PC zoning provisions. The process should ensure projects are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and achieve the right balance between flexible development standards and the public good. The process 1 ATTACHMENT G City of Palo Alto Page 2 should also provide ample opportunities for public participation along with a rational process for applications accepted, or initiated, into the PC zoning process. Staff has prepared a report, appended here as Attachment A, that identifies the issues associated with PC zoning that have been identified, summarizes prior analyses and suggestions for PC reform at a high level, and starts to build reform alternatives. The purpose of this report is to provide the PTC and the public with a starting place for discussion about PC zoning reform alternatives. Staff would appreciate the PTC’s review and comment on the attached materials, as well as some discussion about the process for seeking public input and next steps. A brief factsheet has been prepared which includes an initial list of questions for public input with an invitation to provide input by emailing staff (Attachment B – PC Reform Fact Sheet). Background On February 3, 2014 the City Council received a staff presentation and public testimony and adopted a motion to: 1. Defer requests for rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) zoning district until the process and requirements regulating the PC zone in Chapter 18.38 of the Municipal Code are revised, and 2. Direct Staff to return to the Council with an analysis of potential revisions and alternatives to the PC zone for public input and discussion. The staff report for the Council’s discussion (Attachment C – City Council February 3, 2014 Staff Report) contains background on PC zoning and a list of past PC projects. An excerpt of the City Council’s meeting minutes is attached for reference (Attachment D – City Council February 3, 2014 Meeting Minutes). Discussion Chapter 18.38, PC Planned Community District Regulations, of Title 18 provides standards and procedures for consideration of PC proposals. The City of Palo Alto established the regulations for PC districts with the adoption of the City’s Original Ordinance on February 19, 1951. Over 100 PC districts have been approved by the City Council beginning in 1951 with PC-1362 at 3401-45 Alma Street for commercial uses and an automobile service station. While many successful projects have resulted from PC zoning, concerns have been raised by the community about the PC zoning process and the fact the process could be improved. Generally, there is a sense that PC negotiations are conducted ad hoc, and that the public benefits achieved may not be adequate given the private gain and long term implications. Five key areas of concern were identified at the City Council meeting held on February 3, 2014 as summarized below: 2 City of Palo Alto Page 3 1. “How do we evaluate a PC request?” - Create a clear process with evaluation tools and introduce predictability to the process. 2. Require submittal of an economic analysis to access quality economic data and determine costs and benefits. 3. “Where should PC zoning go?” - Identify minimum parcel sizes or areas in the City that are appropriate for PC districts. 4. “What types of benefits should be required?” – Create a menu of benefits that developers must select from. 5. Develop an enforcement tool that can be tracked over time. Staff has grouped the concerns raised by the public, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the City Council into three general areas: 1) the Establishment of PC Districts; 2) Application process; and 3) Public Benefits. These concerns are discussed in more detail below and the PTC’s “colleague’s memo” is included as Attachment E of the summary report, along with minutes from the PTC’s discussion of that memo (Attachment F). Establishment of Districts As described in PAMC Chapter 18.38, a PC district, which allows an unlimited range of uses, can be established anywhere in the City subject to a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, a determination that a “public benefit” is provided, and site development regulations tailored to the development plan. The code does not explicitly set any other form of eligibility determination such as minimum land area or use requirement to clarify the types of projects that should be considered under PC zoning. One major issue with such flexibility, as noted by Dyett & Bhatia in their 2001 report, included in the PC analysis report as Attachment D, prepared for the City during the planning process for the Zoning Ordinance Update, is that there is no explicit requirement contained in the PC district regulations tying density/intensity limits to the Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time. This has meant that applicants can propose a project that is above the maximum density through a request for a PC zone and a concurrent amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The PC ordinance also fails to identify a specific geographic location or areas in the City that may be appropriate for the establishment of PC districts, although the regulations do provide authority to impose conditions as needed to ensure neighborhood compatibility. For instance, section 18.38.150, Special Requirements, defines five special requirements for “sites abutting or having any portion located within one hundred fifty feet of any R-E, R-1, R-2, RM, or any PC district permitting residential.” One potential reform that the PTC could discuss is to define the types of projects that may apply for a PC district either by designating a specific geographic location/area in the City that is appropriate for a planned development, or by setting a minimum land area requirement for the development of a PC district. Setting standards will narrow the scope of eligible projects, help to ensure that projects are appropriate given their surroundings, and ensure that the PC process is only used for relatively “major” projects. 3 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Application Process An application for rezoning to a PC district can be submitted for any type of project for any given zone or area in the City as long as it follows the application process described in Section 18.38.065 of the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance. The code does not clearly identify how a PC request should be evaluated upon the submittal of an application and how the required public benefit finding should be made. From the developer’s perspective, the current process does not delineate a specific project application timeline. Potential reforms that the PTC could discuss would re-define the process and standards for review of PC applications. As noted earlier, the City Manager last year directed that PC’s have an independent third party assessment of value and benefit, and this requirement could be codified. Public Benefit There are three general concerns associated with the public benefit component of the PC ordinance; definition, required finding, and enforcement. According to Section 18.38.010, Specific Purposes, “the planned community district is particularly intended for unified comprehensive planned developments which are of substantive public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” The code does not define how a project can be categorized as being of “substantive public benefit.” Is the project considered a public benefit, or are public benefits provided to offset the impact of the development in exchange for incentives? Some contend that these benefits are not sufficient while others argue that if the project has no inherent public benefit then no PC should be approved. As the PTC has noted in the past, the intent of the PC district could be clarified to ameliorate some of the confusion.  Definition: Currently the ordinance does not specifically define what a public benefit is. Public benefits were not initially part of the PC district regulations but were added as part of an amendment made to the code in 1978. Since then, public benefits have taken several forms including, but not limited to, the development of BMR units, the addition of publicly accessible open spaces or plazas, public art and the payment of in-lieu fees. Without a definition of public benefit, there will always be questions about the required finding. Even with a definition, there may always be different opinions on the public value of a benefit, but the more explicit and rigorous the standards are, the more confidence the public can have that a PC is warranted and represents an improvement, from the community perspective, over existing zoning.  Required Finding: The City Council must make a finding that the “development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public 4 City of Palo Alto Page 5 benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts.” In this instance, the code again fails to clearly define what “public benefits” are and whether or not there should be a nexus between the amenity and the incentive granted in exchange for the benefit.  Enforcement/Inspection: Currently the code states that “each PC district shall be inspected by the building division at least once every three years for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created.” The City’s current staff of Code Enforcement officers is inadequate to regularly monitor and enforce the large number of site specific public benefits. The City will need to reassess how (and who) to monitor and enforce site-specific PC regulations. The City has two avenues in which to implement reform for the establishment of PC districts: 1) revise the existing ordinance to address the issues and concerns identified above; or 2) eliminate the use of PC zoning for new projects, and develop an alternative approach for the consideration of PC-like proposals in a new code section. Staff’s summary report (Attachment A) presents a number of examples for potential code revisions for the PTC’s review and discussion. Timeline Staff would appreciate the PTC’s input regarding the project timeline and next step, as well as ways to ensure adequate public input. As a starting place, staff will be soliciting comments on the materials included with this staff report for the next month. Information gathered during the study session and from the public comments will be used as the basis of a study session with the City Council, and ultimately as the basis for a draft ordinance for formal review by the PTC and City Council. Environmental Review The PTC’s study session does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:  Attachment A: PC Reform Summary Report (PDF)  Attachment B: PC Reform Fact Sheet (PDF)  Attachment C: February 3, 2014 City Council Staff Report (CMR #4414) (PDF)  Attachment D: February 3, 2014 City Council Minutes (Item 9 only) (PDF)  Attachment E: Public Comments (PDF) 5 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 August 13, 2014 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 7 Study Session8 1. Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform: Study Session on possible revisions to the Planned9 Community (PC) District Regulations. For more information contact Consuelo Hernandez at 10 consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org 11 Continued from the meeting of July 30, 2014 12 13 Chair Michael: So let me just talk about the just the time management for the study session and suggest14 some of the questions that may come up in our discussion. So the first part we’re going to begin with an15 introduction to the staff report from Consuelo Hernandez who has written, was the principle author to the16 staff report that you and the public have. Then we’ll open the public hearing so that any members of the17 public who are here this evening who submit speaker cards may comment or make a statement, ask18 questions. Then we’re going to just do an opportunity briefly for the Planning and Transportation19 Commission (PTC) to ask any questions for staff about the staff report or about the topic of Planned20 Community (PC) zoning reform. And before we go to the public hearing on the Curtner Avenue Project21 we’re going to try to have time for the Commissioners to engage in some quick brainstorming, something22 new for us to generate ideas or suggest discussion questions that should be part of our study session23 discourse.24 25 If we’re on schedule after completing the public hearing on Curtner Avenue, let’s say approximately 8:0026 p.m., our study session will take up the analysis of the, what seemed to be the top issues emerging from27 our earlier discussion on the topic. And in particular based on the staff report and some of the notes28 from the Our Palo Alto initiative we’d like to shed light on the discussion questions which are found in the29 report on Page 3 and the community discussion questions that are on Page 16 of the packet.30 31 Now what I’ve done just for my own clarity because there’s some overlap on this and I actually thought32 some of the questions that I was curious weren’t there let me just post what I think is sort of the master33 list of questions. And it begins with broadly what are the main concerns about PC zoning? The next one34 would be: whereas many cities including Palo Alto use different techniques to allow variations from35 development standards and allow design flexibility and this says, “See Page 8 of the staff report,” should36 Palo Alto continue to use PC zoning to achieve these objectives or should this practice be phased out in37 favor of potentially more appropriate techniques such as specific or precise plans? Next question is the38 City is currently working to update the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, which will include concept area plans39 for California Avenue and the Fry’s site, East Meadow Circle, Fabian Way, and in the past the City has40 revised the Zoning Map after completing a Comp Plan update related to this request to prepare a specific41 plan for South El Camino, which hasn’t occurred, and to review the Downtown Development Cap. And42 the question is should the time out on PC zoning applications continue until many of these long term43 planning projects are approved? Next would be relating to the application process and it’s found in the44 ordinance, which is under the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.38.065 states “That the applicant for a PC45 District shall initially submit to the Planning Commission a development program statement, development46 plan, and development schedule.” But in recent years City Council has begun to conduct preliminary47 reviews of PC zoning proposals sometimes with individual Council Members meeting privately with48 applicants. What effect or value does such preliminary review have upon the process?49 50 The next question is broadly how should a PC zoning request be evaluated by the PTC, by the51 Architectural Review Board (ARB), by Council? Next, should the PC zoning process incorporate a menu of52 potential public benefits, and if so what should be on the list? Next, should there be or could there be a53 ATTACHMENT H City of Palo Alto Page 2 practical definition of public benefit? Next, if one can estimate the economic value of the public benefit 1 and corresponding economic value of the upzoning should the benefit to the public be equivalent to the 2 value received by the applicant or some other ratio? Next, how should the City enforce the commitment 3 to provide public benefits and how should such enforcement be monitored over time? Next, should the 4 applicant submit pro forma financial data about its project to support an off menu request for public 5 benefit? And finally, should the City identify areas in the City or minimum parcel sizes or maximum 6 parcel sizes for PC zone districts? 7 8 So if anybody, my colleagues on the Commission have other questions that don’t, aren’t on that list or in 9 the staff report please, please suggest them. But I’m just trying to make sure that we turned over all the 10 rocks and really had both the high level and maybe the more specific kind of focus that would be helpful 11 to this process. And for the record Commissioner Tanaka has arrived. 12 13 And finally when we wrap up this evening, which hopefully won’t be too late although I like to go as long 14 as we can given the importance of PC zoning reform we should try to arrive at a consensus whether the 15 PTC wants to continue this study session to return to the Commission at a subsequent meeting. 16 Alternatively just note that the Council has scheduled a study session on this topic for October 6th and we 17 could defer further discussion by this Commission until after the Council has their study session. So 18 that’s something to think about. 19 20 Vice-Chair Keller is going to manage time when we get to the Commissioners. And rather than our 21 normal big chunks of five minutes, which to make this more interactive we’re going to try to divide this 22 into smaller say two or three minute segments. So to make a clear point or ask a specific question and 23 then move on. So with that let’s begin with the staff report from Consuelo Hernandez. 24 25 Hillary Gitelman, Director: Thank you Chair Michael, Members of the Commission; Hillary Gitelman the 26 Planning Director and I’m joined by Consuelo Hernandez who is going to give a brief staff report and who 27 has been helpful in organizing staff’s thoughts this evening, which are reflected in the staff report. I 28 guess I wanted to say before we start that some of you have far more experience with PC zoning than 29 we do at this point. And so we are hoping that the study session is a way to get your thoughts and ideas 30 and really start framing the issues around potential alternatives and reform. So that’s the objective for 31 this evening. 32 33 I also wanted to mention just looking ahead to the Commission’s advance calendar your next meeting on 34 August 27th we’re scheduled to discuss the shuttle program and there’s a chance we may not be ready 35 for that. It’s contingent on a consultant report that as of this afternoon we had not received. So it’s 36 quite possible that continuing this discussion on PC reform might be a really, a very appropriate topic for 37 that meeting if we can’t, if this study doesn’t materialize and the shuttle isn’t ripe for discussion. With 38 that I’m going to turn it over to Consuelo who is going to do a real brief PowerPoint. 39 40 Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner: Thank you, Hillary. Good evening Chair, Members of the Planning 41 Commission; I am Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner in the Long Range Planning Division for Palo Alto 42 and tonight is a study session to look at PC reform. And really what we’ve done in the staff report is 43 consolidate some of the concerns that we have identified through your memorandum that you put 44 together last year, some of the comments that are received from the public, and from a Council hearing 45 that took place earlier this year. And I realize that the staff report contained a number of attachments 46 that had attachments contained within those and so through my presentation I’ll help guide you by giving 47 you the page number and referencing the actual attachment. 48 49 Just to give you a brief background as the Chair pointed out local jurisdictions use a variety of planning 50 techniques to introduce flexibility to the normal or standard development standards including planned 51 developments, specific area plans. In Palo Alto the PC zoning has historically served to achieve some of 52 those similar goals or objectives. These techniques essentially afford local jurisdictions with the ability to 53 encourage unified planning and development. And PC zoning was established in 1951 with the adoption 54 of the City’s zoning ordinance. In 1978 it was adopted to include public benefit and as you all know 55 City of Palo Alto Page 3 public benefit wasn’t defined in that ordinance and has been one of the main reasons or one of the main 1 concerns raised in the community for the lack of definition of what exactly a public benefit is. 2 3 The regulations have been in place since 1951 as I mentioned and about 100 PC’s have been approved 4 since then. Attachment C of the summary report or Page 33 of your packet is our draft log of the PC’s 5 that have been approved. And we realize that it doesn’t contain all of the detail that you are probably 6 expecting, but we wanted to give you just a draft of what staff has been putting together. 7 8 And on February 3rd the City Council called for a time out and asked staff to work on an analysis for 9 potential reform and alternative ideas. And a copy of that staff report is appended to your staff report or 10 your packet on Page 75, and it also contains the pipeline project at 2755 El Camino. The minutes from 11 that meeting are Attachment D and that’s on Page 115. And so again as I mentioned what staff’s done is 12 really consolidated all of those different analysis and reports that have been prepared thus far to really 13 start to outline the issues with PC’s that have been identified, summarize prior analysis, and suggestions 14 for PC reform at a very high level and to start to build reform alternatives without identifying a specific 15 change in the code right now. 16 17 And just to give you a little bit of background this is what the code currently outlines is the PC zoning 18 application process. An application is initiated at the Planning Commission level. If the PTC acts 19 favorably the development plan is then sent off to or referred to the ARB. The ARB then looks at the 20 development plan based on findings for architectural review only. The PTC then completes its final 21 review and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then reviews PTC’s 22 recommendation and takes final action. And before they can actually approve a project under the PC 23 regulations they have to make three findings and in summary they have to determine that the existing 24 regulations of whatever that particular parcel is zoned for is inadequate to accommodate the proposed 25 project or that it doesn’t allow sufficient flexibility. The second is that the development of the site will 26 result in specific public benefits not otherwise attainable through the normal or the specified zoning 27 designation. And again, it doesn’t actually define what a public benefit is whether it’s the project itself or 28 one of the things that are offered by the developer. And the last finding is that the proposal is consistent 29 with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The entire section chapter for PC regulations is on Page 19 of 30 your packet. 31 32 And again to summarize some of the key areas of concern that were brought up at the City Council 33 meeting on February 3rd is how do we evaluate a PC request? And one of the things that was considered 34 or mentioned to ameliorate this concern was to establish a clear process for the evaluation with 35 evaluation tools and a more transparent process that will aid the public, the Planning Commission, and 36 the City Council in reviewing a PC request. Another alternative or another suggestion was where should 37 PC go? Currently the code allows you to request a PC zoning change for any parcel, any property in the 38 City as long as the Council can make those three specific findings and naturally that the ARB and the PTC 39 can make the appropriate findings for specific elements of the application, but is it as the Chair 40 mentioned is there a possibility to identify specific locations in the City that are more adequate for a PC 41 zoning or maybe the types of projects that are appropriate for this type of request? Again, what types of 42 benefits should be required either by defining what a public benefit is or having a menu of public 43 benefits? And another suggestion was to develop an enforcement tool that can be tracked over time. 44 45 And so there really are two avenues in which PC reform can take. We can either revise the existing 46 ordinance to address issues and concerns including creating criteria for the establishment of PC districts, 47 and staff has started to build some of those potential revisions and they are contained on Page 15 of 48 your packet, and this is just to start the conversation and the discussion. Or we can eliminate the use of 49 PC zoning for new projects and develop an alternative approach for PC like proposals in a new code 50 section. And the policy, I apologize; the summary report gives you summary of what other local 51 jurisdictions do to achieve a similar goal. 52 53 And so what we ask of you tonight is to review and comment on that PC reform summary report and 54 discuss the process for seeking adequate public input and next steps. Chair, I appreciate the addition of 55 those questions. What we did is starting to solicit comments from the public around these three general 56 City of Palo Alto Page 4 questions and there are things that we haven’t considered and we really do appreciate you adding those 1 questions. I am here to collect more information. And what we’re asking the public is to share with us 2 what their concerns are with PC zoning and perhaps we haven’t captured that in the summary report. Or 3 what… if the PC process is reformed to include a menu of potential public benefits, what should those 4 benefits be? And finally any other ideas on PC reform. And we’re hoping that the information gathered 5 tonight and from the public will inform a report to the Council and a study session we hope to have with 6 them later this fall. And that concludes my staff report. We’re here to answer any questions you may 7 have. 8 9 Chair Michael: Thank you very much Consuelo. And by the way, I thought the staff report on this topic 10 was very thorough and excellent. So thank you for your hard work and that of your colleagues. So you 11 finished on a high note referencing questions for the public so let’s move to the public hearing. And I 12 think we have speaker cards for six speakers and Vice-Chair Keller will announce the order in which they 13 will speak. 14 15 Vice-Chair Keller: The first speaker is Fred Balin to be followed by Phyllis Cassel. You’ll have three 16 minutes. 17 18 Fred Balin: Thank you. I agree with the Chair, a lot of good information and discussion in this packet. I 19 want to start on the top, bottom of Page 1, “The process should ensure projects are consistent with the 20 Comprehensive Plan.” We know they are not. As many times as the word Comprehensive Plan comes 21 into the actual ordinance they are not followed. The clearest way to know is that when a PC comes to 22 you and comes to the Council it changes the Comp Plan designation at the same time. That should not 23 happen. Alma Plaza was one of four neighborhood commercial centers in Palo Alto. How does it come 24 as a PC and change it so it becomes 75 percent housing? College Terrace Center, neighborhood 25 commercial, you could build 0.4 commercial after the last Comprehensive Plan we put in mixed-use so 26 you could build 0.5 residential. It’s near El Camino you get a bonus, 0.5, ..5. How does it turn out to be 27 over 1.0 office alone? Regional office, and as we know from Monday night to a single big client? And 28 therefore and what was the land use designation changed to when they finally figured it out and it came 29 to the Council? Oh, mixed-use. Why? Because they tossed in a few Below Market Rate (BMR), but you 30 had mixed-use anyway to put in there so the whole scenario is crazy. 31 32 Now what’s the problem here? A big part of it is that Palo Alto does not follow its Comprehensive Plan in 33 many cases, especially in PC’s and it doesn’t have to. We’re a charter city; we don’t have to follow it. 34 Now Director Gitelman has talked about following the Comprehensive Plan. We need to ensure that that 35 happens. There needs to be a very simple ordinance that can be put in by the Council that the 36 Comprehensive Plan and the zoning that follows it will be consistent. And PC zoning is part of the zoning 37 code, it is an ordinance. No PC should come before you unless it is consistent with the Comprehensive 38 Plan. 395 Page Mill Road, what was that doing in there? The property had already been rezoned to 39 research and office, which is a research park designation. Then they come in and want to triple the 40 office space? What was the land use designation going to be there? The Area Plan for California Avenue 41 Area had to be finished first. It was completely premature. Put that note, put that ordinance in right 42 now. You’ll calm this community tremendously because no project would be able to go forward unless it 43 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. And believe me it’s a pretty hard and fast way to go because 44 any good attorney would be able to have gotten Alma Plaza or JJ&F’s College Terrace Center thrown out 45 if they took it to court. They are not consistent. Thank you. 46 47 Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Phyllis Cassel to be followed by Robert Moss. 48 49 Phyllis Cassel: I’m not that tall. I’m Phyllis Cassel. I live at 621 Wellsbury Way. And I am a former 50 Planning Commissioner and was Commissioner for about 13 years, which means I saw about 26 PC zones 51 in the time I was there because the average number of PC zones that are approved, not seen, but seen 52 are about two a year. And that’s been pretty consistent. What I did last winter was sit down across the 53 street and start going through all the PC zones. And between what I could get online and what I could 54 get over there I did all of it, but life overtook me so I don’t have a nice, neat report to hand you 55 unfortunately. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 PC zones have changed over time and the first thing to note is that there actually were 125 PC zones 1 approved, but that’s because 20 of those were amended PC zones because once a PC zone it’s always a 2 PC zone. And if you want to change the use, even the use on that PC site you have to come back and 3 get an amendment to your PC zone. So about 20 of them, roughly I don’t have, if I say an exact number 4 someone will go count them and get a slightly different one, were actually PC zones that were then 5 amended either to a different use or to a different size. Four of those PC zones were actually changed 6 back to a standard zone, which means that today we have approximately 100 as they told you active PC 7 zones. So the number they’re using is correct, it’s just that we changed these every so often because 8 you can’t do anything. You can’t add more than a minimal number of square feet to your PC zones 9 without coming back in for a complete PC amendment. 10 11 So I’ve seen a lot of them. They started out as very small. We have a PC zone as small as one house up 12 in the hills. When what they needed to do with this, I only have three minutes so I want to write the rest 13 of it down. We need a number of things. I don’t want to see you change I’m going to lose myself here… 14 we need to continue to have a PC zone. You may want to put a maximum size on your PC zone, but not 15 a minimum size. It may be used with smaller projects. I don’t want to see you end up with PC zones 16 that can be bought. I want to buy my PC zone and have this zone because I can buy a police station. 17 Boy is that tempting. We can’t afford a police station and we need it and no one wants to pay for it. So 18 that isn’t fair, but we do need PC zones because they’ve been used very creatively. When we didn’t have 19 a zone, zoning changes take forever in Palo Alto. Anything takes forever if it goes to City Council. So we 20 have a zone, mixed-use zone, but we didn’t have a mixed-use zone we had a design guideline that said 21 we wanted mixed uses on El Camino. So (interrupted) 22 23 Chair Michael: If you need more time you can continue. 24 25 Ms. Cassel: Well, I won’t take too long because I dictated six pages in a half an hour this morning and 26 that doesn’t work. So the PC on El Camino in this case was a mixed-use zone and we were using it 27 because we had design guidelines that said we were supposed to be putting in mixed-use zones and we 28 wanted mixed-use zones. These had been, design guidelines had been done by the ARB and reviewed 29 by City Council, but we didn’t have a zone for it. So for a while we were putting in mixed-use PC’s, but 30 we didn’t need to continue to put in mixed-use PC’s because we changed the zone, but the zone is bigger 31 than a single site. 32 33 We’ve used these for BMR units. We used 10 of these are two unit condominiums that are located in 34 developments that are on the old school sites when they put up single family units they wanted to put in 35 a two unit BMR condominium. We don’t have any zone that allows for that. We allow for two units 36 together. You can own it and rent one or in some areas with another zone you can actually have two 37 rentals, but you can’t have a condominium. That’s not in the zone. So sometimes we just can’t think 38 ahead of time for the creative uses that are needed. So a PUD or a large zone that needs an overall area 39 plan is one thing and shouldn’t be done as a PC, that’s true, but smaller units and smaller sizes often 40 need to be done that way because we cannot anticipate tomorrow what new technologies and new ideas 41 come before us. I’ll put some of the rest of it in writing because it’s not fair for me to take too much 42 time. Thank you. 43 44 Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Robert Moss to be followed by Mark Weiss. 45 46 Robert Moss: Thank you Chair Michael and Commissioners. As you know I’ve been complaining about 47 the fallacies of PC zoning for decades. They are a real problem and let me mention a few things that the 48 staff report doesn’t cover. One of the intentions of zoning and land use is so that everybody, both the 49 people who live on the site and the people who are going by and the people who are considering 50 development know what is there and what is allowed. PC zoning eliminates that. It’s a wildcard zone. 51 So you may have something zoned R1 or RM30 or CC and somebody comes along with a PC and 52 completely changes what’s on that site and what’s in the environment. Lousy idea. 53 54 So let me address some of the points that staff made of the issues. First, I’ll talk about an economic 55 analysis. As you know on a number of PC’s I have come in with that. I’ve given figures on what the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 6 benefit was to the developer and the benefit is to the community. And inevitably the developer is 10 to 1 20 times more rewarded than the community. So there you should do two things, you should quantify 2 both the public and private benefits and you should limit the spread. Now I don’t know what that limit 3 number should be whether it’s 5 times, 10 times, 2 times, but you should pick a reasonable number and 4 that’s the limit so that it doesn’t incentivize people looking at PC zoning because they can upzone so 5 much. 6 7 Where should PC zoning go? Well, I can give you some zones where it absolutely should not go. Prohibit 8 it from RE, R1, R2, you might want to consider only allowing it another way of doing it in say GM, CC, 9 and CS, not CN because that’s not what CN zone was created for. Since I created it I know what it’s for. 10 11 What kind of benefits? Well, let me give an example… oh, and then there’s the other how do you 12 enforce it? I’ll give you two examples. On Page 33, 2800 West Bayshore, PC 1889, the benefit for that 13 was a playground for the community and after about 10 or 15 years the playground got bad and they 14 took it out. And they were never required to replace it and they were never required to pay any fees. So 15 there’s if you insist on something being done you have to insist that it is done. Second, how do you 16 quantify public benefit? What’s adequate? Page 34 near the top, 630 Lytton, the public benefit for that 17 PC was a $35,000 traffic study. So you know how much that was worth. We have to have not just an 18 enforcement tool, but actual enforcement. I could give you dozens of examples of PC’s which are 19 violated today and have never ever been enforced. We have never penalized anybody for violating a PC. 20 How can they lose? 21 22 Finally, how do we evaluate a request? Let me suggest this, you put a limit on the increase of 23 development per site. For example, you cannot reduce the side setbacks by more than say 50 percent, 24 the rear and front setbacks by more than 50 percent or 25 percent, the height by more than 5 or 10 feet, 25 the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by more than 25 percent. So everybody knows what the parameters are. If 26 you put that down and say no PC can exceed the existing zoning by these amounts, everybody’s playing 27 the same game and it’ll make it a lot easier on both you and the Council. 28 29 Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Mark Weiss to be followed by Herb Borock. 30 31 Mark Weiss: Mark Weiss, 1788 Oak Creek Drive. One, commercial real estate developers have too much 32 say and sway; leadership, Council, Commissioners, and staff should listen to residents first. Two, 33 Planned Community “PC” zoning is the most concentrated form of abuse of the system in recent years 34 and should be amended, enforced, or outlawed. Three, the 27 University project Arrillaga Office Towers 35 should, Arrillaga Office Towers should be vigorously opposed by residentialists as part of taking back the 36 town from these powerful oligarchical special interests. 37 38 Very high on my list of things to do as part of my campaign is to bone up on all things PC zoning, 39 Planned Community, which seems more and more people are identifying as a source of the bulk of abuse 40 that people sense about losing control of the community to developers. PC zoning seems like a mulligan 41 in golf terms, something that lets people start over or ignore the rules. It’s like a get out of jail free card 42 as they would say in Monopoly the board game. Fred Balin’s five part series says with a link, says among 43 other things that Karen Holman and Greg Scharff ran in 2009 on a promise to reform PC zoning. I would 44 say that Karen has been tougher on projects than Greg has. Kudos to Fred Balin for putting so much 45 thought and hard work into this. The series focuses on Alma Plaza project as a case study and also links 46 to a similar article recently by Bob Moss on transparency. I wrote both of those posts in October of 2012. 47 I was running for City Council. I did no other campaigning virtually and I spent no money on my 48 campaign, but it got 6,000 votes. 6,000 votes. People from fall 22 were already complaining about PC 49 zoning, keying in… that it’s a key problem. I think the referendum on Maybell was as much a referendum 50 on PC zoning as on the project itself. PC zoning needs to go. 51 52 Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Herb Borock to be followed by our last speaker, Pat Sausedo, and 53 I’m sorry if I butchered your name. 54 Herb Borock: Good Evening Chair Michael and Commissioners. At the beginning of the meeting the Chair 55 referred to some questions and framework, which seem to be read from some written communication 56 City of Palo Alto Page 7 that the Commissioners and the staff had received and this has been something that has happened in the 1 past. So if there’s anything that you have copies of that should be available at the meeting (interrupted) 2 3 Chair Michael: If I can interrupt on that point? I wrote those questions on my home computer this 4 afternoon and you heard them at the same time that everybody else heard them for the first time. 5 6 Mr. Borock: Ok, thank you. But to the extent that there is any such communication such as the Council 7 Members e-mails to the Director and Jim Baer that’s clearly something that’s related to the agenda item 8 and should also be available. 9 10 I believe that the PC zone district should be eliminated from the zoning code except for the language 11 that’s needed for the existing PC zones such as minor amendments to them and enforcement and 12 inspections. What we can do for and have done for special cases that don’t fit within our general zone 13 districts is we’ve had several different things. For example, Chapter 18.60 of the code or the Alternative 14 Development Standards for Stanford Lands. We felt it was necessary to create three additional zoning 15 overlays that could be used. We had the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan that had 16 an alternative multi-family designation, detached houses on smaller lots, and a residential transition zone, 17 which by the way the last one was able to create 100 percent affordable housing without a PC zone. And 18 for the Stanford Hospital we essentially created new zoning. 19 20 One of the things that has been of concern is how do we create 100 percent affordable housing projects? 21 One possibility would have been through special language that was implementing the State Housing 22 Density Bonus Law, but the Council chose not to do that. However, the Regional Housing Mandate 23 Committee’s draft of programs includes a Program H2.1.6 to consider density bonuses under concessions 24 including allow greater concessions for 100 percent affordable housing development. 25 26 Now why do developers want PC? They purchase a property for a price that’s negotiated that will give 27 them a fair return on their investment based upon the current zoning and then they apply for a PC zone 28 to get a higher return on investment. What do the residents get out of that? Very little if anything. 29 30 I was disappointed that Bob Moss didn’t follow through on his original proposal to have a ballot initiative 31 on this November’s election on the PC zone district. I believe it was a good idea to hear what the 32 candidates would have said for, about initiative to eliminate the PC zone district. The details that you’ll 33 be talking about from the staff report are not of interest to me because you either want to eliminate the 34 PC zone district or you do not. Thank you. 35 36 Vice-Chair Keller: And our final speaker is Pat Sausedo. 37 38 Pat Sausedo: Good evening Chair and Commissioner, I’m Pat Sausedo representing the Building Industry 39 Association this evening. There are just a couple of points that I’d like to make on behalf of the building 40 industry recognizing that you’re struggling with your PC zoning at this point in time. We do believe that it 41 will be important that if Palo Alto determines that the existing PC zoning doesn’t work for most future 42 housing projects it will be necessary to demonstrate how your alternative to PC zoning will facilitate 43 adequate densities and height in future development projects to implement your goals and objectives for 44 housing as contained in your Comprehensive Plan and your Draft Housing Element that you have within 45 the City of Palo Alto. We also believe as you go through this process it would be a good tool and would 46 like to see a first step in demonstrating how Palo Alto’s base zoning works and providing a delineation of 47 how many units have been permitted under Palo Alto’s base zoning over the past three to five years. 48 And we think those, that would be a really good tool as you continue in this process of analyzing your PC 49 zoning and figuring out what you ultimately will be recommending to your Council. We appreciate and 50 we will be continuing in this effort with you on the PC zoning. Thank you. 51 52 Chair Michael: So I’d like to thank the members of the public this evening who made very thoughtful and 53 very well informed comments that will help us in the discussion. So let’s close the public hearing for now, 54 perhaps in part two if any other members of the public arrive or members of the public who are already 55 here want to submit another speaker card we can provide that opportunity. So let’s come back to the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Commission and between now and as close to 7:00 as we can make it let’s give everybody a chance to 1 ask any questions for staff or about the report, about the topic or if you have a particular idea that you 2 want to suggest that should be part of our discussion when we reconvene let’s have at it. So who would 3 like to go first? Commissioner Alcheck. 4 5 Commissioner Alcheck: Alright so I’ll kick us off here. And that’s it. No. Thanks for the staff report. I 6 had not read the report, the flexibility versus certainty discussion paper before. And I found that to be 7 really tremendous because it didn’t really take a position on what we should be doing, but rather sort of 8 presented the benefits and costs of the various options we have here in our approach to nonconforming 9 development or redevelopment. You know you’ll often hear Palo Altoans reverently refer to our Comp 10 Plan as our Bible. It’s been said on this Commission before. It’s our driving document and it’s the basis 11 by which we evaluate nearly every proposal brought before us. The irony is you’ll hear every person 12 involved in this process from the Council to the staff to Commissioners to residents acknowledge that the 13 document is antiquated, beyond its expiration date, and fails to meet the needs of our current City. And 14 so we’re constantly, I shouldn’t say constantly, we have been constantly engaged in its update since I 15 joined the Commission and that fact I think creates this tension between the PC zone’s flexibility and its 16 lack of consistency in its execution with respect to our Comp Plan. So in that regard the flexibility that PC 17 zoning allows alleviates this problem that maybe our Comp Plan is just a little behind our current needs. 18 19 In its place though the ambiguity specifically of the substantive public benefit requirement I think creates 20 a much greater challenge. In fact that in my opinion that is the greatest challenge in the equitable 21 implementation of the PC zone. You know the staff report acknowledged this idea of requiring it to be in 22 certain areas of the City as opposed to having no specific zone and I wondered whether there was 23 certain projects that would not have occurred because of that. I mean are we really trying to eliminate 24 certain, is that really a problem? 25 26 You know we heard… we also, the staff report also suggested limiting the PC zone to a certain size. I’ll 27 finish here. A certain size project and we heard from one speaker tonight with 13 years of past 28 Commission experience that that would be a mistake and I agree. The alternative and I’m referring to 29 Jim Baer’s suggestion, which would be that when proposals exceed a certain size think 27 University that 30 those sorts of projects that it would be more prudent for those sorts of projects to have to go through a 31 specific plan or development agreement process that seems actually far more, far more effective. So I’ll 32 stop there for now, but. 33 34 Chair Michael: Commissioner Rosenblum. 35 36 Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you and I also want to thank you for the work on the staff report. It’s 37 quite, it’s quite comprehensive. Having said that there I think I’m going to use my three minutes mostly 38 to try to lay down the questions that I found would be helpful in trying to come to some decisions on this 39 because I’m pretty sympathetic to many of the speakers particularly that PC zoning is fundamentally out 40 of alignment with a lot of the purpose of zoning. That if that, if the purpose of zoning is to allow 41 predictability in certain areas then the potential of a wildcard at any time undermines that. So I think it 42 should be used with great discretion and in fact it hasn’t been used that often in the last, since 2000. It’s 43 something like less than two projects a year as you’ve noted. In the last 5 years it’s been something like 44 one project a year. 45 46 So the questions I would have are for just some baselines, which is what percentage of total units 47 approved have been under a PC zoning? And so that means the denominator and numerator are PC 48 zoning and total units that are non PC. I’d like to know how much is this that we’re actually talking 49 about? I’d like to know what proportion of them are above one acre and what proportion of them are 50 below one acre? Again to the alternative viewpoints I would be interested to hear why a minimum and 51 not a maximum? I had thought that having a certain min threshold, actually set a maximum not a 52 minimum, that a certain min threshold made sense that there are some bigger projects that come up that 53 just don’t fit into any zoning. I understand that that will be the case, but I would like to understand the 54 distribution of the PC projects. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 9 And then finally I’d like to know the distribution and I’m not sure if this is easy, but it would be really 1 helpful of category one. So in the three step process of determining whether or not a project qualifies, 2 which is: first it doesn’t fit within current zoning restrictions, second there’s tangible public benefit, and 3 third it’s in line with the Comp Plan. What is the trigger for number one? What was the distribution of 4 the trigger? Why did it not fit specifically? Because I’d like to see we are undergoing a fairly major 5 process of reviewing many City policies. If there are some common triggers then that should be put into 6 zoning. This should be a very exceptional process and if it consistently comes up then that’s something 7 to consider whether or not that should just be part of the zoning code recognizing that it’s hard to 8 change zoning and the whole purpose of this is to have a flexible alternative. But if it’s the same trigger 9 that occurs more frequently I’d like to know what that is. 10 11 Finally, I would like to see a retrospective. I don’t know if someone has done this of the projects that are 12 alive how many of them are deemed successful by the measurement on which they were evaluated and 13 approved? So when they’re brought… just 20 more seconds this will be fairly easy. When they’re 14 brought there’s some justification that says this will be, this will provide great housing alternatives for this 15 area and a vibrant source of groceries for the residents of this area, etcetera. To what extent have we 16 gone retrospectively and said “Ok, these would be considered runaway success. Neighbors all agree 17 now.”? I know that’s fairly qualitative, but I think it would be helpful to say do these things ultimately 18 turn into benefits for the area or do they become albatrosses for the area? That’s it for me. 19 20 Director Gitelman: Chair Michael if I could just ask a quick follow up? I missed the first data request. 21 Was it about number of housing units? 22 23 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. Total units under PC divided by total units approved over the same 24 time period. 25 26 Director Gitelman: Ok. I’m just, so the Commission’s aware we’re trying to capture some of these notes 27 on the screen so that it can benefit your later discussion. We’ll try our best to keep up and maybe we’ll 28 catch up during the break too. 29 30 Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you. 31 32 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 33 34 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so I don’t have that many new comments per se, but I will say that I agree 35 with Commissioner Alcheck’s comment about the Comp Plan. I’ve been on the Commission for a while 36 now and the Comp Plan is still being worked on and I don’t think anyone can claim that the current 37 approved Comp Plan is state of the art or reflective of what the community thinks today, what they need 38 today. So with that and I think unfortunately I don’t know if it’s realistic to expect that the Comp Plan 39 will be real time, will always be updated. I mean that’s the ideal thing where we have this Comp Plan 40 that’s truly reflective of what the community needs and wants all the time I think is probably not realistic. 41 I’d love to hear feedback from staff if they know of cities where Comp Plans are always updated 42 regularly. And because of that and I think because of the nature of what’s happening in terms of there’s 43 certain cycles, business cycles, there are certain opportunities that come to the fore and you know it’s 44 hard for us to… we can zone for something, we could plan for something, but as a City we don’t build it 45 ourselves. We don’t finance it. We don’t develop it ourselves. And so it’s not within our power to say 46 when and how do things take shape. And so some of these things are truly opportunities for us to see 47 whether it could be crafted to actually be an overall net positive for the community. And so I think 48 unfortunately inherently unless there’s a way to really keep the Comp Plan truly updated and reflective as 49 to what the community needs and wants I think it’s inherent that we’re going to need something like a 50 PC whether we call it a PC or not. So I think that’s my first point. 51 52 I think the second one is really about equitable implementation. And I think that’s actually one of the 53 core issues right now. Some of them are easy, which is like if the developer promises a public benefit 54 there should be the enforcement of that public benefit. There should be the financing from the 55 developer of the enforcement so I think that’s a no brainer. I think those are some really easy, easy PC 56 City of Palo Alto Page 10 reform that we can do and we should do and we should do quickly because I think that, that removes a 1 lot of the reasons why we shouldn’t do a PC. And then that I think those are the easy ones. 2 3 I think really the harder question really is like how much of a public benefit is a public benefit? And that’s 4 something we struggle on because it’s by nature these are exceptions so there’s not a formula we could 5 plug in and say oh, this is sufficient for the increase in FAR or site coverage or whatever it might be. And 6 so I think that’s one that we have to struggle on and I think unfortunately that’s probably the work of this 7 body, the City Council, the ARB, for us to decide because these are going to be exceptions. I don’t think 8 there’s going to be a formula we could ever truly develop. I think that’s just not realistic. It’s going to be 9 an exception. 10 11 So just to summarize I think something like PC’s will always have to be, we’ll still have to have it. But I 12 think what we should do and do quickly is fix some of the basic problems with the PC like enforcement 13 and financing of the enforcements. 14 15 Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias. 16 17 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Chair. So just addressing this from the general perspective and this is 18 the first time I speak about this I think that there one of the reasons behind is that the zoning was 19 established we entered the age of transparency and then on both sides on the developer side and on the 20 public side it’s increasing because of various factors. But then when you take this into account you may 21 need to understand that developer needs to have, needs transparency to establish his perspective on the 22 project. I would like to have the clarity of the requirements, how much he can build and what’s the 23 threshold for his benefits. And I think that in the e-mail that was or in the letter that was provided by 24 Jim Baer before the meeting some of this aspects are clearly defined so from the process perspective 25 that’s an opportunity to give the developer benefit of early requirements as opposed to late requirements 26 that pretty much would cost him a lot, right? And then of course build into the zoning requirements as 27 much of the definitions so he will know where he stands. 28 29 From the public perspective that’s on the opposite side of course. Public would like to have transparency 30 of the process as well, right? So public would like to know early and then also I think that we were 31 beaten with some unexpected results of negotiations that maybe were not disclosed promptly to the 32 public and then public was taken by surprise so pretty much we should build into the process 33 transparency and clarity for the public purpose so they can come to the meetings and then have their say 34 on the benefits. And then of course they would like, there would need to be also established cap from 35 the perspective of public as much as certain limits should be known to the developers certainly it should 36 be known to the public. So if you just see those two sides of the picture that may give you some 37 guidelines for drafting some corrections to the existing PC zone. Thank you. 38 39 Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 40 41 Commissioner King: Before you start my clock can you explain the process we’re using tonight? We’re 42 doing three minutes each now and then do we have a subsequent round or is this everything we want to 43 discuss, all our comments are three minutes and then we’re done for tonight? 44 45 Chair Michael: No, we’re just beginning. In a few minutes we’re going to start the discussion on the 46 Curtner Avenue project, but we’re just going to let you and Vice-Chair Keller make brief comments or 47 questions about the staff report so that when we come back after the Curtner project then we’ll have a 48 completely open discussion and we can go as long as we want. 49 50 Commissioner King: Got it. Ok, thanks. Ok, then I’ll just I’ll limit to a couple general comments. So the 51 simple, in my mind the simple answer is to just say well, right now in general people aren’t very happy 52 with the PC and so let’s eliminate it. But it sounds like and in my personal opinion is some of the recent 53 projects that during my paying attention and then being on the Council or on the Commission were ones 54 that I felt were the College Terrace and the Lytton Gateway were more in the buying, paying for zoning 55 where they got large blocks of office space well above and beyond the native zoning in those on those 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 sites and so those I think, well I don’t think, I don’t feel as a citizen that we were well served by those PC 1 projects. And in fact with the Lytton Gateway then it was interesting because then the benefits of the 2 developer kind of measured those and said oh, per square foot of developer benefit we paid X in 3 benefits. And they must have been very happy because then they came back and actually used that in a 4 subsequent project to say, hey we’re absolutely happy to pay this much in benefits per square foot we 5 get. So I would take that as an indicator we didn’t get a great deal if you’re trying to measure it in did 6 we get a great deal. 7 8 So, but on the other hand it sounds like and I was very happy to have former Commissioner Cassel came 9 and spoke to us with her the side that well this is a flexible, a tool that can help site specific problem 10 solving for sites that normally wouldn’t, that might not work and that there were… it was a positive tool. 11 So I would like to see Commissioner Rosenblum asked for data supporting what’s happened in the past. 12 I’d also like to hear the narratives in the form of case studies from those who have institutional memory 13 such as Phyllis and developers that have been in the process how it worked for them, how the former 14 Commissioners and those involved, Council Members, how they felt that it worked and did serve the 15 community. So I’ll finish on that for right now. Thanks. 16 17 Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 18 19 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So I appreciate the staff especially numbering the pages of the large 20 document with all these different sections. That was a great benefit. I’d like to see that. And thank you 21 to former Commissioner in terms of mentioning that there was precedent for 13 years on the 22 Commission. 23 24 In terms of what data might be useful to have the list not only show amendments but also show the 25 public benefits that were received, any enforcement actions that took place, and maybe some 26 commentary of that about analysis of that if there’s any reasonable thing to say. Also a project 27 description and how it exceeded zoning. That seems to be useful for our analysis of there. There was a 28 in terms of the Housing Density Bonus Law discussion there was a suggestion by Commissioner King that 29 we do instead of pro formas or kind of analysis that we actually do fair market value. And maybe fair 30 market value is the way to do a PC. You take the fair market value of what could be built under current 31 zoning, you take the fair market value of what’s being proposed, the difference is the benefit to the 32 developer. That’s compared to the cost of building that which you have to calculate someway and the 33 cost of public benefit and then they should be somewhat commensurate. 34 35 There’s a discussion about the idea of what the public benefit should be, but I think that the interesting 36 thing is what are the proposed in terms of concessions? There should be some limits or menu of what 37 the concessions are increased, what is the increase in zoning that one could allow through this? And I 38 think that that might do that. Also the issue is that I think that to the extent that we do have PC’s they 39 should be rare and perhaps even an automatic vote of the people once they’re approved to make sure 40 that the people support this change in zoning. 41 42 One of the things that’s a problem that we currently have with PC process is that the PTC makes 43 recommendations of the project, on the project when the project is initiated, but that goes nowhere. 44 There’s no tracking of it. So we should in the process of initiating the PC to the extent that we continue 45 to do that, we should do that through making recommendations that get tracked throughout the process 46 and are then followed up by the ARB and then when it comes back to the Planning Commission we say 47 either these recommendations are followed or not and if they’re not followed why not? But right now for 48 example when the Maybell PC came to us there was a, there would have been a majority on the 49 Commission to recommend that there be fewer and smaller market rate housing units particularly on 50 Maybell and what came back did not reflect that. So I’ll leave my comments for later. Thank you. 51 52 Chair Michael: So I think my colleagues on the Commission made excellent points and hopefully this gives 53 us a lot to work on in the second part. I think that the work that staff has done particularly with the 54 beginning to make a log of the PC projects on Page 33 of the staff report is really helpful. And I think 55 that some of my colleagues have suggested additional information that could be used to expand the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 12 usefulness and value of this if you showed each what type of project, whether it’s commercial, residential 1 or mixed-use some description of what the project is so if people can understand what it’s referring to if 2 there’s a distinct description of the public benefit that would be good. If there’s been any enforcement 3 issue or not and I think this qualitative notion of whether or not the objectives of the project were 4 achieved may be subjective or controversial, but I think if you can figure out some way of reflecting if 5 there was further inquiry would be worthwhile. That would be useful. 6 7 On the PowerPoint Page 3 if you can maybe switch and put that up? This is the PC zoning application 8 process. And in the staff report it suggests that there may be sort of a first action by Council, which isn’t 9 shown in this process. And I think this is what this slide is just what the statute or the ordinance says, 10 but it’s not what happens. And I think one of the issues in governance in Palo Alto which is of concern to 11 the community this is an election year is are we walking the walk and talking the talk and are we doing 12 what we’re supposed to be doing the way we’re supposed to be doing it? So I think to me there’s an 13 issue of if the nature of the preliminary review by Council which may take place in a study session on the 14 agenda of a Council meeting and may actually be sort of preceded by individual meetings of the applicant 15 with members of Council, which then the Council Members may disclose the fact of such meetings, but 16 frankly I think that the policy that the Council follows with respect to such ex parte communications 17 leaves me very dissatisfied that there is never in my brief experience of Council Meetings a real disclosure 18 of what was actually discussed. But developers seem to be quite eager to always have these meetings; 19 therefore, they must be getting some value from them and introducing bias into the process. And so I 20 think that having this process if a PC is to be initiated by Council the ordinance should be amended to say 21 that Council initiates PC’s. If the ordinance says that the Planning Commission initiates PC, the Planning 22 Commission should uphold its responsibilities and that would be important to clarify. 23 24 And with that my time’s up. So let’s, let’s take just a quick five minute break and regroup and then when 25 we come back we’ll go to the hearing on 405 Curtner and so that will be at about 7:15. 26 Chair Michael: So how’s the Information Technology (IT) team doing? Have your… is the plan working? 27 28 Hillary Gitelman, Director: Chair Michael if I could just introduce this idea of ours was to try and capture 29 the thoughts of the Commissioners in that first round of questions, get them on the screen so we could 30 use them to guide us and prioritize a conversation. We didn’t get a comprehensive list up there and we 31 weren’t able to use the Curtner break to make it comprehensive because we only had one piece of 32 equipment. So I’m not sure this idea’s going to work, but we’ll leave that up there and we’ll continue to 33 fiddle with it. If it’s helpful, wonderful; if it isn’t this is just one of those experiments that we tried that 34 didn’t quite do the trick. 35 36 Chair Michael: Ok, well let’s… we’re reconvening the meeting. And what we had originally intended was 37 to have a very interactive discussion about a very important topic and to use the first segment to 38 introduce some of the concepts that we think should be examined in more detail. And in the spirit of 39 innovation instead of giving long segments of time for Commissioners to really dig into something in 40 great depth or ask a number of questions and what have you thinking that if we have shorter blocks of 41 time then we can go back and forth more, have questions for staff, and my intention is to have 42 effectively no limit on how many times you can involve yourself in the discussion if you think you have 43 something to add to the discussion. 44 45 So where we were, was we had an excellent staff report, we had some informed comments from 46 members of the public, we had a round of questions, comments, ideas. So let’s continue that. I had 47 tried to just for my own edification sort of organize the questions that were in the staff report, which the 48 staff was hoping that we would sort of address directly and that of course would be a good use of our 49 time. Those are on Page 3 of the report and Page 16 of the report, but I think my exercise I went 50 through was intended to liberate our thinking that if there are other questions that should be asked we 51 should ask and answer whatever questions that we deem to be truly relevant. So with that let me turn to 52 the Commission and open the discussion on Planned Community (PC) zoning reform. And let’s go three 53 minutes and actually Arthur, the Vice-Chair Keller you spoke last and I know that you had organized a list 54 of comments that you wanted to investigate and you had only made it part way through. Do you want to 55 just start and? 56 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Vice-Chair Keller: Sure that’s fine. If that’s ok? 1 2 Chair Michael: Yeah, that’s fine. Yeah. 3 4 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. I agree with the suggestions that have been made about greater use of 5 specific plans or some cities call it precise plans as a way of reducing the need for PC’s. One thing that 6 we can consider is the idea that there’s no real need for double dipping. In other words you don’t need 7 to have the combination of Bonus Density Housing Law with PC’s because the benefits of the Bonus 8 Density Housing Law could be folded in to what is in a PC so that, in terms of that. And the baseline 9 that’s considered for the PC could be the baseline including the Housing Density Bonus Law so that 10 handles that. I think we might think about more context specific or context sensitive zoning regulations. 11 We have already some of that in terms of height limits, but for example some of the issues for example 12 on El Camino Real and the adjacency issues in terms of what’s behind it might affect the kind of zoning 13 that you have and what you can… in more fine detail of that. 14 15 Some people have talked about the idea of what public benefits menu should be. I’d like to talk for a 16 moment about what public benefits don’t include and I actually am frustrated and annoyed when PC’s 17 claim these as public benefits or list them among the public benefits because they’re not. Impact fees 18 including increased impact fees for doing the development. Those are not public benefits. Mitigations for 19 impacts such as the cost of transit passes that are used to mitigate the increased traffic. Those are not, 20 those are impact fees not public benefits. Required amendencies such as art, those are not public 21 benefits. Required setbacks, those are not public benefits. Future taxes, such as transient occupancy tax 22 and utilities users tax, those are not public benefits. The property taxes people will pay, those are not 23 public benefits. And urban design features and quality and character of project, etcetera that are mainly 24 of benefit to the project or is more of benefit to the project than to the public, those are not public 25 benefits either. And furthermore mitigations should last for the life of the project, not just for 10 or 15 26 years. If the project is going to be there 50 years the mitigations need to be there 50 years or however 27 long the project lasts. 28 29 I think that if there’s a waiver of fees that should be subtracted from the public benefits proposed 30 because those are negative public benefits if you will. And I think most importantly we need to say no 31 early. We need to say what we want and if we say no we don’t want that I think we could help the Palo 32 Alto Process. Palo Alto Process is made worse when the projects move all the way to the City Council 33 because not enough input comes to the Commission and comes in the early stage and then people’s 34 anger is raised up when it comes to the Council after a lot of money has been spent by the developer and 35 time has been moved on and then people start raising objections and that’s a problem. So we need to 36 make sure, we need to try to front load the objections as much as possible and say no early. 37 38 Finally one last thing is that people talked about enforcement. Well enforcement makes sense if the 39 developer still owns the property. But if the developer builds a multi-family residential property sold off 40 to condo development and the developer is long gone and the public benefit disappears whom do you 41 penalize? Thank you. 42 43 Ms. Gitelman: Chair Michael? If I could make a suggestion it would be really great to get the rest of the 44 Commission’s thoughts on what should be on the menu versus what shouldn’t be on the menu taking the 45 cue from Vice-Chair Keller it might be one way to just kind of get to one of the central issues here if we 46 could hear that in this round of comments. Just a suggestion. 47 48 Chair Michael: Ok, I’m fine with that although if Commissioners have other burning things that they want 49 to get to I don’t want to restrict their thought process. But Commissioner Alcheck is one of the coauthors 50 of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) 2013 memo on public benefits. Maybe you can 51 focus right in on this concern. 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so the staff report highlighted some philosophical issues that are inherent in 54 this debate. I’d like to highlight some of them and add some of my own for us to reflect on during this 55 discussion. Should this exercise in PC reform result in a zoning ordinance that provides us with greater 56 City of Palo Alto Page 14 flexibility or greater predictability? That was one of the philosophical questions. Do we wish to 1 encourage preservation or redevelopment? Is it growth or atrophy that we seek? You know having 2 spent a great deal of time evaluating this PC process. I am very eager to see it reformed. In our 3 colleagues memo we articulated an alternative approach requiring a developer to pay a substantial 4 amount to a fund intended to alleviate a high priority problem facing the City. In this alternative we 5 eliminate the vague and ambiguous public benefit evaluation, which I think is the greatest challenge to 6 this whole process. And this evaluation was fundamentally flawed because the requirement assumed 7 that the developer would be in the best position to articulate a public benefit. So this idea of a menu as 8 some sort of opportunity for us to not put it in the developer’s court to come up with a public benefit I’m 9 suggesting let’s, this is not the community that you should be seeking that menu from. 10 11 The more and more I think about it, the more obvious it seems to me that our City’s leadership should be 12 articulating our City’s needs not one off developers and not Members of this Commission. Frankly we 13 devote a very small percentage of our time compared to our City Council Members. They seem to be the 14 most engaged, committed, dedicated members of our community. They seem to be in the best position 15 to identify what are our City’s needs. We elect these people to make many difficult decisions on our 16 behalf. Let’s empower them to identify what our City needs, but can’t afford. While they compile that 17 list the PTC and staff could work together to create a formula to determine the payment required of the 18 developer in exchange for this flexibility. 19 20 And while we’re at it, let’s change the name of this zoning process as well. The PC zone is tarnished. Of 21 the 100 plus projects 5 or so have made it a third rail politically and I’d like to emphasize something here. 22 This approach that I’m suggesting was first discussed in our colleagues memo. This accomplishes many 23 seemingly philosophically opposed tradeoffs. Follow me here, it provides predictability and flexibly. This 24 incredible memo by Dyett and Bhatia is entitled Predictability Versus Flexibility. This does both. It 25 provides predictability and it creates and it allows for flexibility. At the same time, I’m going to finish 26 right now, it allows for redevelopment but also funds preservation. We’ve got Commissioners here who 27 were on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC). They know all too well what is not being 28 preserved. We would be encouraging redevelopment, allowing for it, and funding preservation. We 29 would be accommodating growth and at the same time this approach would stymie atrophy. I think that 30 should be our goal. 31 32 I think that the notion that Mark Michael raised earlier about who should kick off the PTC process there’s 33 an inherent tension here on who is in the best position to evaluate public benefit and my argument would 34 be City Council Members should just give us a list. We’ll come up with the formula and maybe we can 35 accomplish a lot of different philosophical tradeoffs. 36 37 Chair Michael: Ok, Commissioner Rosenblum. 38 39 Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you. I want to return to some of the questions I asked earlier and see 40 if you have quick answers to any of them. The first and if you just don’t have it then just we’ll move on. 41 What is the percentage of projects… are we talking about five percent of units or area approved in the 42 last say 5 years or 10 years? Are we talking about 2 percent, 10 percent? 43 44 Ms. Gitelman: We’re going to have to get back to you on that. 45 46 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, but order of magnitude do you have any? No. Ok. I think that would be 47 really useful to put this in perspective since we’re talking about atrophy or stymieing. I agree that the 48 idea of having flexible process is really important, but what I want to know is this a big part of what we 49 do or a smaller part of what we do? 50 51 The second is around the triggers. I’d love to know what the main trigger is that forces something into a 52 PC project. So for example, in the staff report you append I thought this was really useful an actual PC 53 application. And it wasn’t clear to me in the application maybe I just didn’t read it thoroughly enough 54 what the specific trigger was that said this project cannot be approved within the current zoning. It was 55 City of Palo Alto Page 15 very clear on what the public benefits were, the calculation of public benefit and that was again very 1 useful. What are the main triggers that make these projects not fit in current zoning? 2 3 Ms. Gitelman: We’ll have to analyze I think maybe the way to do that is just come up with a short list of 4 possible answers to that question (interrupted) 5 6 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: Density, use (interrupted) 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, is it mixed-use? Is it more units than otherwise and if it’s more units 11 then that raises a big question to me. Because the zoning is specifically there to restrict the number of 12 units and there are bonuses for Below Market Rate (BMR), there are things that we’ve thought of from a 13 public policy perspective that would allow us to violate the zoning restrictions that are already 14 contemplated. So I would love to know what is it that’s violating these and if so what does that say 15 about our zoning? Do we want to address it through that? Is there another process that’s better? And 16 again, my view is this should be a really rare process. I think one per year seems pretty rare so it seems 17 to already be fairly rare, but if there’s some common threat among these then that would seem to be a 18 good candidate for addressing through some other means. 19 20 And finally, around the calculation I thought that Vice-Chair Keller had a very good idea. I’m not sure 21 how to do it exactly, but is the delta between the market rate with the zoning exception versus market 22 rate without zoning exception recognizing that there’s some… we talked about the Jewish Community 23 Center (JCC) as a big PC project. I don’t understand. There is no market rate for that without a PC 24 exception. So there’s no way to contemplate the difference between those two things, but in some cases 25 when there’s just a density difference there probably is an easier way to contemplate the difference in 26 economic value to the developer and then some proportion of that in quantifiable benefits. And then 27 finally I think this group does owe you an answer of what are those benefits that should count, what 28 shouldn’t we count, but I’ll give... I’ll stop talking now. 29 30 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 31 32 Commissioner Tanaka: I was listening to the comments from the Vice-Chair, Commissioner Alcheck, and 33 others and I thought the idea that Commissioner Alcheck had of well let’s say the public benefits are only 34 come in the form of cash. And the Vice-Chair talked about well let’s figure out what is the value of public 35 benefit by looking at the market value versus and the market value without exceptions and the market 36 value with exceptions. And maybe that’s the simplest thing, right? Maybe we could turn it into make it 37 very concrete, turn it all into dollars and so it’s a bit of a radical idea because just about most public 38 benefits we see come in the form of a lot of what the Vice-Chair talked about: art projects, a bunch of 39 really random stuff which really is hard to quantify and people to some people it’s incredibly valuable and 40 to other people it’s incredibly unjust and perhaps dollar to dollar it is a great normalizer. And I think 41 about just in terms of this item as a whole and how we don’t all barter because we all hold different 42 values and money is kind of the great equalizer and maybe that’s their answer here, maybe that’s how 43 we kind of solve the PC process that we’ve been having here. So I’m not fully sold but I’ve been thinking 44 about that and I’ve also been thinking about well, what about enforcement? Well if the person is paying 45 the money you don’t have to worry about who do you enforce. Do you enforce it with the current, the 46 guy who developed it or the guy he sold it to? And in this case it would be the developer because he 47 financially gained and it’s not like he could pass a time bomb to the guy who borrowed from him. So it’s 48 actually quite an interesting idea and I don’t know if from staff if there’s any precedence in other 49 communities where there’s just there’s PC or exceptions whatever other communities call them they 50 basically equate in dollars and basically paid in dollars so it’s very clear, fairly transparent process. 51 52 I think where this part really becomes complicated is kind of what the previous speaker said, which is the 53 issue of course is sometimes there’s not an exception versus non-exception comparison or easy 54 comparison done. So then it becomes a little bit harder as to well what is, how much is this exception 55 worth? So that gets to be a little bit tough, but it’s probably more concrete then most of the other things 56 City of Palo Alto Page 16 we get like oh, we’re going to provide a tot lot here for 20 years or a painting on the building or whatever 1 it might be, which is incredibly hard to value and judge and say it’s fair or unfair. 2 3 Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 4 5 Commissioner King: Thank you. Regarding the, what should or shouldn’t be on the menu first off I’m 6 concerned that potentially that really supports the zoning for sale thing. What I’m, what I… to me the PC 7 in it should be used for projects where something just doesn’t quite fit as we are hearing back in the day 8 they were doing these projects, oh this they were on a school site couldn’t really make a project work, 9 but and I don’t know the specifics of this, but it sounded as if it was friend, community friendly and yet 10 made a project work for a developer because our zoning just didn’t support that. When I’m hearing this 11 menu thing oh, it sounds very much like a developer and many of the projects we’re seeing its, they were 12 really coming and saying what they want to do is we want to build more than the existing entitlements of 13 office space. And so how can we do that? And their process tends to be fishing for what can we do that 14 will allow us to build that extra or excessive relative to zoning space and so and if we’re saying oh, all you 15 have to do is go in this little pull down menu and say oh I’m going to kick in this completely unrelated 16 project, pulled out five things and I’m going to kick in $5 million and then I get to overbuild relative to 17 the existing zoning. I don’t see that that’s a process that I would ever support as a PC process. And 18 particularly in fact we got a letter from a developer today saying some of the things they included were 19 photovoltaic all electric building and I just unless we have a community discussion that says we think 20 having buildings with those attributes or features is a benefit to all of us that we’re going to pay for in the 21 form of the externalizing the overdevelopment relative to existing zoning I don’t, I wouldn’t want to see 22 that on a menu. Again, unless we have that community discussion we really feel that everyone agrees to 23 that, with that. 24 25 And then this is a big part of the philosophy around this the phrase “not otherwise attainable” and so 26 there’s this discussion of oh, the phrase was used we can’t afford a police building. Well, I think we can 27 afford it. We may choose not, the voters may choose not to afford it, but then are we going to say ok, 28 so voters won’t vote for this so what we’re going to now do is externalize the detriments of an oversized 29 project strictly because we want the money from that just as the massive 300,000 square foot one we 30 looked at or we were presented with earlier. We’re going to have these benefits just because people 31 won’t vote to it that’s not we can’t afford it that’s we choose people or voters are choosing not to afford 32 it. So I’m just very concerned about this interpretation of “not otherwise attainable.” That’s enough for 33 this round, thanks. 34 35 Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias. 36 37 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Chair. So I already spoke about this subject so I would like to just 38 very briefly recap the principles on which the farther arguments of mine are based. So there are three of 39 them and I already mentioned them, but let me just repeat. The first one is transparency of the process. 40 That has to be clearly articulated in the zoning regulations and then steps needs to be updated to 41 accommodate the transparency. The second is the clarity of the benefits for the public and for the 42 developer. And the third is early requirements, knowledge of those early requirements. And once we 43 apply those principles I think it would allow us just to modify the zoning regulations and then satisfy lots 44 of criticism that we receive from the public and developers. 45 46 There is one item that is also missing from the PC zone regulation, which is pretty much some limit on 47 the deviation from the Comprehensive Plan. That needs to be articulated somehow. Is it going to be 48 quantified or is it going to be in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan? I don’t have the answer for this 49 yet, but there needs to be a clear answer for the developer so he knows that ok wherever he’s going to 50 propose PC rezoning then he can go up to this height or up to this Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or whatsoever, 51 whatever would be this benefit he needs to early know how much he can exceed this and then public 52 needs to know from our documents where the risks or deviations may pop up, that would allow the 53 public to know it would be California Avenue, University, or some packets of other areas of development. 54 Thank you. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Michael: I’ll take my turn before we go to the next round. I really appreciate the opportunity 1 tonight to talk about some of the issues that were addressed in the colleagues memo from 2013. On 2 Page 8 of the colleagues memo, which is Page 52 of the staff report there is a reference to what was 3 done in Santa Monica relative to, it wasn’t PC’s, but they had I think development agreements. And they 4 and this was kind of suggested to us by Senior Assistant City Attorney Cara Silver who had been in Santa 5 Monica and knew something about this that in some process in that community they actually established 6 some sense of priorities, which included trip reduction, traffic management, affordable workforce 7 housing, community physical improvements, social and cultural facilities or historic preservation. And 8 that was their list. And we could have something that would be our list that might be similar. I think this 9 is good thinking by Santa Monica and I think if that kind of context was respected then Palo Alto could do 10 something equivalent that would meet with our current needs and values and so forth. 11 12 One of the questions that came up early in the work that Eduardo Martinez and Commissioner Alcheck 13 and I worked on was just understanding to the extent that there is some ambiguity about public benefit 14 perhaps the development itself is beneficial that there’s some intrinsic benefit of the nature of this that 15 would not have been built if not for the development agreement or the PC. But if it’s not a benefit that is 16 in some objective way intrinsic to the nature of what’s being built then the benefit may be extrinsic and 17 this maybe just be payment of something into a fund or something that is separate and apart from the 18 project. And part of our research relied on some work done by an economics professor from Dartmouth 19 who advanced sort of the common sense notion that if you’re going to give somebody a benefit of X, but 20 you’re going to charge them something for that benefit of X it’s rational for them to go all the way up to 21 99.9 percent of X because you get something. So I think that one of the things where we’ve really fallen 22 down on is we’re very shy about extracting the full value for the public of the what’s conferred to the 23 private party. And I think that some rigor in terms of that negotiation, that appraisal, that estimation 24 that is easily doable. It’s done all the time in commercial transactions. It could easily be done in this sort 25 of a transaction. I see no reason why it shouldn’t be done and I would suggest that we should be selfish 26 in protecting the public and go all the way up to 99 percent of X or at least fifty-fifty. I mean not a small 27 fraction but a large fraction and that would particularly apply if it was an extrinsic benefit. 28 29 Then I think one of the areas where I’ve become frustrated and maybe even a bit cynical is how difficult 30 it is, I’m just going to go over, to actually update the Comprehensive Plan. How difficult it is to sort of 31 revise the Zoning Map. How difficult it is to do these guideline master planning issues. And I think 32 because it takes so long and is so difficult the way we do it to do these things that forces the City into ad 33 hoc consideration of projects that would otherwise be reasonable or legitimate. But to delay these 34 completely while we grind through a process that may take not months or years but may take decades to 35 do something that you’d think would be more routine from a governance section and this is the one part 36 of the Comprehensive Plan that hasn’t been updated or redrafted at all. I think that the Palo Alto Process 37 has got some pretty significant dysfunctional aspects and I think that whether it’s resourcing the 38 Department of Planning and Community Environment so that you can do what in the business world we 39 used to call blocking and tackling, I mean just regular prompt updating of these plan resources then 40 would allow consideration of the project approvals without causing public distrust and a sense that we 41 can’t function without some maximum flexibility because we can’t rely on the overall planning process. 42 43 So I’ll just stop at that point and invite the next round. And last time we started with Vice-Chair Keller 44 and the time before we started with Commissioner Alcheck. Does anyone else want to kick this one off? 45 Commissioner Tanaka. 46 47 Commissioner Tanaka: Well, maybe I’ll just continue on my train of thought because the more I think 48 about it the more I like this, which is maybe using dollars as the great equalizer. So can staff talk about 49 are there other cities that have done this and if so what’s the results been and what’s the public opinion 50 been and where are the pros and cons of such an approach? 51 52 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you Commissioner Tanaka. I think we’re going to have to do some research. If I 53 understand your, the idea. You’re suggesting basically create a payment requirement for a legislative 54 change, so like if a project developer is seeking rezoning to this particular zone district there would be a 55 requirement for a cash payment that would be used towards some pre-identified purpose? 56 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Commissioner Tanaka: Well, I guess I’m not going to say pre-identified purpose. I think the issue that 1 I’m thinking about is it’s hard for the community as a whole to say oh, this is what we want. Because if 2 you talk to 10 different people you get 10 different answers and everyone values things differently. And 3 I think this is why money was invented was to kind of equalize all of that. And I was just thinking about 4 what Commissioner Alcheck was saying and I was kind of expanding upon which is well what about 5 instead of having these intricate lists which nobody agrees on because that’s what’s going to happen. 6 We’re not all going to agree on what is the public benefit list. We may be able to agree on maybe what’s 7 not a public benefit perhaps. I’m sure that’s possible. Rather than having all of this debate, which at the 8 end I think will not satisfy the community maybe what we do is we make it very crystal clear it’s like ok, 9 here is the value of the public benefit. It’s X dollars. And maybe using Vice-Chair Keller’s approach of 10 well here’s the exception versus the non-exception, here’s dollar value, do they equate? Maybe we take 11 the Chair’s idea of let’s try to extract some fair share of that wherever that might be and we keep it very 12 simple so there’s not this incredible, incredibly subjective political process which is very opaque and very 13 subjective. And so I don’t think we’re probably the first Planning Commission to think of this and so I’m 14 curious to know where else has this been done and what has the results been? 15 16 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: If I could weigh in a little bit I personally am not aware of any 17 other city that has set up their PC system like that. There may be some cities, but I’m just not aware of 18 any city. I think that one of the issues that it raises is there’s a long established line of case law that 19 states that before a government can extract a monetary payment from a developer that that payment 20 must be related to an impact that the project is going to have on the immediate environment. And so I 21 think that that type of structure would be legally problematic even sort of menu extractions or other 22 types of extractions that don’t relate to project impacts possibly could be challenged. Right now I think 23 that the case law would support a system like that, but certainly there are groups that are taking a look 24 at those areas and at some point we probably will see taking those challenges based on that approach. 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. 27 28 Chair Michael: Commissioner Rosenblum. 29 30 Commissioner Rosenblum: I think the idea of turning everything into dollars is interesting because it is a 31 great equalizer, but I also don’t like zoning for dollars. I think it’s, I think the definition and Commissioner 32 King already made this point, but I fully endorse it which is this isn’t a place where we have zoning and 33 then if you pay a certain amount you can violate that zoning. These projects have to be something that 34 has to be of public benefit to begin with that otherwise are not contemplated by the zoning rules and will 35 be of such benefit to the area that it should be viewed as an exception. 36 37 So I’ve actually started going backwards. I’m slow, so I’m only four in like going in reverse order of the 38 projects that were approved. And so some things like Edgewood Grocery as far as I could tell is an effort 39 to get Edgewood a grocery store. And in order to do that it seems like they have to add enough housing 40 units, etcetera to make the project economically feasible, but in this case it is in violation of the FAR for 41 that area. In the case of 101 Lytton it was in violation of heights. In each case there does seem, it does 42 seem to go against what I said previously and in many of these cases it does seem like the calculation of 43 increased economic value can be done. And if my small sample of four holds it seems like many of them 44 are either increased floor area, increased density, increased height. And therefore they lend itself to 45 fairly simple calculation. It’s not clear to me in the case of say 101 Lytton why that is such a public 46 benefit to have a taller building in that space that that would be a considered subject of a PC zone. It is 47 more clear to me that if there’s a neighborhood that traditionally has wanted a grocery store and 48 somehow the zoning did not allow for the economics to make a grocery store work and therefore as part 49 of a project they made a mixed-use project I can see at least the argument for it. Again, I would say 50 that’s probably better addressed by zoning if there’s, if this area is not dense but wants a store then they 51 need to realize that stores are supported by dense areas and that’s why the zoning code was written the 52 way it was. 53 54 But so this is a bit of a rambling speech, but it goes back to my earlier request, which is I think if we 55 were to actually look at the violation of each of these it would be very revealing about what things were 56 City of Palo Alto Page 19 the nature of project that as Commissioner King said we really want as a community, intrinsic benefit, 1 and why. And then in terms of the calculation I am more convinced now that the calculation can be done 2 fairly simply, which is if it is a case of increased FAR, increased density, or increased height that’s an 3 economic calculation that we can do. And then as far as the monetary value I, here’s where I do agree 4 in that case a cash payment instead of trying to assign value to the number of electronic vehicle charging 5 stations and increased lights, etcetera to say this building would not have been built without this. It’s 6 extremely important. Here is the ratio of fees or to the developer rents the developer would get with 7 versus without; therefore, in exchange for this kind of project it will cost this much into a fund that the 8 City can use for mitigations or other things. But at any rate I’ll stop now. 9 10 Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 11 12 Commissioner King: Thank you. Let’s see, where was I? I would also like to address a little bit of the 13 history as I see it and I don’t have a detailed history, but part of the problem is sort of a shame on us 14 that we as an organization or many of the problems of the undo, sort of lack of either organizational 15 alignment or organizational follow through in the past there weren’t really accessible records. In fact ex, 16 former Commissioner Cassel was talking about how before some year all the stuff’s just in paper format 17 so somebody has to go through and dredge all that stuff up. And I’d asked before I came on the 18 Commission for the then Planning Director for a list of the PC projects and we didn’t have that list at the 19 time. It looks like we’ve got to where we have a fairly complete list, but probably not a lot of detail. 20 21 And so if we do choose to move, continue with the PC I think we need to the process needs to use or 22 acknowledge that alignment from beginning of the project to follow on enforcement. We’ve, I think now 23 the to paraphrase we’re sort of throwing up our hands, we don’t have enough people to enforce even 24 where we know we should be enforcing and so we if we choose to move, continue to move forward with 25 PC we do need to have enforcement. We should write the whatever agreements with an eye towards or 26 a focus on ease of enforcement and decide whether who pays for the enforcement. I don’t know if it’s 27 what it’s fair for us or the developer. Again, developers are often out of there once they sell the project 28 particularly in things such as condo complexes. And then also that information would be clear and 29 published so then there are plenty of citizens who would like to go out, would be quite happy to help 30 monitor, they’re obviously not going to write a citation or actually do the enforcement, but there are 31 people out there who defiantly are vigilant and would help us be aware of any violations. 32 33 Let’s see… oh, the other thing that’s interesting to me and I certainly don’t know the answer it’s an 34 interesting part of this question is that we’re hearing some people say oh, regarding size to which PC 35 zoning if we stick with it would be applicable you need to be, should only be large projects and others are 36 saying oh, they should only be small projects. So that’s, I’ll be interested to see how that discussion 37 moves forward. That will be interesting. And also regarding the where, what part of town or where 38 would that be applicable. And if in fact what we’re looking to do is not help developers who have a 39 viable option of development under existing zoning just make a larger project if what we’re really trying 40 to do is find those site specific challenging or spots where we’re getting a for instance I’m sure the 41 Opportunity Center was mentioned as a PC. I did not know that had been a PC project, so I think most 42 of the community would agree that was a community benefit, the building and its use itself. Those are 43 the types of projects and so I don’t know that we why we want to limit geographically if we’re trying to 44 support projects like that. It just doesn’t seem like they would fall into one specific geographic area. 45 Thank you. 46 47 Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 48 49 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So the first thing is it was a comment made at one of the public hearings 50 about PC’s by former Mayor Rosenbaum and he said we shouldn’t have, Palo Alto should not have zoning 51 for sale, but if you do sell zoning at least get a fair price. And that speaks to what Chair Michael said and 52 we should capture most of the value that’s increased there, but I disagree with Commissioner Tanaka 53 that that value should be captured entirely in cash. For example, there are some benefits that you 54 wouldn’t think make sense to capture in cash. Now whether or not you like the project at El Camino and 55 Page Mill Road that is still pending, the idea of widening Page Mill Road is a public benefit that has a 56 City of Palo Alto Page 20 value you can ascribe to it and is something that you would prefer rather than having in cash. So to the 1 extent that the project can actually provide the benefits to me that that’s a better thing than providing it 2 in cash payment. Similarly I feel the BMR project you can actually ascribe a value to having a BMR 3 project and all the units that are built under the BMR program and therefore that presumably would 4 pencil out in such a way that justifies the increase in zoning. So in particular we should capture most of 5 the increased value in this regard. 6 7 Secondly, the PC zoning or whatever it becomes is a legislative discretionary act. And if we don’t provide 8 it, we don’t allow the discretionary act of the legislative act of providing a PC zone then the developer 9 builds only to the existing zoning. And so therefore for allowing increased zoning in exchange for an 10 agreement that they make some payment commensurate with that increase in zoning it seems that a 11 condition of approval of that is not to sue us for the supposed the idea of taking for requiring that cash 12 payment or other payments other benefits in exchange for that increased value. And if they don’t want 13 to take that bet then don’t take it, but if you make the deal pay the price. 14 15 Lastly, there’s an increasing trend towards enforcement of these deals. So an example Transportation 16 Demand Management (TDM) measures currently have no enforcement. In the draft Transportation 17 Element there is strict enforcement and a series of how that is done and paid for by the property owner 18 and therefore that should be mirrored in terms of the PC process. I actually went through the PC’s since 19 2006 to answer Commissioner Rosenblum’s question. So if I may basically talk about which ones are 20 housing, which ones are not? 21 22 Chair Michael: You can do that. A minute or so. 23 24 Vice-Chair Keller: Yeah. So 3895 Fabian Way was a two housing projects, one below market and one 25 market rate condos. 3921 Fabian Way is the JCC and the senior housing project. 26 27 Commissioner Rosenblum: Commissioner Keller, my question was why did they violate zoning rules not 28 the nature of the project. 29 30 Vice-Chair Keller: No, I understand, but the issue one of your questions was how many of them were 31 zoning. One of your questions was about how many units were produced. So I figured that part of that 32 would be to identify at least in the last seven years or so. 33 34 528 Homer Avenue I have no idea what that is. 3388 Alma Village Circle was the housing plus retail 35 supposedly trying to retain retail at Alma Plaza, which it didn’t do that well. I don’t know what 449 36 Addison Avenue is either. 488 West Charleston Road is housing. It’s a BMR project. It’s called the Tree 37 House. 2122 Staunton Court is the College Terrace Center and there includes a small amount of BMR 38 housing. 4025 El Camino Way is senior housing. That’s I think the Avant project, is that what it’s called? 39 2060 Channing Avenue is retention and revitalization of Edgewood Plaza and there is some housing along 40 with that. And 101 Lytton Avenue is it was originally some idea of having housing, which would justify 41 some sort of daylight plane kind of thing because of mixed-use, but the housing went away. There was a 42 public benefit of a nonprofit space, which some of us thought might be a 501(c)(3), but it went to I think 43 a 501(c)(6) is the organization rather than a 501(c)(3). So it’s not a tax deductible nonprofit, it’s a 44 nonprofit association. Thank you. 45 46 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 47 48 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. So we have some seriously underfunded needs and we can’t afford to 49 address them and yes if we prioritize a police station above all else we can afford it, but that is not a long 50 term solution for our infrastructure problem. The list is far too long. So with that in mind, with that 51 serving as this concept of public benefit this complete, there’s a list, right? There’s a tremendous list of 52 all the things going wrong, going sideways quickly. With that in mind, ok? Some, I think some, this 53 argument that it’s zoning for sale doesn’t, has no effect on me. Newsflash, it was always zoning for sale. 54 And this isn’t only before in some instances we were selling unenforced promises that represented 55 City of Palo Alto Page 21 completely valueless sacrifices. That’s all. Café Riace comes to mind, doesn’t it? We sold it. We sold 1 the exceptions for some plaza. Someone on the other side of town is going to say, what? 2 3 I urge us to view this approach as one that is about achieving true public benefits. And I think frankly 4 we’re not elected. We are not elected representatives that should feel empowered to determine what a 5 public benefit is. The people who make that determination should be directly accountable to the citizens 6 of this City. Maybe they’ll get it wrong and the citizens can then approach them and hold them 7 accountable. And if the nine or seven or five whatever it will be members of the City Council say you 8 know what here are some real issues that we’re struggling with to afford instead of selling public art or 9 public plaza that may or may not be of value let’s fund a police station with this fee, this development 10 fee. In this pay to it’s, again, it’s not about selling zoning and pocketing cash. It’s about funding our 11 preservation and our rehabilitation. And I think in this pay to exceed approach we should be focusing 12 our efforts on the real challenge, which is how do we determine the formula for setting a payment? I’m 13 not suggesting we do it tonight. I think we go to the drawing board and we get creative and I think it’s a 14 mistake to assume that it’ll be cheap. 15 16 Commissioner Rosenblum is eager to hear what the triggers are. I suspect that they’re going to be very 17 closely tied to FAR, density, and height. Judging by comments of my fellow Commissioners in previous 18 meetings there’s a lot of openness to exceeding height. So I would suggest that that may be is less 19 valuable than FAR and density. We might be willing to have a lower fee for going 55 feet than we would 20 for potentially doubling the FAR. I think the value; the importance of understanding the triggers is that 21 it’ll help us determine the value of each of the exceptions. Which ones are more valuable? Which ones 22 seem to be the ones that I mean it’ll be fairly obvious once we do the approach what they’re going to, 23 what the most valuable exception will be. 24 25 But let me sort of conclude with this. In our last election 6,400 people voted down a project that our 26 staff, this Commission, our City Council overwhelmingly approved. In a City with 66,000 residents that’s 27 both unfortunate and not surprising. I’m a believer that silence is consent. Unfortunately silence does 28 not elect Council Members. So we’re in this situation that has essentially resulted from a very small 29 minority having a very vocal voice, but I continue to think we made the right decision on Maybell. And 30 the only way that project could have gotten built there is by the PC process. I think we need to have, I 31 think we need to preserve this process but create predictability. There’s a formula you know going into 32 it. What’s it going to cost? And someone comes to the Commission they can what’s the public benefit? 33 This $2.5 million is going to go to pay X. You don’t like it go to your Council Members and tell them you 34 don’t think that’s an appropriate public benefit. Set the formula higher, make it expensive. If Arrillaga 35 wants to completely donate all of his wealth to this City’s rehabilitation for four buildings maybe we 36 should consider it. He could probably fund our entire IBRC list. Anyway. 37 38 Chair Michael: So is it my turn again? It’s my turn. So I think it would be possible to make to propose 39 amendments to Chapter 18.38 and continue to use PC zoning in a way that meets the goals and 40 objectives. I don’t think it would be as hard as one might fear. I think there should be a definition of 41 public benefit inserted into this Chapter. I think that there should be some clarification of the 42 enforcement mechanism inserted into the chapter. I think that the reference to action by Council, which 43 is .120 on this I thin Council is not acting in the manner prescribed by the ordinance and I think if the 44 City, if the Council would like Council to have a different role the Chapter should be amended to show 45 what the role the Council is accountable to play. And so I don’t think that that’s something that would be 46 all that difficult or take all that much time. I think if you possibly engage with some of the expertise 47 that’s in the community I think Phyllis Cassel having sat through 26 PC applications should be a resource. 48 Even in the private sector people like Jim Baer, others who have enormous volume of experience, not 49 that one agrees with their own objectives or motivations, but their experience is exceptional and should 50 be tapped so that when you build out the database it has all the information that is required to set the 51 right policy. 52 53 Then I keep coming back to I think having one of the mechanisms that’s in use in well managed 54 communities for flexibility for development standards is important. The fact that Palo Alto has used this 55 for almost exactly as long as I’ve been alive maybe its life expectancy is kind of fulfilled. And maybe we 56 City of Palo Alto Page 22 should move on to one of those other tried and true best practices that may be more appropriate to a 1 mature city that Palo Alto now is. I think the reason why this is not attracting a groundswell of obvious 2 enthusiasm is because we’re stuck on the endless effort to update the Comp Plan. When the Comp Plan, 3 if and when the Comp Plan is ever updated, which it happens when it happens it’s, it may be a land use 4 bible that’s a little bit too high level to have the specificity to address some of the particular development 5 challenges that we face. So I think that is the fundamental tension as to why the administration of land 6 use requires those site specific ad hoc flexibility that has been provided for 63 years by PC districts. 7 8 But I think that I would urge Council and the community to extend the moratorium on PC’s and apply 9 maximum urgency to completing the Comp Plan update. Include in the Comp Plan update the resources 10 or the vision, the policies, the programs, and the resources to undertake whatever neighborhood or 11 district specific plans that seem to be currently contemplated or needed. And when the Comp Plan 12 update is done, when the Zoning Map is updated to reflect the Comp Plan update, when the specific 13 plans are done as soon as possible (ASAP) then bring back PC zoning for those exceptions for which 14 flexibility above and beyond the Comp Plan, above and beyond the updated zoning, above and beyond 15 the specific plans is actually useful. Then you’ll have something that the public will not be cynical about, 16 but that requires attention to sort of first things first and doing the blocking and tackling and requesting 17 of the community, of the Council, the City, the resources to do those major planning efforts which you’re 18 working so hard at. 19 20 We have let’s see, let’s do a time check. It’s 8:45. I think this has been a more interactive format than 21 sometimes we fall into and I’m absolutely willing to continue it. But let me just turn back to staff and 22 initially we talked about trying to have a method for focusing our thinking and our comments. Are you 23 seeing value in the way we’re expressing ourselves? 24 25 Ms. Gitelman: Well, thank you Chair Michael. I think this has been extremely valuable. I think the hour 26 is late however and maybe what we could do is commit before we come back in two weeks to organize 27 the thoughts here and present them back to you in categories or in some hierarchy of ideas and then 28 continue the conversation on the 27th. 29 30 Chair Michael: Ok, I’m perfectly happy to go with that. So we have the meeting on the 27th that the topic 31 that was on our tentative agendas is not going to be ready so we could have further study session on PC 32 reform on the 27th. 33 34 Ms. Gitelman: Right. I’m not 100 percent sure on the topic we had scheduled the shuttle. It may work, 35 but it may not. And so either way I think we can schedule a second session on PC reform and we’ll bring 36 back these notes organized in some fashion. And to the extent we can start to answer some of the 37 questions you had about the list and expand the list of PC’s we will do that as well. I don’t know how 38 much of that we’ll be able to do before the next meeting. 39 40 Chair Michael: Ok. Well let’s if there’s anything that anybody wanted to leave the staff with this as a final 41 comment that would make our next session on the 27th as valuable as possible let’s quickly go. 42 Commissioner Tanaka. 43 44 Commissioner Tanaka: I just have two homework requests for staff. So one is basically Vice-Chair Keller 45 talked about well, gee if the developer wants to basically get more than the code allows and they agree 46 to the deal how can they contest it? So I think it would be, I think Vice-Chair Keller made a compelling 47 argument in my mind, but I’m not the lawyer so I’d love to actual hear a legal opinion maybe not today, 48 but something if really there is a legal argument that says oh, yeah if you accept an exception to your 49 deal to give you an exception to FAR you could go back to the City even though you agreed to the deal. 50 I don’t know. That doesn’t make sense to me, but if that could be figured out. 51 52 And then I think the other request would be to see if there’s anywhere, any other cities in the United 53 States that have done this in terms of really trying to make the public benefits less obtuse and less 54 subjective and actually just equate them to dollars. And if they’ve done that what have the results been 55 City of Palo Alto Page 23 and how’s the program look like? And I think to me this would be very informative. And if we’re the first 1 that would be also good to know. So that’s what I’d like to see for next meeting. 2 3 Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 4 5 Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, so firstly there’s a saying that I like which is be careful what you ask for you just 6 might get it. And perhaps as a converse of that which is be careful what you reject you may get 7 something worse. And in particular each of the iterations of Alma Plaza from my perspective got worse. 8 There was less square footage of retail, which is what neighborhood centers are supposed to be about 9 and more housing, which is not what a neighborhood center is supposed to be about. And I’m afraid that 10 the same thing may happen to the Maybell project that building all market rate housing may have more 11 impacts in the community, but at least not height, but some other impact. So I’m not sure about that. 12 13 With respect to the Comprehensive Plan being a land use bible I’d have to say that just like America 14 some people got more religion and some people got less. And I think that’s something about the way 15 Palo Alto works. Also with respect to PC projects just because the project is paid for because of the 16 public benefits doesn’t mean it’s desirable. And if we don’t think a project is desirable I’m not sure I 17 would take the trade of Mr. Arrillaga paying for all the IBRC backlog in exchange for building the tall 18 buildings by 27 University. I’m not sure that’s the trade I would want to take because of the impacts that 19 would occur to traffic gridlock. 20 21 And finally the list stops short. I believe the Channing House amendment was a PC that postdated the 22 PC 5158 so that may not be on your list and it wasn’t an amendment, it was a new PC. So that should 23 be added as well. And I’m wondering if we do this on the next, two weeks from now if we should have a 24 Motion to continue it either to that date certain or what should we do about that? 25 26 Ms. Gitelman: Since it’s a study session and not a noticed public hearing I don’t think that’s necessary. 27 We’ll just put it on your agenda again. 28 29 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok, thank you. I’m finishing early. 30 31 Chair Michael: Commissioner Rosenblum. 32 33 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah, again quickly just to finish off the same thread that I started what 34 would be really useful is a table that starts with the attachment you already have, which is the list to 35 make this easier probably everything since 2000, which is only, which is 20 projects would probably be 36 acceptable. I did four of them myself in about 15 minutes so I think it’s about an hour of work, but 37 essentially the columns include total project size in units and acres. It would be the proposed value of 38 public benefit, what this public benefits were, specifically, and what the violation was that made it be a 39 PC project to begin with. And then I think it would be super useful and that would answer a number of 40 questions. First, are we getting a raw deal? Are we extracting the kind of value for the increase of value 41 that the developer got? It would have some commonalities around violations to zoning that we want to 42 consider when thinking about zoning more generally. If you can go farther back that’s even better, but 43 just in consideration of staff time I think that would probably go far enough. But I think that for me 44 personally that would go a long way towards understanding the economic value that we left on the table, 45 the nature of these projects, why they go under the PC process versus normal processes, and I think 46 would lead to a good discussion. 47 48 Chair Michael: Ok, so let’s, that will conclude the study session. So thank you very much. I think this 49 has been very productive on a topic of some importance to the community. 50 51 Commission Action: No action taken, Commission provided comments, this item continued to date 52 certain of August 27th to continue study session. 53 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5058) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 8/27/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: PC Zone Reform Title: Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform From: ŽŶƐƵĞůŽ,ĞƌŶĂŶĚĞnj͕^ĞŶŝŽƌWůĂŶŶĞƌ Lead Department: Planning & ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ Recommendation This is a continued study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to complete the Commission’s review and discussion of possible revisions to the Planned Community (PC) zoning district regulations, as well as possible alternatives. No formal action is required. Executive Summary The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) is being asked to review and discuss issues related to the PC zoning district regulations, as well as possible reforms and alternatives. At the August 13, 2014 study session, members of the PTC indicated that PC zoning has provided useful flexibility to meet community needs, but should either be reformed or replaced, and -- most importantly – it should be used infrequently. In the Background section of this report, Staff has summarized the PTC’s comments from the previous study session into five general categories. Staff has also created an expanded list of Planned Community Zone Districts approved or amended between 2000 and 2014, including the additional data requested by the PTC (Attachment A – Working Draft: Planned Community Zoning Districts 2000-2014). To accompany the expanded list of relatively recent PC zones, staff has provided a summary of the public benefits that have resulted from PC zoning since 1952, including the number of housing units that the zoning has made possible (Attachment B). A brief discussion and clarification regarding cash payments in lieu of public benefits is also included in the Discussion section of this report. At the continued study session, the PTC should focus on reviewing whether the summary provided captured all of the PTC’s issues relating to the PC Zoning district regulations and PC process. Also important is PTC’s input on ways to ensure adequate public comment as the City decides how to proceed. The PTC’s comments and suggestions will be taken to the City Council as a part of their review of the PC Zoning issues, tentatively scheduled for October 6, 2014. 1 ATTACHMENT I City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background On August 13, 2014, the PTC held a study session to review and provide comments on possible revisions and/or alternatives to the PC district regulations. As a starting place for discussion about PC Zoning Reform at the initial Study Session, the staff report included a summary report that identified issues and concerns associated with PC Zoning. The Summary Report included the PTC Colleague Memorandum on PC zoning and a technical report prepared by Dyett and Bhatia on Flexibility vs. Certainty in zoning. At the first study session, the PTC’s discussion was divided into two segments: a brainstorming session to identify ideas related to the PC zoning regulations and process; and a general question and comment session on the issues with PC Zoning. Overall the members of the Commission acknowledged that PC Zoning has provided a unique opportunity for flexibility in developing specific sites within a zoning code that is otherwise determinative. The Commission also agreed that defining public benefit is the greatest challenge in PC zoned projects along with the enforcement of such agreements. The Commissioner’s comments also touched on the proper sequence of the review process. Staff collected the comments received from the PTC about the issues with PC Zoning and grouped them into five categories: (1) Public Benefits; (2) Enforcement of Public Benefit Agreements; (3) The Processing/Application Process; (4) PC type projects and the Comprehensive Plan; and (5) PC District Regulations. A summary by category follows: 1. Public Benefits: ≠We need to clarify how public benefit is defined. Can public benefit be defined by a menu of items or should it be based on the objectives of the project and needs of the adjacent area that justifies the special zoning? ≠Public benefits should not be confused with mitigations identified to address impacts or design features/requirements that all projects must address. ≠Public benefits should take into consideration the needs of the immediate neighborhood. A public benefit should not be an infrastructure project that the community chooses not to provide; rather it should be a benefit to the neighborhood or community ambience that the community cannot afford. ≠Public benefits and their maintenance should be structured so that they continue to benefit the community in perpetuity. ≠The manner of provided benefits needs to be evaluated, can it be a fee that is used to a designated community need? Can it be property conveyed to the City for a specific purpose? Or must it be provided “in kind” and built by the developer? 2 City of Palo Alto Page 3 ≠Public benefits should be reviewed and their acceptability and appropriateness determined by the City Council early in the review process. 2. Enforcement of Public Benefit Agreements: ≠Insure that the public benefit obligation goes with the property from developer to future owner(s). ≠Public benefit agreements need to require owner participation in a systematic monitoring that is cost efficient to the City and results in effective enforcement and compliance. ≠Future property owners and tenants need to be held responsible for ensuring that public benefits are continued and maintained for the duration originally defined. 3. Processing/Application Process: ≠There needs to be a clearly defined and transparent process for both the developer and the public to review projects requesting a zone change to a PC district. ≠There needs to be clear communications among the various reviewing bodies during the processing of PC projects and we should track initial recommendations of the PTC throughout. ≠Since a PC Zone is implemented via an ordinance ultimately approved by the City Council, there should be an initial review before the planning project review of a PC project. This review should be at the Council level and should include a discussion of the appropriate public benefit to balance the project request and the Council should decline projects at the initial review stage that do not meet the community’s objectives, needs, and values. 4. PC type projects and the Comprehensive Plan: ≠PC Zoning addresses the fact that the needs and opportunities of the City can change faster than we can assess the need for policy and regulatory changes on a City- or area-wide basis. PC zoning makes the City more nimble in responding to community needs. ≠The parameters that define a PC eligible project as being different from a “normal” project in terms of land use should be more clearly defined. ≠Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan required for PC type projects should be reviewed within the context of the Plan to determine if the project might be better addressed through a precise plan or other mechanism. 3 City of Palo Alto Page 4 5. PC District Regulations: ≠Regulations need a clearer purpose section which clarifies the intention of the zone, the alternatives to the zone, the kind of intrinsic and extrinsic benefits the neighborhood and community expects, and the value to the community of the zone to address the need for flexibility in both zoning and long term planning consistent with the intentions of the adopted planning tools i.e. Comprehensive Plan. ≠To insure flexibility in the zoning code and to provide a better understanding for developers and the community, the PC district should be refined to include development parameters such as a limit on the percentage of reduction in various setbacks, floor area ratio, and/or height. ≠An economic analysis of the cost and benefit should be required of all PC projects in addition to environmental review. This analysis should compare the value of the property under existing zoning to the value of the proposed development, and use that to evaluate the proposed public benefit. ≠PC exceptions should be periodically reviewed to determine whether the zoning standards of the established zoning districts should be modified, thus reducing the need for PC projects in the future. In the course of making these comments, Commissioners noted the need for additional information on previous PC district actions which might help clarify the broader issues. Specifically, the PTC asked that staff expand on the draft working log by including the following information for each PC district approved between 2000 through 2014: 1) the project description; 2) a list of the public benefits required for each PC; 3) the type of PC; and 4) what was the trigger that caused the project to require a PC designation rather than compliance with its currently assigned zoning. Discussion Since the early 1950’s the City of Palo Alto has been using PC Zoning to enable the use of particular properties in a manner not specifically addressed in the City’s zoning districts. The use of PC Zoning has allowed the community to be responsive to the opportunities presented by quickly changing needs and values. Examples of this flexibility include mixed residential and commercial development, pre-zoning of properties annexed to the city, and the desire to retain certain specific neighborhood strengthening land uses such as grocery stores. To facilitate the PTC’s further discussion staff has prepared a more detailed log of PC Zoning districts between 2000 and 2014 including a project description, a list of the public benefits required for each PC, the type of PC, and the trigger that caused the project to require a PC designation rather than compliance with its currently assigned zoning (Attachment A – Working Draft: PC Zoning Districts 2000-2014). Accompanying the table is a preliminary analysis of the 4 City of Palo Alto Page 5 type of public benefits that have been required over the 62 years that the zone has been in place (Attachment B –Synopsis of Public Benefits Required and Gained). As previously discussed, over the 62 year period that PC Zoning districts has been in place, project developers have provided a variety of public benefits. Among the most frequently gained public benefits are below market rate housing units, senior housing, pedestrian oriented landscaping, and various kinds of public parking, public art, and (early on) pre-zoning for annexation to the City. At the end of the analysis is an initial tally of the affordable housing units provided by using the PC zone. Since 1952 when the PC District regulations were first used, it is estimated that a total of 1,097 of affordable housing units have been developed. Oftentimes the density of an affordable housing project needs to be more than the base zoning in order to be financially feasible. This is especially true in communities such as Palo Alto that have robust design guidelines. The data collected in Exhibit B demonstrates that PC’s have been effective in providing well designed and economically feasible affordable housing projects and also suggests that some flexible zoning tool, whether it be a PC or an affordable housing combining district or overlay, be in place to facilitate this type of housing. During the general discussion about public benefits, several PTC members asked whether a better approach might be a cash payment in lieu of providing defined public benefits. Cash payments were discussed as being attractive because they could be based on a proportion of ‘value added’ by the enhancement to the project, and because this would eliminate the problem of enforcing ‘public benefits’ on future owners of properties developed under the PC zoning. In these Commissioners’ view, the City Council would identify priority “public benefit” projects for funding, and developers would make payments in exchange for project design features (e.g. density, height, or other development standards). The Mitigation Fee Act places limits on the City’s ability to require cash payments (sometimes referred to by the legal term monetary “exactions”) on normal development projects. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that such fees only be imposed to mitigate project specific impacts and that the fees be based on actual costs incurred by the City. (This concept is referred to as a “legal nexus” and was articulated in a series of United States Supreme Court cases known as the Nolan/Dolan cases.) Under the Mitigation Fee Act, the City cannot impose cash payments as conditions of normal zoning permits. However, the Mitigation Fee Act expressly exempts fees collected under a Development Agreement. Many cities have used Development Agreements to exact payments from developers. Frequently cities tie payments to tangible community benefits but other times City negotiate payments which are not dedicated to a particular benefit or identified project. Tying the payment to the development potential of a site, can pose difficulties. For instance, how do you value the development potential of increased density requested for affordable housing, when the value of the proposed project could be less than the value of a base zoning project. While monetizing the payments may not work in every case, there may be benefits to exploring this in certain cases. 5 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Next Steps Information gathered during the PTC study sessions and from the public will be used to inform a study session with the City Council tentatively scheduled for October 6, 2014. Based on the City Council’s discussion, staff will develop a draft ordinance for public input and review by the PTC. Environmental Review The PTC’s study session does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, the ordinance that is ultimately developed to reform or replace PC zoning will require review. Attachments: ≠Attachment A: Working Draft PC Zone Districts 2000-2014 (PDF) ≠Attachment B: Synopsis of Public Benefits (PDF) 6 PC N O . O R I G I N A L A D D R E S S P R O J E C T A D D R E S S PR O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N AP P R O V A L DA T E PU B L I C B E N E F I T S TR I G G E R F O R P C PC - 4 6 1 1 4 4 5 B r y a n t S t r e e t 44 5 B r y a n t S t r e e t Co n s t r u c t i o n o f a p u b l i c p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e w i t h gr o u n d f l o o r c o m m e r c i a l . 3/ 1 / 2 0 0 0 N e w C o m m e r c i a l pu b l i c p a r k i n g ; l a n d s c a p e p l a z a a n d p e d e s t r i a n ac c e s s t h r o u g h t h e b l o c k ; e l e c t r i c a l c o n n e c t i o n s f o r el e c t r i c a l v e h i c l e s ; a n d p u b l i c a r t . La n d U s e ( p u b l i c p a r k i n g g a r a g e ) PC - 4 6 1 2 5 2 8 H i g h S t r e e t 5 2 8 H i g h S t r e e t Co n s t r u c t i o n o f a m u l t i s t o r y p a r k i n g g a r a g e . 3/ 2 0 / 2 0 0 0 N e w C o m m e r c i a l pu b l i c p a r k i n g ; l a n d s c a p e p l a z a a n d p e d e s t r i a n ac c e s s t h r o u g h t h e b l o c k ; e l e c t r i c a l c o n n e c t i o n s f o r el e c t r i c a l v e h i c l e s ; a n d p u b l i c a r t La n d U s e ( p u b l i c p a r k i n g g a r a g e ) PC - 4 6 3 7 3 0 0 0 E l C a m i n o R e a l 7 5 5 P a g e M i l l R o a d Am e n d e d P C - 2 5 3 3 D i s t r i c t t o p e r m i t c h i l d c a r e u s e s on s i t e . 5/ 2 2 / 2 0 0 0 Am e n d e d , 25 3 3 Co m m e r c i a l E s t a b l i s h m e n t o f c h i l d c a r e f a ci l i t y La n d U s e ( a d d c h i l d c a r e c e n t e r ) PC - 4 7 5 3 2 0 5 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l 2 0 5 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l 4, 5 5 5 s q . f t . t h r e e - s t o r y b u i l d i n g ; 2 r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s ; 51 1 s q . f t . g r o u n d f l o o r r e t a i l ; 1 , 1 9 1 s q . f t . f o r ne i g h b o r h o o d b u s i n e s s a n d p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e s . 6/ 1 3 / 2 0 0 2 N e w M i x e d Mix e d u s e b u i l d i n g w i t h i n w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e o f Ca l i f o r n i a A v e n u e ; 1 - B M R u n i t n o t r e q u i r e d b y t h e Ci t y ' s h o u s i n g p r o g r a m s . La n d U s e ( m i x e d u s e ) , d e n s it y , s e t b a c k s , d a y l i g h t pla n e , l o t c o v e r a g e PC - 4 7 7 9 1 4 0 H o m e r A v e n u e 80 0 H i g h S t r e e t 80 0 H i g h S t r e e t ; D e m o l i t i o n o f a n e x i s t i n g 1 7 , 6 0 0 sq . f t . m a n u f a c t u r i n g b u i l din g ; c o n s t r u c t i o n o f 96 , 2 0 0 s q . f t . m i x e d - u s e b u i l d i n g i n c l u d i n g 6 1 f o r - sa l e d w e l l i n g u n i t s ; 1 , 9 0 0 sq . f t . o f r e t a i l s p a c e ; a n d su b t e r r a n e a n p a r k i n g g a r a g e . 2/ 1 8 / 2 0 0 3 Ne w Re s i d e n i a l Re p l a c e u n o c c u p i e d / d e t er i o r a t e d s i t e ; 1 0 B M R un i t s ; P u b l i c A c c e s s t o p l a z a w i t h r e q u i r e d s e a t i n g , an d p u b l i c p a r k i n g . La n d U s e ( m i x e d u s e ) , h e i g h t , d a y l i g h t p l a n e PC - 4 7 8 2 3 3 E n c i n a A v e n u e 33 E n c i n a A v e n u e Op p o r t u n i t y C e n t e r ; r e p l a c e e x i s t i n g 5 , 2 6 0 s q . f t . o f co m m e r c i a l s p a c e a n d 2 p a r k i n g l o t s w i t h 4 5 , 8 0 0 s q . ft . b u i l d i n g w i t h 8 , 1 0 0 s q . f t . o f c o m m u n i t y s e r v i c e ar e a a n d 8 9 o f i n c o m e r e s t r ic t e d m u l t i - f a m i l y r e n t a l ho u s i n g . 3/ 1 7 / 2 0 0 3 N e w R e s i d e n i a l A s e r v i c e c e n t e r f o r h o m e l e s s a n d t h o s e a t r i s k o f ho m e l e s s n e s s ; 8 9 h o u s i n g un i t s f o r l o w a n d v e r y lo w i n c o m e p e r s o n s . La n d U s e ( m i x e d u s e ) , d e n s i t y , p a r k i n g PC - 4 8 3 1 2 7 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l 2 7 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l Su n r i s e o f P a l o A l t o ; 6 5 , 0 0 0 s q . f t . s e n i o r a s s i s t e d liv i n g f a c i l i t y i n c l u d i n g 8 1 r e n t a l u n i t s . 6/ 2 1 / 2 0 0 4 N e w R e s i d e n i a l Ac c e s s i b l e P u b l i c A m e n i t y A r e a s ; 1 2 B M R u n i t s ; $2 0 , 0 0 0 f o r m e d i a n i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d t r e e s f o r E C Pr o j e c t ; P u b l i c A r t . La n d U s e ( s p e c i a l n e e d s ) , s q u a r e f o o t a g e , F A R , He i g h t , p a r k i n g PC - 4 8 4 3 6 9 0 S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e 6 9 0 S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e Am e n d e d P C - 2 5 9 2 t o p e r m i t c e r t a i n a u t o m o b i l e de a l e r s h i p d e s i g n s t a n d a r d s . 10 / 4 / 2 0 0 4 Am e n d e d , 25 9 2 Co m m e r c i a l A u t o m o b i l e D i s p l a y P a d . La n d U s e , d e s i g n s t a n d a r d s , a u t o s a l e s P C am e n d m e n t PC - 4 8 4 6 1 7 3 0 E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d 1 7 3 0 E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Re n u m b e r a n d a m e n d P C - 2 5 5 4 t o p e r m i t c e r t a i n au t o m o b i l e d e a l e r s h i p d e s i g n s t a n d a r d s . 10 / 4 / 2 0 0 4 A m d , 2 5 5 4 C o m m e r c i a l A u t o m o b i l e D i s p l a y P a d . La n d U s e , d e s i g n s t a n d a r d s , a u t o s a l e s P C am e n d m e n t PC - 4 8 4 7 1 7 6 6 E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d 2 4 8 0 F a b e r P l a c e Re n u m b e r a n d a m e n d P C - 3 5 5 0 t o p e r m i t c e r t a i n au t o m o b i l e d e a l e r s h i p d e s i g n s t a n d a r d s . 10 / 4 / 2 0 0 4 Am e n d e d , 35 5 0 Co m m e r c i a l A u t o m o b i l e D i s p l a y P a d . La n d U s e , d e s i g n s t a n d a r d s , a u t o s a l e s P C am e n d m e n t PC - 4 9 1 7 8 9 6 A l t a i r e W a l k 38 9 5 F a b i a n W a y Al t a T o r r e ; d e m o l i t i o n o f e x i s t i n g 2 6 5 , 0 0 0 s q . f t . of f i c e b u i l d i n g ; c o n s t r u c t i o n o f 2 1 6 , 7 0 0 s q . f t . o f re s i d e n t i a l l i v i n g i n c l u d i n g 1 0 3 f o r s a l e d w e l l i n g un i t s a n d 5 6 B M R s e n i o r a p ar t m e n t u n i t s ; a t - g r a d e pa r k i n g p a r a g e . 10 / 6 / 2 0 0 6 Ne w Re s i d e n t i a l 56 B M R S e n i o r A p a r t m e n t s ; 5 , 0 0 0 s q . f t . s h a r e d pl a z a ; l o w i n t e r e s t s e c o n d m o r t a g e p r o g r a m f o r lo c a l e m p l o y e e s w i t h $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 i n i t i a l f u n d ; $4 8 0 , 0 0 0 t o w a r d s C h a r l e s t o n A r a s t r a d e r o P l a n . La n d U s e ( m i x e d u s e ) , d e n s i t y , p a r k i n g TY P E O F P C WO R K I N G D R A F T : P L A N N E D C O M M U N I T Y Z O N I N G D I S T R I C T S 20 0 0 - 2 0 1 4 (In c l u d i n g n e w o r a m e n d e d P C Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t s ) So u r c e : P l a n n i n g a n d C o m m u n i t y E n v i ro n m e n t D e p a r t m e n t , A u g u s t 2 0 1 4 AT T A C H M E N T A 1 7 PC N O . O R I G I N A L A D D R E S S P R O J E C T A D D R E S S PR O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N AP P R O V A L DA T E PU B L I C B E N E F I T S TR I G G E R F O R P C TY P E O F P C WO R K I N G D R A F T : P L A N N E D C O M M U N I T Y Z O N I N G D I S T R I C T S 20 0 0 - 2 0 1 4 (In c l u d i n g n e w o r a m e n d e d P C Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t s ) PC - 4 9 1 8 9 0 1 S a n A n t o n i o A v e n u e 3 9 2 1 F a b i a n W a y Ta u b e - K o r e t C a m p u s f o r J e w i s h L i f e ; D e m o l i t i o n o f co m m e r c i a l p a r k i n g l o t ; c o n s t r u c t i o n o f 4 3 2 , 2 0 0 s q . ft . m i x e d - u s e b u i l d i n g i n c l u d i n g 1 9 3 c o n d o m i n i u m st y l e c o n g r e g a t e c a r e a n d a s s i s t e d l i v i n g s e n i o r dw e l l i n g u n i t s ; 1 3 4 , 1 0 0 s q . f t . c o m m u n i t y c e n t e r sp a c e , a n d a n a t - g r ad e p a r k i n g g a r a g e . 10 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 6 Ne w Mi x e d Sh a r e d U s e o f t h e J e w i s h C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r ( J C C ) ; co n v e r s i o n o f c o m m e r c i a l l y pl a n n e d a n d z o n e d l a n d fo r r e s d i e n t i a l u s e s c o n ta i n i n g d i v e r s e h o u s i n g ty p e s . La n d U s e , h e i g h t , v a r i a n c e , d a y l i g h t p l a n e PC - 4 9 1 9 /8 6 5 9 53 2 H o m e r A v e m u e 8 5 0 W e b s t e r S t r e e t Ch a n n i n g H o u s e ; D e m o l i t i o n o f a n e x i s t i n g c o t t a g e an d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a t w o - s t o r y 3 2 , 1 8 5 s q . f t . h e a l t h ca r e b u i l d i n g p r o v i d i n g 5 3 be d s f o r s k i l l e d n u r s i n g an d a s s i s t e d l i v i n g r e s i d e n t s . 12 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 6 Am e n d e d , 49 0 0 Re s i d e n t i a l F a c i l i t i e s f o r s e n i o r l i v i n g . La n d U s e , p a r k i n g , d a y l i g h t p l a n e . A m e n d m e n t (8 6 5 9 ) PC - 4 9 5 6 3 3 8 8 A l m a V i l l a g e C i rc l e 3 5 5 7 A l m a V i l l a g e C i r c l e Al m a V i l l a g e ; 1 7 , 3 0 0 s q . f t . g r o u n d f l o o r r e t a i l ; 3,5 0 0 b a s e m e n t o f f i c e , s t o r a g e a n d s e r v i c e s ; 3 se p a r a t e b u i l d i n g s c o m p r i s i n g 5 , 5 8 0 s q . f t . o f co m m e r c i a l ; 1 , 3 3 0 s q . f t . c o m m u n i t y m e e t i n g r o o m ; 14 B M R u n i t s ; 3 7 d e t a c h e d si n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e s . 6/ 1 8 / 2 0 0 7 Am e n d e d , 13 6 2 Mi x e d 15 , 0 0 0 s q . f t . f o r g r o c e r y s o t r e ; p a r k l a n d d e d i c a t i o n 0. 2 a c r e s ; M i x e d u s e b u i l d i n g c o n s t r u c t e d t o t h e LE E D S i l v e r s t a n d a r d s ; 1 4 B M R u n i t s ; 1 , 3 3 0 s q . f t . co m m u n i t y m e e t i n g r o o m . La n d U s e ( m i x e d ) PC - 4 9 7 3 4 4 9 A d d i s o n A v e n u e 4 4 9 - 4 5 1 A d d i s o n A v e n u e Su b d i v i s i o n o f p a r c e l i n to t w o p a r c e l s f o r t h e be n e f i t o f p r e s e r v i n g b o t h h i s t o r i c r e s i d e n c e s . 3/ 1 0 / 2 0 0 8 N e w R e s i d e n t i a l P r e s e r v a t i o n o f 2 h i s t o r i c h o m e s ; C a t e g o ry I V a n d I I . L a n d U s e ( r e d u c e d e n s i t y , h i s t o r i c p r e s e r v a t i o n ) PC - 5 0 3 4 4 8 8 W e s t C h a r l e s t o n Ro a d 4 8 8 W e s t C h a r l e s t o n R o a d Tr e e H o u s e ; 3 5 B e l o w M a r k e t R a t e r e n t a l ap p a r t m e n t s . 3/ 3 0 / 2 0 0 9 Am e n d e d , 25 6 5 Re s i d e n t i a l 35 B M R u n i t s ( 8 E x t r e m e l y L o w I n c o m e a n d 2 7 V e r y Lo w I n c o m e ) . Am e n d m e n t , i n c r e a s e d e n s i t y PC - 5 0 6 9 2 1 2 1 S t a u n t o n C o u r t 2 1 8 0 E l C a m i n o R e a l JJ & F M a r k e t ; 5 7 , 9 0 0 s q . f t . i n c l u d i n g g r o c e r y s t o r e , ot h e r r e t a i l s p a c e s a n d o f fic e s p a c e , a n d e i g h t af f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g u n i t s ; NO T E p r o j e c t e x t e n d e d vi a o r d i n a n c e 5 0 6 1 , t h e e x t e n s i o n o r d i n a n c e . 1/ 1 1 / 2 0 1 0 N e w M i x e d 8, 0 0 0 s q . f t . n e i g h b o r h o o d - s e r v i n g g r o c e r y m a r k e t ; 4 B M R u n i t s ; $ 5 , 0 0 0 f o r t r e e p l a n t i n g a l o n g E l Ca m i n o R e a l m e d i a n . La n d U s e ( m i x e d ) , p a r k i n g PC - 5 1 1 6 4 0 2 5 E l C a m i n o W a y 3 0 7 5 E l C a m i n o W a y Pa l o A l t o C o m m o n s; N e w b u i l d i n g t o h o u s e a 4 4 un i t e x p a n s i o n o f t h e e x i s t i ng s e n i o r a s s i s t e d r e n t a l ho u s i n g f a c i l i t y 3/ 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 Am e n d e d , 37 7 5 Re s i d e n t i a l Re n t a l s e n i o r a s s i s t e d h o u s i n g ; r o a d w a y , pe d e s t r i a n , a n d b u s s t op i m p r o v e m e n t s ; a n d $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 t o A v e n i d a s t o b e e a r - m a r k e d f o r t h e a g e at h o m e p r o g r a m f o r l o w - i n c o m e s e n i o r s . La n d U s e , d e n s i t y PC - 5 1 5 0 2 0 8 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e 2 1 9 0 W e s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Ed g e w o o d P l a z a ; R e n o v a t i o n o f 3 e x i s t i n g E i c h l e r Re t a i l s t r u c t u r e s , o n - s i t e r e l o c a t i o n o f o n e r e t a i l st r u c t u r e , 1 0 n e w s i n g l e - f a m i l y h o m e s , a n d . 0 2 a c r e pa r k . 4/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 3 Am e n d e d , 16 4 3 Mi x e d Pr e s e r v a t i o n a n d r e n o v a t i o n o f h i s t o r i c a l l y si g n i f i c a n t s h o p p i n g c e n t e r ; 2 0 , 6 0 0 s q . f t . g r o c e r y st o r e ; 0 . 2 0 a c r e P u b l i c P a r k , a n d 3 e l e c t r i c v e h i c l e (E V ) s t a t i o n s . La n d u s e ( m i x e d ) , d e n s i t y So u r c e : P l a n n i n g a n d C o m m u n i t y E n v i ro n m e n t D e p a r t m e n t , A u g u s t 2 0 1 4 2 8 PC N O . O R I G I N A L A D D R E S S P R O J E C T A D D R E S S PR O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N AP P R O V A L DA T E PU B L I C B E N E F I T S TR I G G E R F O R P C TY P E O F P C WO R K I N G D R A F T : P L A N N E D C O M M U N I T Y Z O N I N G D I S T R I C T S 20 0 0 - 2 0 1 4 (In c l u d i n g n e w o r a m e n d e d P C Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t s ) PC - 5 1 5 8 3 3 5 & 3 5 5 A l m a S t r e e t 10 1 L y t t o n Ly t t o n G a t e w a y ; F o u r S t o r y M i x e d O f f i c e a n d R e t a i l Pr o j e c t c o n t a i n i n g 5 2 , 1 6 3 s q . f t . o f f l o o r a r e a . 6/ 1 1 / 2 0 1 2 N e w M i x e d 3, 8 0 7 s q . f t . o f g r o u n d f l o o r r e t a i l u s e s a n d e a t i n g ar e a p r o x i m a t e t o t h e t r a i n s t a t i o n ; 1 , 6 4 0 s q . f t . o f su b s i d i z e d n o n - p r o f i t o f fi c e s p a c e ; 2 a d d i t i o n a l le v e l 2 E V c h a r g i n g s t a t i on s ; 1 z i p c a r r e n t a l Fin a n c i a l C o n t r i b u t i o n s : 1 ) $ 6 2 5 , 0 0 0 t o w a r d s af f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g ; 2 ) $ 6 2 5 , 0 0 0 3 ) $ 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 f o r Ne i g h b o r h o o d P a r k i n g P r e s e r v a t i o n ; 3 ) $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 Do w n t o w n P a r k i n g A n a l y s i s . La n d U s e ( m i x e d ) , h e i g h t , d a y l i g h t p l a n e , p a r k i n g So u r c e : P l a n n i n g a n d C o m m u n i t y E n v i ro n m e n t D e p a r t m e n t , A u g u s t 2 0 1 4 3 9 1 Draft PC Zoning Public Benefit Synopsis August 2014 Brief Synopsis of Public Benefits Required and Gained with PC Zoning, 1952 – 2014 Planned Community zoning has been used in Palo Alto since 1952. Over that 62 year period project developers have provided a variety of Public Benefits. Among the most frequently used public benefits were: ƒBelow Market Rate housing units ƒSenior Housing ƒPedestrian Oriented Landscaping ƒVarious kinds of public parking ƒPublic Art ƒAnnexation to the City ƒDonations including for housing, parking, childcare trust fund, an endowment, finance benefits to residents of the project. ƒHistoric Preservation ƒLand uses including public storage, grocery store (4), emergency veterinary services ƒPublic access including sidewalks Less frequently accepted public benefits were: ƒElectric Vehicle (EV) charging stations ƒSenior Health Care ƒDwelling units ƒCommercial Display Pads ƒTraffic Impact Fee ƒRight-of-way dedications/public street ƒStreet lights ƒChild care facility ƒPark land dedication ƒSales tax from additional hotel rooms ƒEliminating land use conflicts ƒImprove traffic flow and TDM ƒBridge ƒBicycle parking The type of ‘public benefit’ has changed over the years. Between 2000 and 2014 the most frequently accepted types of public benefits were: ƒBMR housing including for senior citizens ƒDonations to senior programs, housing, parking, median improvements, creations of a second mortgage program, an endowment ƒImproved access to and through projects, including public amenity areas and a landscaped plaza ƒPublic parking ƒServices including establishing a child care facility, improved health care for seniors, staff security plan, ATTACHMENT B 10 2 Draft PC Zoning Public Benefit Synopsis August 2014 ƒLand uses including grocery stores, residential historic preservation, a community room, a shared use facility, park land dedication, zip car rental use ƒTraffic and transportation included traffic impact fee, TDM program, bicycle parking, and electric stations for cars. ƒCommercial display pads Since the PC zone was established and the first project approved in 1952, the regulations are estimated to have facilitated the creation of the following affordable residential units: TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT NUMBER OF UNITS Below Market Rate 256 Below Market Rate – Senior 645 Single Room Occupancy1 196 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS: 1,097 1 Includes Opportunity Center (88 Dwelling Units) 11 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 August 27, 2014 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 7 Planned Community (PC) Zoning Reform: Study Session on possible revisions to the Planned8 Community (PC) District Regulations. For more information contact Consuelo Hernandez at9 consuelo.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org10 Continued from August 13, 201411 12 Chair Michael: For our next topic, which is Planned Community (PC) zoning reform, a study session on13 possible revisions to the PC District Regulations. And before we go to Consuelo for a staff report let me14 try to frame what I hope will be the outcome of the discussion and then you can comment on that as well15 from the staff perspective. I believe that the work put in by staff in the staff report is excellent. It16 frames most of the issues and is particularly helpful because it captured very faithfully the full range of17 comments from the Commission and Commissioners at our last meeting. It was very clear that these are18 all individual ideas and insights and it wasn’t taking a vote or consensus of the Commission. And you did19 an excellent job of capturing all of them so thank you for that.20 21 You did an excellent job of identifying what I believe are the major issues. One is the process for22 establishing a PC zone. Next would be whether or not there’s a definition or clear understanding of what23 constitutes public benefit. Another is the possibility of establishing a menu of potential public benefit24 contributions. Another would be, understanding how to use economic analysis in relationship to the25 potential increase in valuation from up zoning. Another is the lack historically of an effective enforcement26 mechanism regarding public benefit in PC districts, which for example might be some sort of a27 performance bond or contractual liquidated damages or indemnity or something of that nature. Another28 challenge is the requirement under the ordinance that the PC zone be found consistent with the29 Comprehensive Plan when the Comprehensive Plan update process is so prolonged and the30 Comprehensive Plan may be arguably long in the tooth if not out of date. As well as the potential update31 of the Zoning Map that typically follows the update of the Comprehensive Plan. So when you have both32 the Comp Plan and zoning ordinance on such long cycles it tends to exacerbate the need for flexibility33 and interim action. Another is the potential reliance on development agreements in addition to or instead34 of PC zoning where it might be a viable alternative or something that allows for the payment by the35 applicant of a fee for the as part of the agreement. And so I think those are the structurally some of the36 items that are important for this discussion to touch on.37 38 Now we heard last time that there’s a long history to the use of PC zoning in Palo Alto and a lot of it has39 been very beneficial. Some of it is controversial and arguably has been a problem, which we’d like to fix.40 So it might be useful for our discussion tonight to focus on what’s not working. What are the problems?41 And I after reading the staff report I think you’ve hit on most of the issues. I put them in a slightly42 different order just as I was taking notes. The first is whether or not the ordinance should be revised.43 And I think clearly this is a good discussion. It might be revised to add a definition of public benefit. It44 might be added, revised to add a menu of public benefits. And it might be revised with respect to the45 process by which PC zoning is initiated. Is it initiated at the first at the Council level or does the PC46 initiate? The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) initiate?47 48 Then you hit on the issues relating to whether or not there’s an effective enforcement mechanism and we49 should talk about that. You also hit upon how in the process we might utilize an economic analysis either50 an independent economic analysis or disclosure by the applicant of the pro forma of their financials and51 use that to some, to achieve some commensurate public benefit. And what exactly is commensurate52 ATTACHMENT J City of Palo Alto Page 2 would be an interesting discussion mitigated by risk, time/value of money, in perpetuity, there’s all sorts 1 of subtleties to that. 2 3 To me another issue which you didn’t really flesh out is that to the extent that there is a process and a 4 system by which applicants submit their proposals for PC zoning oftentimes they will seek out discussions 5 with members of Council, members of this Commission privately to have what’s called an ex parte 6 discussion of the proposal. And I think both the Council, if I can be so bold as to suggest anything to the 7 Council, and the Commission should consider it relevant to relook at the policy of each body on ex parte 8 communications regarding quasi-judicial matters. That this may be perfectly constructive and above 9 board, but the manner in which it’s done is probably something which bears on public trust in the 10 outcome. 11 12 So those I think are the big issues as I see them. And once again I think we have an excellent staff 13 report, but maybe we’ll turn it to staff and you can update us on any thinking you’ve had since we had 14 our last meeting. 15 16 Consuelo Hernandez, Senior Planner: Sure, thank you Chair Michael; Consuelo Hernandez, Senior 17 Planner. Good evening members of the Planning Commission. We don’t have a formal presentation for 18 you tonight since it is a continued study session. And really what we did is took some of the feedback 19 that we heard from you last time to collect additional data specifically concentrating on 2000, the period 20 between 2000 and 2014 and added additional columns to the original data set that we provided, which 21 included what was the trigger for PC zoning and what were the public benefits associated with those 22 particular projects. And we also cleaned up a lot of the addresses and added the common name for the 23 development to make it easier for you to look at, look at that. And in the staff report as Attachment B 24 we also started to prepare preliminary analysis of what the typical public benefits have been since PC 25 zoning has been in place. And we started to build on how those public benefits have changed over the 26 last 14 years. 27 28 And the last component that we added is on the second page of Attachment B is an initial tally of the 29 number of units that have resulted from PC zoning. And I just wanted to add one clarifying point that I 30 did not include in the staff report or in that attachment is that it only includes the Below Market Rate 31 (BMR) or low income units that we explicitly identified as a public benefit. So there are some instances 32 where BMR’s were generated out of a PC zone, but they weren’t specifically identified as a public benefit. 33 Specifically if you look at the JCC the public benefit identified is a variety of housing types, but it doesn’t 34 explicitly state that 24 BMR units actually resulted from that project. 35 36 And in order to frame the discussion today we were hoping that the PTC could concentrate or focus the 37 discussion around as the Chair mentioned making sure that staff did capture all of the comments that 38 you made last time about your issues or concerns with PC zoning and what recommendations you have 39 for the Council either to reform the existing ordinance, change the name perhaps of the approach for this 40 type of flexible tool that we have in our code currently, and any input you have on how we can outreach 41 to the community on making sure that we capture everybody’s input on their issues for PC. And staff is 42 here to answer any questions and that concludes our staff report. 43 44 Chair Michael: Thank you very much. Before we go to the public speakers we have two speaker cards 45 and if there’s anybody else here who would like to speak please submit a card and then you will be 46 recognized. I know that on occasion the Commission will take straw votes just to get a consensus of 47 where we are and I’m typically not in favor of that because it’s in situations where I don’t think that the 48 nature of the vote is well articulated and therefore it’s not clear to me what our voting really signifies. 49 But I’m wondering if tonight we might consider using straw votes on some of the key issues if that would 50 help us give you kind of feedback that would lend weight or credence to our interest? 51 52 Hillary Gitelman, Director: Thank you Chair Michael. I don’t think we would be adverse to that. It may 53 be easier than full straw vote on some of these points. It seems that there was a lot of agreement and 54 commonality between the Commission’s comments last time and if we use the bullets in the staff report it 55 might be possible to say does anyone disagree with the next bullet because I think there are many of 56 City of Palo Alto Page 3 these that wouldn’t take a lengthy discussion to demonstrate some level of consensus, but we’re open to 1 discuss that procedure further if you want to take the public testimony and then we can decide if that 2 would work for you or not. 3 4 Chair Michael: Great, thanks. So let’s go to public testimony and then maybe we’ll just have a complete 5 round of comments from Commissioners and then we’ll consider if it would be useful for us to try to 6 achieve consensus by straw voting. Let’s go to the public speakers and give them three minutes. 7 8 Vice-Chair Keller: The first speaker is Robert Moss to be followed by Patricia Saffir. 9 10 Robert Moss: Thank you Chair Michael and Commissioners. I think you did a very good job of 11 summarizing what the staff report says and some of the major issues and I want to touch on just a few 12 of the points they made which I think are very useful. Under public benefits I certainly agree we have to 13 clarify what a public benefit is. And we have to have a public benefit that not only means something, but 14 as it said later on is ongoing. If we have a public benefit that vanishes in a relatively short period of 15 time, but the change in the zoning and land use goes on forever that’s not a real benefit. Also the 16 benefit should be related to the nearby area. It shouldn’t be a citywide benefit. For example, one that’s 17 on hold right now the PC proposal at El Camino and Page Mill where one of the proposed public benefits 18 was improving the street lights on California Avenue, which is four to eight blocks away depending on 19 what part of California Avenue you’re talking about. That’s not specific to the site. Not appropriate. 20 21 The benefit has to be structured so as it says it’s maintained constantly. That means if the public benefit 22 is a payment of money the money is going to get spent and it’s not necessarily going to get spent on 23 something related to the project. So just accepting cash as a public benefit is a really bad idea. 24 25 Under enforcement as you know the PC requirements have never been enforced. There’s been no 26 penalty. So there should be a requirement first on ongoing PC’s and then you might consider going back 27 to the existing PC’s and say if the public benefit no longer exists you must restore that benefit or you will 28 be fined and give them a period of time before the benefit can be put back in place: three months, six 29 months, whatever. And then after that is a fine: every day, every month, whatever. But otherwise 30 there’s no enforcement. It’ll never be done. 31 32 Under four, parameters defining what a PC is and how it’s different from the normal one I think it’s very 33 important because many times the PC is not that much different from standard zoning and sometimes 34 someone comes in and says well I’m going to put more housing in. Well maybe we should change the 35 zoning from RM 20 to RM 30 and you get more housing in, but we all know what the parameters are of 36 the zoning. So it’s got to be very clearly identified what you’re getting and why. 37 38 The Comprehensive Plan really is our overall guiding principles. And all too often the PC violates 39 Comprehensive Plan policies and principles. When that happens the PC should be rejected. Either 40 rejected or significantly modified so that it does comply. And finally the economic analysis of the cost 41 benefits both to the developer and the City is extremely important so you know what the real benefits are 42 on each side. 43 44 Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Patricia Saffir and I apologize if I’ve mispronounced your name. 45 46 Patricia Saffir: It’s Saffir, but I don’t really care much. I couldn’t pronounce it when I married my 47 husband either so. Chairman Michael and members of the Commission, I just have some general 48 comments (interrupted) 49 50 Chair Michael: If you could speak into the microphone that would be great. Thank you very much. 51 52 Ms. Saffir: I’m sorry. I just have some general comments and opinions as a longtime resident of Palo 53 Alto. I’m here tonight to ask you not to recommend getting rid of the PC zoning, the current process and 54 not to severely restrict it. I believe the process has generally served us very well for many years. Now 55 City of Palo Alto Page 4 because the voters who chose to vote rejected a project approved by the Council we seem to be sort of 1 panicking and I don’t think we need to do that. 2 3 I agree that the process should provide clear information to the public at an early stage and opportunities 4 for us to voice our opinions. I also agree that there should be mechanisms to make sure that the 5 promised benefits continue to exist. It may also be a good idea to restrict the maximum size of the PC 6 projects and use a more inclusive planning device such as a PD district for very large areas. But I do not 7 think that other specifications and restrictions are a good idea. Zoning is by nature an arbitrary and 8 restrictive process. We cannot possibly foresee when beneficial opportunities may arise which cannot be 9 realized under the exact zoning. We need a flexible process so that we will not miss out on these 10 opportunities. 11 12 Regarding public benefit to me the project itself should have value to the community and this should be 13 the major public benefit. I particularly do not like the suggestion made at your last meeting that 14 economic quid pro quo should be the major or the only public benefit factor. For example, if a developer 15 proposes a well-designed BMR project I don’t care if calculation shows that the privileges granted under 16 the PC have increased the value of his property significantly. We need that kind of housing and that’s 17 what matters and there are other examples where the same logic might apply. 18 19 So to conclude, please don’t cripple a useful process which has gotten us some fine projects. I want you 20 and the City Council to have to work and think and exercise your judgment. Thank you. 21 22 Chair Michael: So I would like to thank the public for turning out in such, with such quality statements 23 this evening and to suggest that we have two vacancies coming up on the PTC and applications can be 24 submitted to the City Clerk if you’re interested in serving up here on the dais. You would probably do a 25 great job. So with that let me turn to the Commission and we’re going to basically take as much time as 26 we need to on this topic, but we’ll do it in rounds. So if five minutes isn’t enough to get started would 27 somebody like to? Commissioner Rosenblum. 28 29 Commissioner Rosenblum: First, huge thanks. I had a ton of requests at the last meeting. I think you 30 fulfilled most of them. So I really, really appreciate that. 31 32 So the table that you produced in particular I found really useful and it wasn’t actually what I thought the 33 results would be. I had thought that if you did the survey of all PC zone projects since 2000 the 34 preponderance of them would be, would have been triggered by height or density or setback variances, 35 etcetera and that doesn’t appear to be the case. And it encourages me that good zoning changes would 36 actually make the PC zoning process something that is more rare and does allow us to capture the 37 exceptional opportunities that the last speaker was referring to while allowing what seems to be the most 38 common triggers to move forward without an undue or special process. 39 40 So in particular I might be reading it wrong, but there were 20 projects since 2000. It seems like only six 41 were triggered because of density, height, or footprint, specifically and there’s an overlap between the 42 two in density there were six of which four had a major BMR component. And that seemed to be the 43 prevailing reason for their density. Height, specifically were three of which there’s an overlap, but there 44 are a variety of others. There were some that were auto related and I don’t, I have a question for the 45 staff, which is, I thought that we had an automotive dealership overlay? I didn’t realize that this would 46 trigger the PC zoning process. 47 48 And so I’ll just ask a couple of these and then I would love for you to respond in bulk. There was one for 49 childcare onsite and I guess I understand that. You can’t just, there must be a special process for going 50 through to affirm that you want a childcare center onsite. But the other one I found interesting is mixed-51 use was the number one trigger and so that’s one that I want to go down a bit of a longer road on 52 because there’s a lot of theory around the benefits of mixed-use developments. And if by nature any 53 mixed-use development triggers a PC process that strikes me as an opportunity to find what is a standard 54 for mixed-use that we like that should not have to trigger this special process. And then finally I 55 identified some projects that just seem because of their nature they are so unusual that there can’t be 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 any zoning that you could really contemplate that should accommodate them and the PC process 1 probably is appropriate for the benefit that those projects bring. 2 3 But just to loop back around to the couple of questions I had what is the reason first for the number of 4 mixed-use? Is it the case that there is not a zoning that contemplates mixed-use adequately and 5 therefore so many projects get caught up for that trigger? 6 7 Ms. Hernandez: First I just want to clarify that the automobile and the child care they were actually 8 amendments to original PC’s. 9 10 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. 11 12 Ms. Hernandez: So at the time the automobile overlay wasn’t in our zoning ordinance and child care in 13 that instance wasn’t identified as a permitted use in that particular PC. So that’s the reason for those two 14 changes. 15 16 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. 17 18 Ms. Hernandez: In terms of the mixed-use if you look at the when they were approved our zoning 19 ordinance was updated in 2007 to include a lot of more language for mixed-use. So that can explain 20 some of the reasons why you see some of the PC’s having that mixed-use component. 21 22 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok, because if this is the case then we really are talking about extraordinarily 23 small number of projects that get triggered. So this table to me again is fairly revealing. If we feel like 24 we have solved the majority of issues that lead to mixed-use, that the automotive overlay was a relic of it 25 being originally a PC zone and therefore each amendment gets put in as another PC zone, child care also 26 falls in that same category. I’ll have to go back though this, but I think of the 20 projects since 2000 27 we’re probably talking about a very small handful that are the problem children. So what do we do about 28 them? But at any rate I’m quite encouraged by the table that if we went and saw well given the state of 29 zoning today if it does accommodate for many types of mixed-use what are the number of projects that 30 would have to have gone through a PC zoning process? My guess is it’s probably fewer than eight, but at 31 any rate we have to go back to the data, but I’m encouraged by that at the very least. So thank you for 32 preparing that data. That’s very helpful for me. 33 34 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m hoping we can do a few rounds tonight so I’ll keep my initial comments short. 37 It occurred to me that I found the table extremely informative. I’ll be less subtle than Commissioner 38 Rosenblum. You know I think if our local news weekly was especially motivated to provide much needed 39 information on this issue they would just reprint this table in its entirety in their upcoming edition. I think 40 the community should be aware of these specific PC projects and I would almost encourage, I’d 41 encourage us to go a little farther into the past so that we could resist the anticipated suggestion that it’s 42 not comprehensive. You know after reviewing it I was almost shocked that we ever proceeded to have 43 this discussion without such a table and it’s overwhelming to me that the City Council even put the PC 44 process on hiatus without such a table to sort of defend the program. 45 46 I appreciate your thought, your comments today about our one of two community members who spoke 47 about the process. When we wrote when we went through the process of writing the colleagues memo a 48 year and a half ago we spent a long time kind of talking about what should a public benefit be? Should it 49 be, should the use itself if accomplished by the project be a public benefit or should they be extrinsic? 50 Should it be unrelated to the actual development of the site? I may be using that word wrong. And it 51 occurred to me after looking at this that there are some very defensible land use designation changes 52 that support a PC. And if we eliminated the PC and bear in mind I made a lot of comments at our last 53 meeting about this quid pro quo kind of pay as you go zoning that conflict with the comments I’m making 54 tonight, but my point is if we eliminated this PC what process would an owner of a property in Palo Alto 55 have to get creative on their site? It seems like a really adequate avenue for someone to suggest a 56 City of Palo Alto Page 6 senior housing project or a grocery store, something that is not in line with what is the current site is 1 provided for. 2 3 And after reviewing some of the bullet points that we talked about last time particularly… sorry, 4 particularly the idea that we should have benefits confused with mitigations it occurred to me that if for 5 example a project was seeking to exceed a certain limitation and we were attempting to achieve some 6 very creative goal or some very appealing project BMR, senior facilities, etcetera; if the project itself 7 provided mitigation that essentially removed the concerns that we had with exceeding that limitation, I’m 8 being very vague here, then to what extent do we want to be a community that accommodates the 9 development of projects that make sense for our community that may exceed certain limitations, but take 10 actions to mitigate them? What would be the process by which someone could develop a senior center 11 that might exceed a height limit, but didn’t, but mitigated concerns related to traffic or parking or other 12 issues that the height limitation was there to protect? I may not be making myself really clear here, but 13 after reviewing the table and thinking to myself wow, we’re a lot more cynical about this process than 14 this table suggests we should be. And these limitations that we have are designed to protect us from 15 certain results that we don’t want. If they are mitigating for those results maybe the public benefit can 16 be the use and maybe that evolves. 17 18 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 19 20 Commissioner Tanaka: So I only have three brief comments. So first one is, I certainly think this table is 21 really good. It kind of shows all the projects that were approved. I think the issue though is that the 22 question the issue is that this table is really of approved projects. We actually had a lot more projects 23 that were not approved that are not on here. So if we actually were to do that I think the results might 24 be quite different than what’s on this table. But anyway I just want to make that comment. I do think 25 it’s useful though, but I think it’s a little bit misleading too in terms of what really happened. 26 27 And then I think my second comment is I think from what the reason why the PC is needed is because 28 we have this Comp Plan process where we’re updating it or at least we’re trying to update it as fast as we 29 can. It’s a very arduous process, long and arduous process and so I think why a lot of these land use 30 histories pop up is because the Comp Plan takes time to update. And it takes a while to update all of the 31 zoning codes. And so I think this is kind of why the PC actually worked is because it allowed you to 32 tweak it slightly to make it a better overall for the City. 33 34 But with those two comment things said, I just want to support what the Chair was proposing, which is 35 do some straw votes. I think we’ve all spent the last session kind of giving our two cents as to what we 36 thought was good, what was bad, but I think to be truly useful here I think the Chair’s proposal of having 37 some straw votes and having an organized way of kind of going through this so that staff could take 38 some of the input and synthesize it into something actionable I think would be good. So I’ll just… so 39 that’s through the Chair maybe there’s a way for us to do that in an expedient fashion without staying 40 here too late tonight. 41 42 Chair Michael: So I’m prepared after everybody’s had their first round of comments to take Commissioner 43 Tanaka up on his suggestion if staff concurs. Commissioner Gardias. 44 45 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Chair. So before I get to the PC zone I’d like to just make a comment 46 on this mixed land use as it just came up. I think it’s a historical ballast and pretty much a different 47 perspective of the planning that is historical and may I think that we’re shifting slowly away from this and 48 that mixed-use is becoming a reality throughout all the zones. So for the discussion I think it’s not very 49 much relevant as already argued. But I share your perspective. 50 51 So going back to the PC zone there’s I’d like to just go quickly through the sort of variety of points so 52 bear with me for a couple of minutes Chair if you don’t mind just take more time a bit. So there is a 53 relationship I think that’s not defined very well between PC zone and the Comprehensive Plan. 54 Comprehensive Plan and Robert Moss already talked about this for a moment. Thank you very much for 55 your comments. It’s a higher, higher level document and then PC zone is a lower level document. So 56 City of Palo Alto Page 7 from this perspective there should be designation in the Comprehensive Plan of this where we as a city 1 have an interest in growth or development. And then all the PC zones there should be only within those 2 areas. And I’m talking about the geographical area of interest and an interest could be about along the 3 traffic corridors, could be along some commercial corridors: University, California, El Camino, so forth, 4 right? But then if you have this clarity between these two documents then the public would know 5 immediately ok well this is, this PC is not relevant to me because I’m beyond this area and then also 6 would focus us on those areas where we should be discussing this with the applicants or developers that 7 the potential concession from the City perspective in exchange for some benefits, public benefits. This is 8 just this is about to just address this relationship between these two documents. 9 10 So from the perspective of public benefits and the other one the opposite side is that pretty much 11 applicants benefit or zoning benefit. First of all I think that in terms of the, of this what somebody 12 already addressed, right, about the benefits, it should be an intrinsic benefit to the commercial site of the 13 project of the applicant. In this case that pretty much we would like to have this benefit, this public 14 benefit that is not realized in the original application of the developer. It could be housing, affordable 15 housing that would be part of the project or it would be outside. But we should not be allowing some 16 public benefits that would be enhancing and just truly giving benefit to this to the project itself because 17 then otherwise it’s just the clarity of this the public benefit it’s not specifically defined. It would benefit 18 rather the development on the specific lot as the public. 19 20 So from perspective and I talk about in the past, about how we can define both so there is a we would 21 need to somehow establish some sort of definition clarity what both the zoning benefit and public benefit 22 would mean and then of course to make sure that applicant or developer knows where he stands very 23 early there would have to be categories. Then of course that may be defined further in the granular 24 detail by the Council, but then it would just bring the clarity early to the process to the developer that he 25 knows where he stands. This is something that I could just I could subsidize and then in exchange I 26 could add some benefit in terms of the height, encroachment, or some other aspect. So then if we have 27 this categories of benefits, public benefits the developer knows that he may achieve and then made the 28 specific projects then maybe there would not be a need to just go very quickly to the Council to discuss it 29 because pretty much everything is clear. So why would we bother. It would be in the clear process. 30 There is no need to just go and just have specific negotiations. The process is clear unless it’s a large 31 project, right, that maybe would have to be like an exception in the process or maybe two step process. 32 If you fall within the parameters you’re fine, if you go beyond that you’re not fine. 33 34 And then from this perspective I can take another two minutes or? Thank you. So then we may 35 establish stack ranking or both,. For example, so this is from the perspective of the public benefits. That 36 for example, this is on our first rank of addressing, this is on the second. From the perspective of 37 benefits just making sure that we exchange something for something, we can either just monetize them, 38 just convert them to the dollar value or convert them to some points and then developer or applicant 39 would know and public would also know, that if he goes over the height limit by let’s say 10 feet. It 40 would be I don’t know benefit of $5 million dollars of the net present value and then for this $5 million he 41 would look up the list. And here there are two items for $5 million dollars at the top. So that would be 42 immediate clarity and we would know what we can exchange for what. Maybe I will come back to 43 further, to some other comments later on, but you know this is just a… thank you. 44 45 Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 46 47 Commissioner King: Thank you. How many minutes are we doing this round? Is it five? Ok, thanks. 48 Let’s see. Thank you the as… I’ll echo the comments the chart’s very helpful. I would say that I think 49 particularly in that due to its popularity it may be of continued use and I would like to make sure that the 50 things you mentioned are corrected, which are because one of my big concerns is the double dipping. I 51 know we’ve discussed this where we have had applicants come and present as benefits mitigations that 52 are would be required regardless of PC status. And so I’d like to make sure this chart does not reflect 53 any double dipping. I think you mentioned that the JCC project some of those might be in the chart were 54 not actually public benefits, they were BMR, they got something else for providing the BMR units they got 55 something else under State housing law. Is that correct? 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 Ms. Hernandez: I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. They identified as a public benefit a variety of residential 2 uses. That’s all that it reads. It doesn’t explicitly state the number of BMR units, but the BMR program 3 triggered the development of 24 units. So while it’s not identified as a public benefit they did provide 24 4 BMR units. 5 6 Commissioner King: But that was even if it were not PC that would have been, that would have existed 7 (interrupted) 8 9 Ms. Hernandez: Correct. 10 11 Commissioner King: As part of the State law BMR. Ok. 12 13 Ms. Hernandez: As part of the City’s BMR program. 14 15 Commissioner King: City’s BMR program. 16 17 Ms. Hernandez: Correct. 18 19 Commissioner King: Ok, but regardless of if it were PC. So I’d like to make sure, so I’m not quite sure 20 which one you’re talking about but any of those where you have mentioned something that we’re not 21 explicitly a public benefit to attain the PC status that would have existed regardless of PC that those are 22 clearly shown as not a public, it should not be a… maybe it would say at the top of the column “PC public 23 benefits” or something of that nature. Does that make sense? Are you guys following? Ok. So for 24 instance, I’m looking at so on Altaire Walk so those 56 BMR senior apartments were those as part of the 25 State or City housing bonus? 26 27 Ms. Hernandez: Those were explicitly identified as a public benefit. I’d have to go back and cross check 28 what the requirements are for that site to see if the BMR program required them to have a certain 29 number of units, of BMR’s. 30 31 Commissioner King: Ok. So I’m, I can’t say I’m, the one thing I’m clear on is that we should not be 32 letting applicants, and are showing what has happened in the past be reflecting a public benefit that 33 resulted from the PC process separate from the BMR units being used to get a developer enhancement 34 separate from the PC process. 35 36 Ms. Gitelman: If I can just clarify am I right that you’re saying we should be clear when BMR units are 37 being provided because they’re required versus when they’re being required because they’re a public 38 benefit. 39 40 Commissioner King: Yes, although yeah, exactly. Correct. 41 42 Ms. Gitelman: Ok. 43 44 Commissioner King: Yeah. 45 46 Ms. Gitelman: We can try and do that. 47 48 Commissioner King: Ok. Because really we didn’t get anything as the public benefits as the City we didn’t 49 get anything extra if they would have been built anyhow under the previous zoning. Ok. Let’s see. 50 51 And then and I know the amount of work may be not realistic to ask, but in this trigger for PC when for 52 instance these say they’ll say that density and such it would be valuable, but again I know it may be an 53 insurmountable amount of work to show what could have been built under the existing zoning at that 54 time. And I know there’s some that probably may not have had existing zoning or was so I’m the one 55 thing that this gives us is general categories but not specifics of what, how big was a project? A 1,000 56 City of Palo Alto Page 9 square feet larger than it might have been because we needed to do this things? So that would be, the 1 more information would be valuable. 2 3 Then from the big picture so if we do waiting and in the previous times when we’ve done motions and we 4 did waiting and the straw, I’m sorry, we did straw polls it was really binary. Does it pass or does it not 5 pass? And so it seems that that would not be the, in my mind that would not be the best way. It should 6 not be binary. If we do straw polls on these we should actually retain the count of how many 7 Commissioners supported versus did not support so that we don’t lose information because it may be one 8 to six, which is quite different than three to four, right? 9 10 And then lastly in trying to figure out a framework for going forward looking at ok what’s right with a PC, 11 what’s not right? One of the things in looking at this matrix that I see is that and others may want to 12 slice and dice slightly differently, but for me some of them are a nonprofit creation of a project perceived 13 to serve the community not otherwise available such as the BMR housing, senior housing, things that are 14 really just that the community is perceived to believe that we want more BMR housing and that we’re 15 willing to change existing zoning, work outside existing zoning or senior housing, those types of things. 16 And for me those types of projects seem a perfect fit for the PC type process. 17 18 The other, then you move moving down what in my mind is a continuum then there’s the for profit 19 creation of a project perceived to serve the community not otherwise available and so these might be 20 let’s see, Sunrise at Palo Alto, which is for profit and yet provides senior housing. There was the recent 21 one… Channing House similar for profit. Someone’s making money and yet it fulfills a perceived benefit 22 that wouldn’t otherwise been available to the community. Those are to me less clear that they’re the 23 value to the community. And then next would be a for profit project strictly for profit not generally 24 perceived to benefit the community in and of its own, but then offering some public benefit either usually 25 often with funds or amenities related to or not related to the project itself. And so if we’re trying to so 26 now my thought is that we should look at that as a framework splitting the PC into its separate 27 components what has been done and looking at them, those portions separately. Thank you. 28 29 Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 30 31 Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, thank you. So let me make a couple of observations first and the observation is 32 that one of the findings for a PC zoning if I remember correctly is that no standard zoning rules apply. 33 And in order to have a PC you can’t use a standard zoning. And that’s part of the reason why mixed-use 34 as was mentioned by staff in the zoning ordinance update in the 2007 time frame a lot of mixed-use rules 35 were put into effect and particularly for the CN zone and the CS zone describing what that is and so 36 zoning rules have changed over time. In addition the Housing Density Bonus Law now exists, which 37 provides some sort of escape for zoning rules to the extent that there is some amount of BMR housing. 38 39 One of the things that the Council chose to do differently than the Commission when we looked at the 40 Housing Density Bonus Law is the Commission had an idea that when you had a project that was 100 41 percent affordable housing than it was possible for there to be additional concessions considered. And at 42 the urging of the public the Council took out that provision. So let me throw out first an idea about how 43 this could happen. Let us suppose the PC zone were limited to either projects that were primarily or 44 exclusively BMR or senior housing and that’s because of the Housing Density Bonus Law restriction on 45 that. Secondly it applies to PC amendments because you have to be able to amend an existing PC and 46 the only way to do that is to have in a new PC that amends the existing PC or changes it to an existing 47 zoning. And the third thing is public projects because you’re not going to have a standard project, a 48 standard zoning for a public safety building or a parking garage. So if you think about that as the limit of 49 PC zoning and then anything that doesn’t fit into that category either happens through a precise plan 50 process for which there’s a long understood process for how to deal with it, in particular South of Forest 51 Avenue (SOFA) 1 and SOFA 2 had a precise plan process that was arduous, but successful. And I don’t 52 think anybody could argue that they are not successful, but they are quite arduous and I’m not sure why 53 there’s an allergy on the staff to having precise plans or area plans done in the future. I think we should 54 try doing more of them instead. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Secondly, for things that don’t fit into that there is also the possibly of a development agreement which 1 provides for an increased potential for discussion of public benefits in a process in which there’s more 2 flexibility and the ability to ask for more things like pro formas or if you desire what thing was mentioned 3 by Commissioner King is what the value of the project would be under existing zoning and what the value 4 of the project would be in an appraisal with the as proposed then you can try to capture some of that 5 value. You can do that better in a development agreement. 6 7 Now in terms of the process let me suggest that the process could be preliminary review by the Council 8 in a study session, not a formal action followed by the PTC initiating with recommendations, which 9 doesn’t exist now. Right now we initiate, we turn, we approve it or don’t approve it, but we actually 10 don’t make formal recommendations. In this case we would make formal recommendations that would 11 be tracked through the staff and Architectural Review Board (ARB) review process as the PC moves 12 forward. Then that comes back to the PTC where we have a potential for initiation, sorry, for 13 recommending to Council and we get feedback on the recommendations we made, which were not 14 requirements but we actually get feedback on them and we see how they were changed or whether they 15 were followed and then finally the Council approve. 16 17 One thing on this is that first of all we should be willing to say no early on projects we don’t like instead 18 of wasting the developer’s time and the public’s time on projects that we think are ridiculous. And in 19 terms of that what happens is that if you have such a situation then we don’t get into the scenario that 20 sometimes happens where we say well the developer spent so much money on that let’s just approve it. 21 We should try to avoid that by stopping it early. 22 23 And finally in terms of ex parte communication, which was brought up I think that the Commission should 24 relook at its policies on ex parte communications firstly. We have gone back and forth on that a couple 25 of times, but in particular it should apply to PC’s, development agreements, and quasi-judicial matters. 26 And perhaps there could be a recommendation to Council in terms of increasing their all avoidance of ex 27 parte communications prior to the final PC recommendation to Council. Thank you. 28 29 Chair Michael: So I just have a couple of comments to add to the very thoughtful and excellent 30 comments from my colleagues. First just to very enthusiastically concur that the data is extremely 31 helpful, so thank you for that. And this sets a new standard of quality that we hope is possible to attain 32 on other issues of similar importance. It’s very helpful to have data to have proper analysis and leading 33 to good decisions and good public policy. 34 35 So I’ve been on the Commission not quite three years and there’ve been not quite three PC’s during that 36 time. The one PC was the 101 Lytton, which stimulated I think a very chaotic almost random discussion 37 at the PTC of what on Earth is a public benefit and led directly to the work by esteemed Chairman 38 Martinez, my colleague, and Commissioner Alcheck and myself on the colleagues memo on public 39 benefits, which I think is still relevant in terms of posing questions at the end of the memo for what 40 maybe should go into the revision of the ordinance, but I won’t belabor that at the moment. 41 42 The very limited data that I have with just the 101 Alma, the Edgewood Plaza, and then the El 43 Camino/Page Mill project which is on hold is that there, and I guess Maybell had also the PC aspect so 44 four. Was that there seems to be a pattern and it’s a fairly limited data set of applicants seeking to do 45 something more than was allowed by existing zoning in terms of the development of the land. Either 46 more units, more floor area, a little more height, reduced setbacks, something that would give them a 47 chance to create something that would be more valuable, more useful, maybe more beneficial to the 48 public, but not permitted under zoning. There seems also to have been an opportunity to ask for doing 49 something less than might otherwise have been required in terms of maybe number of parking spaces or 50 who knows what requirement that might have been avoided as a result of the approval of the PC. So we 51 are getting something more or avoiding a requirement that would otherwise be applicable? And in each 52 case it’s again very limited data that seems to be of economic value to the applicant hence the sense that 53 was the public being treated fairly whether it’s the existing neighborhood or the adjacent the most 54 impacted area or the City overall in terms of the bargaining for that went on between the applicant and 55 the staff and the Commission and the Council and so on, which led to some suspicion that maybe this 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 wasn’t a great process. But now that we have the data we can see this more objectively and I think that 1 it’s, I think it’s been recognized by the work of the staff, the comments from the Commissioners, the 2 people who have come from the public to make very, very useful and relevant comments and the former 3 Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel who came in during a time when there was 26 PC’s during her 4 tenure on the Commission many of which are on maybe not on your chart because they’re prior, they 5 predated, but were things that were beneficial to the public and couldn’t have been achieved through 6 existing zoning and were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 7 8 So with that I’ve identified I think four broad areas where we might use a straw vote process to get the 9 sense of the Commission and some of these questions have subparts. And if, with the indulgence of my 10 colleagues in the interest of time let’s just go with my list and at the end if there’s something that we 11 want to vote on that we didn’t get a chance to vote on then we’ll maybe try to identify that. 12 13 So the first question I have is since we have, since the Council has indicated that the PC zoning is on 14 hiatus or time out is whether we feel that the PC zoning process should resume? And the first subpart is 15 whether we think it should resume promptly and then the second part and we’d vote separately is should 16 it resume only after revision of the ordinance? And if this is a clearly defined question and if you really 17 feel strongly about this you can raise both hands. No, we’ll count your votes. 18 19 Ms. Gitelman: Chair Michael can I, I’m sorry, I’m sorry to interject so soon in this process because this is 20 trending in a great direction. I just wanted to make sure the Commission was aware that the study 21 session is noticed as discussing reforms and alternatives. 22 23 Chair Michael: Yeah. 24 25 Ms. Gitelman: And I don’t know whether your suggestion to talk about the Council’s time out is 26 appropriately in that context or not. 27 28 Chair Michael: Well it leads to the alternatives. I mean I think it… and it’s nonbinding so it’s not, I mean 29 it’s a big whoop. I mean really. Who cares what we think? We care. Ok. 30 31 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: So I’m sorry Chair Michael, for those listening at home it might 32 be helpful just to explain that the Commission’s history behind straw polls and study sessions. Of course 33 in study sessions you can’t take any action. This was not noticed as a public hearing. It will not result in 34 any formal action, but of course it’s fine as a matter of just codifying some of the comments in a way 35 that helps report recommendations to Council to have a straw poll and that’s what the Commission is 36 doing at this point. 37 38 STRAW POLL #1 39 40 Chair Michael: Ok, thank you. So bearing in mind that what we’re doing is just trying to capture our 41 feelings do we feel that it would be beneficial for the PC zoning process to resume promptly? Should the 42 City start processing PC zoning applications promptly? All in favor? All opposed? So 4-2. Did you 43 abstain? 44 45 Commissioner Gardias: I have a different perspective so that would be a different question. 46 Chair Michael: 3-2, one abstention. 47 48 STRAW POLL #1 RESULT (3-2-1, Commissioner Gardias abstained) 49 50 STRAW POLL #2 51 52 Chair Michael: So the next subpart of this is should the PC zoning, should the resumption of PC zoning 53 happen only after amendment of the ordinance? 54 City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn’t hear. 2 3 Chair Michael: Should resumption of the PC zoning applications only precede after revision of the 4 ordinance? And then no? So that’s 3-3 with Commissioner Alcheck particularly enthusiastic. 5 6 STRAW POLL #2 RESULT (3-3) 7 8 Chair Michael: Yes? 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: Would it be ok if you asked the ancillary question, which is would you support 11 both processes happening at the same time? The revision process so that there isn’t, you understand? 12 13 Chair Michael: Ok. Third subpart (interrupted) 14 15 Commissioner Tanaka: Wait, can I ask a quick question? So on the last vote there were seven people 16 voting. How can it be 3-3? 17 18 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you. 19 20 Chair Michael: Oh, I miscounted. 21 22 Commissioner King: And comparably wasn’t the previous vote shouldn’t there have been six total and I 23 think we came up with five total. 24 25 Chair Michael: There was one abstention. 26 27 Commissioner Tanaka: I think last vote was (interrupted) 28 29 Commissioner King: Seven (unintelligible) 30 31 RECOUNT OF STRAW POLLS #1 AND #2 AND STRAW POLL #3 32 33 Chair Michael: Ok, let’s recount. So I’m new to the straw polling, I apologize. So we’re going to have 34 three subparts: resumption of PC zoning promptly, resumption of PC zoning only after revision of the 35 ordinance, or resumption of PC zoning process in parallel with updating the ordinance. And how about 36 you just vote for your favorite? Ok. So how many people just want to resume the PC zoning process 37 irrespective of revision? Ok, two. How many people would wait to resume PC zoning until after the 38 ordinance has been revised? Three. Would anybody want to have PC zoning process resume 39 immediately, but in parallel with updating the ordinance? Two… three. Ok. It was three. Ok. 40 41 STRAW POLL RESULT (#1, 2 Commissioners for, #2, 2 Commissioners for, and #3, 3 Commissioners for) 42 43 Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, Commissioner Tanaka you changed your vote from which, number one or 44 number two? 45 46 Chair Michael: Ok. 47 48 Commissioner Tanaka: Unintelligible – off microphone 49 50 Ms. Gitelman: Then the second one. 51 52 Chair Michael: Ok, so I’m just going to take the liberty of trying to characterize what I’m hearing and that 53 is that the Commission is sensing that there’s value to the PC zoning process, there’s also value to 54 updating the ordinance, but it’s of sufficient importance that it be done with alacrity. That we get back 55 into the business of processing these applications. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry Chair Michael can I characterize that a little differently? You know this is a split 2 Commission: two, two, and three. Would it be fair to say that the Commission as a whole believes this is 3 a very valuable process that the majority of the Commission believes that PC, use of the PC process 4 should resume either in parallel or subsequent to reforms? 5 6 Chair Michael: Yes. 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: Or is that… 9 10 Chair Michael: Yes. And I would just say that if the reforms were to be particularly protracted then there 11 would be bias towards resuming it. I think if it took as long to reform the PC ordinance as it takes to 12 update the Comprehensive Plan we should get on with it more quickly than that. Commissioner 13 Rosenblum. 14 15 Commissioner Rosenblum: I’m not sure I agree with the interpretation. I think the second vote, I’m in 16 the minority on this, but I think that the majority is saying let’s get on with it. There are only two people, 17 myself and Vice-Chair saying let’s wait and reform. There’s two versions, there’s one that says get on 18 with it no matter what happens and the other get on with it and begin this reform process. So either 19 way the majority is get on with it I think. Is my interpretation it’s not a split some people say get on with 20 it, some people don’t. I think it’s the majority was to so I would say you said two, two, and three or 21 something like that, but it’s two of the options were overlapped on to get on with it. 22 23 Chair Michael: So I think we’re cutting with a dull blade here, but I think that there’s a just in trying to 24 understand what our thinking is I think that we’ve been impressed with the work of the staff to go back 25 and look at the data to the extent that we have public comment there seems to be some recognition of 26 PC zoning has been used beneficially in the past and it would be beneficial to the public if it was resumed 27 and the ordinance needs some work. Vice-Chair Keller. 28 29 Vice-Chair Keller: I think that it depends on how long the PC process revision ordinance takes. The 30 ordinance revision takes. It’s not going to take the six or seven years that we’ve been revising the Comp 31 Plan. It’s an ordinance and an ordinance should take at most a few more months in terms of that 32 process. 33 34 Secondly, I think that there are particular considerations in terms of things like what are public benefits 35 and how to quantify public benefits and in fact exactly what the scope of PC’s are that in my mind arbor 36 for not resuming PC’s before doing the ordinance or you may get to a situation of the PC’s that happen in 37 the process while the ordinance is being revised and whether they have to change. So I think that the 38 expediency of resuming PC’s prior to reforming the ordinance is problematic at best and gets into various 39 issues of grandfathering of the ones in process. So I think that’s fundamentally a bad idea even though 40 I’m in the minority. 41 42 STRAW POLL #4 43 44 Chair Michael: So I think we’re going to get from Commissioner Alcheck a few more questions for straw 45 polling, but let me go to the next area and that is to the extent that effort is going to be made by staff 46 and others to look at revisions to the ordinance this goes to what should go into the revisions. And the 47 first one I expect should there be a definition of public benefit? And let’s just vote on that. Should there 48 be a benefit, a definition of public benefit in the revised ordinance? Any votes no or abstaining? 49 50 Commissioner Rosenblum: I have to abstain. I have a hard time codifying it, but I’m not… 51 52 Chair Michael: Ok, so six in favor of having a definition of public benefit and one abstention. 53 54 STRAW POLL #4 RESULT (6-0-1) 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 14 STRAW POLL #5 1 2 Chair Michael: Another is should in the revised ordinance there be included a menu of allowable public 3 benefits? Ok. So opposed? Abstaining? So that’s two, two, two. Yeah, so we had 2-2-2 and then one 4 person didn’t vote; 2-2-2 and 1. So we we’re probably expressing some consternation about what the 5 menu would look like, so that probably is an area that needs more work before we could endorse the 6 direction that we don’t understand where it would go. Sure. 7 8 STRAW POLL #5 RESULT (2-2-2) 9 10 Vice-Chair Keller: I think for me the reason I abstained is because the scope of the PC’s to me effects 11 what the public benefit menu is. If the scope of the PC is as I recommended be BMR, senior housing, or 12 PC amendments or public projects then it’s clear that we could define a scope of what the public benefits 13 are and we’d understand them on a standard menu of that. On the other hand if we have a broader 14 scope of the public, of the, what the PC zone applies to then I have more heartburn as to the ability to 15 create a menu of public benefits. 16 17 STRAW POLL #6 18 19 Chair Michael: Ok, so the menu idea may be more problematic. Although definition may be something 20 that we are more excited about. Then question should in the revision of the ordinance there be some 21 requirement for independent economic analysis or pro forma disclosure by the applicant? Unanimous. 22 23 STRAW POLL #6 RESULT (7-0) 24 25 Commissioner King: If I can just make a comment? Again there if it were, if it’s a nonprofit somebody 26 developing BMR housing and it’s a nonprofit I’m not really concerned about the pro forma because 27 there’s no one making a profit so that one’s a little tricky for me. I voted for it, but that’s going to be 28 tricky. 29 30 Chair Michael: Ok. So in the work that was done by Commissioner Alcheck and Chair Martinez and 31 myself, one of the concepts that we discussed in the colleagues memo was the difference between public 32 benefit, which was in the nature of the project itself we referred to it as an intrinsic public benefit. 33 Maybe that would be BMR housing or senior housing or public plaza or something like that, public art. Or 34 something that was extrinsic maybe improvement of the traffic signal four to eight blocks away or 35 payment into a parking fund or something. And I think that the relevance of the economic analysis pro 36 forma disclosure probably bears primarily where you’re unable to find an intrinsic public benefit to the 37 nature of the project itself and you have to look for there’s actually economic value being created in the 38 up zoning and you ought to pay for it and if so, how much? But anyway let’s kind of… Vice-Chair Keller. 39 40 Vice-Chair Keller: So even for the process of affordable housing development there may be a situation in 41 which an economic analysis is worthwhile. And although I don’t, I’m loathe to take this as an example, 42 but if you look at the Maybell project part of the issue there was how many market rate units were 43 needed to pencil out the project. And to the extent that we had more exposure to those numbers I think 44 that that may have affected the outcome of the PC process and may have affected the outcome of the 45 election. So I think that the fact that the numbers were not transparent made it hard for the Palo Alto 46 Housing Corporation (PAHC) to make their case adequately and also hard for us to really understand how 47 many market rate housing units were really needed to pencil that out. 48 49 STRAW POLL #7 50 51 Chair Michael: Ok. Thanks Vice-Chair Keller. The next question I have is process. Now here the 52 ordinance specifically calls for the PC zoning to be initiated by the PTC. The practice in recent years has 53 been for something to happen prior to that, which is referred to as preliminary review by Council or what 54 Vice-Chair Keller is suggesting might be more elegantly done as a study session by Council and then the 55 Planning Commission initiates; however, I’m not sure whether the semantics of this are clear if the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Council is having a preliminary study session are they in fact initiating? Which I’m totally comfortable 1 with the Council initiating the zoning change and then sending it to the ARB and the PTC for work on the 2 details, but if the PTC is currently required to initiate that seems to me not the current practice. So my 3 question is should the ordinance be revised to provide for initiation by Council? Should the ordinance be 4 revised so that a PC zoning is initiated by Council? So two people want to clarify the question. 5 Commissioner Gardias. 6 7 Commissioner Gardias: I mean it’s like in some other in the other case, it depends. Like my perspective 8 was different from this, this side that if we have a clear process then Council might not need this interest 9 of course we would need to discuss this with Council. It’s not going to be our decision. Or there could 10 be also some projects that would be going beyond where the scale to go beyond the ordinance. So the 11 answer would be depends, right? If we have a clear process then maybe there would not be a need for 12 it. If there is some heavy outlier then of course yes. 13 14 Chair Michael: Ok. Vice-Chair Keller. 15 16 Vice-Chair Keller: So firstly with 101 Lytton there was a preliminary review by Council followed by an 17 initiation by the Commission. And I think that the initiation by Commission perhaps went on for several 18 meetings and I think that that was a more reasonable process than what happened on Alma Plaza or 19 Alma Village, where the Commission declined to initiate the project and Council initiated the project as an 20 ordinance that locked things into place. And I think that in this particular situation I don’t know anybody 21 who likes the result of the Alma Village approach. So I think that there is an advantage to having the 22 Planning Commission review it even before initiation and in particular my understanding is on 101 Lytton 23 that was a study session. It was not, preliminary reviews are study sessions they are not agendized as 24 an action item. Maybe staff could clarify that for us? 25 26 Ms. Silver: Yes, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. Study sessions do not initiate PC’s; however, I 27 think that in the recent history the Council and the applicant has requested a study session with the 28 Council not to technically initiate the PC, but to get a sense of whether it was worth going through the 29 very long lengthy process and whether Council was open to a PC. Get some initial feedback. 30 31 Chair Michael: Yes, so the vote would be to the extent that the ordinance now states explicitly that the 32 PC is initiated by PTC is any change needed to this part of the ordinance? For example, it could be 33 changed so that the PTC is initiated by Council or it could be changed (interrupted) the PC is initiated by 34 Council or is that prior to initiation by the PTC that there would be a preliminary study session review by 35 Council. But another, should the ordinance be revised to clarify exactly what the role of Council is at the 36 beginning of the process? 37 38 Vice-Chair Keller: I’m not sure if I understand your question. Can I offer an alternative? 39 40 Chair Michael: Ok, let me before Vice-Chair Keller sort of clarifies my question, my question is coming 41 from the fact that as I sort of experience this, these few process projects that have been on our agenda 42 in the last couple of years that the role of the PTC has not been as provided in the ordinance in terms of 43 having the formal initiation of the Council because something happens before and what happens before 44 is very weighty. It really determines kind of the viability or the nature or the conditions or the 45 parameters of the project and we have essentially sort of ratified what was done before we initiated. So 46 I think for me that’s tantamount to the Council initiating the PC, which is perfectly ok, but I think that 47 that would to me to be with my legal background appropriate to revise the ordinance to say Council 48 initiates. So Vice-Chair Keller is going to kind of clarify my thinking. 49 50 Vice-Chair Keller: So firstly the formal action of the Planning Commission to initiate a PC is qualitatively 51 different than the Council initiating a PC without the Commission review or analysis. So those are 52 qualitatively different. If the Council initiates the PC then the Planning Commission has no role except to 53 review it on the way back and I think that’s completely inappropriate, but I think it seems to me that 54 there are really three alternatives. One alternative is to have the current process where the Council 55 optionally does a study session where the Planning Commission initiates the PC and if it declines to then 56 City of Palo Alto Page 16 the Council has the option to initiate the PC or send it back and say no and that’s one option. The 1 second option is to have the Council initiate the PC and the Planning Commission role relegated to review 2 it on the way back and not have any comments to it on the initial process. And the third thing, which is a 3 variation of the first one if you will, is to not have the Council do a study session in advance. And I’m 4 actually not going to suggest that because I don’t think we can prohibit the Council from doing a study 5 session in advance. That may happen instead. 6 7 So the issue really is do we have the current process where the Planning Commission does the formal 8 initiation after preliminary review by… potential optional preliminary review by Council or do we remove 9 the Planning Commission’s role entirely from that initiation process and have the Council initiate it with 10 the risk that we may get an Alma Plaza process occur? 11 12 Chair Michael: So I think Vice-Chair Keller’s comments are well taken and certainly well informed. And I 13 think just to simplify this we’re not going to do the revision of the ordinance on the fly. That would not 14 be within our competency. The question is simply whether that particular section of the ordinance that 15 refers to initiation by the PTC be clarified in some respect to reflect the actual process that the City 16 should follow. And so this is a vote on whether that should be clarified. 17 18 Vice-Chair Keller: Clarified how? 19 20 Chair Michael: In some way. We’re not going to… it’s too complicated for us to kind of work though that 21 without more caffeine. 22 23 RESTATED STRAW POLL #7 AND STRAW POLL #8 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: Chair? Maybe I can be… maybe it’s because I have two really young children, but 26 I think I can be of assistance here. This is going to be a little more, just allow me a minute. Show of 27 hands, who would support a process that was initiated so… a PC process that must be initiated by Council 28 first? Ok, no show of hands. Who would support a process that would be initiated by PTC before Council 29 was involved? That’s the current, well it sort of is and it sort of isn’t (interrupted) 30 31 Chair Michael: It’s the current ordinance. 32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: I think that was four hands. Four individuals represented that they would prefer 34 the process be initiated by PTC rather than Council. I could go on with more questions. 35 36 STRAW POLL RESULT (#7, 0 for, #8, 4 for) 37 38 Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias. 39 40 STRAW POLL #9 41 42 Commissioner Gardias: It’s just an addition to this; I just believe that the role of Council is to be clarified. 43 Not necessarily this particular paragraph that’s currently in the ordinance, but definitely we need to clarify 44 Council’s role in defining or dictating public benefits. Which would be pretty much separation of duties 45 and this is something that Commissioner Alcheck before talk about. So one way or the other there would 46 have to be some change in the ordinance that would redefine the role of Council in the process. 47 48 Chair Michael: I think we can take a vote on that. How many in favor of the proposition from 49 Commissioner Gardias to clarify the role of Council in the process? Ok, that seems to be unanimous. 50 51 STRAW POLL #9 RESULT (7-0) 52 53 STRAW POLL #10 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Michael: So the next question and I don’t know if we can get into sort of subparts, but I think 1 broadly the ordinance should be revised to provide a reasonable enforcement mechanism with potentially 2 alternative ways of enforcement and monitoring. Vice-Chair Keller. 3 4 Vice-Chair Keller: No, no. I thought you were asking (interrupted) 5 6 Chair Michael: Oh, ok. Vote. All in favor of an enforcement mechanism as I said? Any opposed? No, 7 that’s unanimous. 8 9 STRAW POLL #10 RESULT (7-0) 10 11 Chair Michael: Ok. 12 13 Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, was that 6-1 or 7? 14 15 Chair Michael: 7-0. 16 17 Ms. Gitelman: 7-0. Thank you. 18 19 Chair Michael: Ok. So that’s enforcement and monitoring and we didn’t get into the specifics of how you 20 would enforce that. Commissioner Gardias. 21 22 Commissioner Gardias: I know that it just adds to the time that we’re spending on this, but in terms of 23 the enforcement, I had a thought about this. So enforcement yes, but of course the question is in what 24 way, right? So from perspective of Palo Alto and also the agreement it may be wise just to structure the 25 agreement so no enforcement will be necessary because of course it would be costly. So if we were 26 going to get to the details my perspective would be just to minimize or some structure the agreement for 27 the public benefit so that pretty much it’s just a one-time benefit that doesn’t need the enforcement 28 down the road. Thank you. 29 30 STRAW POLL #11 31 32 Chair Michael: Ok. I think there’s some complexity to this, but it’s probably a topic of more work and 33 further discussion. The next item as we focused on PC zoning one of the things that we’ve considered is 34 to achieve the same objectives I think this was in the staff report sometimes other communities use 35 development agreements or they may use development agreements and/or PC zoning not necessarily 36 one or the other. And the question is whether Palo Alto should consider increasing the use of 37 development agreements where appropriate? All in favor? Ok, any opposed? Any abstaining? Ok. So 38 four in favor and three abstaining on the basis of we haven’t had sufficient airing of what a development 39 agreement entails and what does that, what are the consequences of that or what are the pros and cons. 40 Commissioner Gardias. 41 42 STRAW POLL #11 RESULT (4-0-3) 43 44 Commissioner Gardias: I’m sorry Chair for just taking another time. I mean this is just for this vote; I 45 just want to be clear just it’s not for the sake of just increasing the number of the development 46 agreements. If we established a process that would allow us just to cut down on the number of the 47 development agreements that would be my preference. 48 49 Chair Michael: Well, as far as I understand in recent years the number of applications for PC zoning is 50 been rare. So in some cases somebody might where they couldn’t proceed under existing zoning to 51 complete their project or that they wouldn’t be able to provide public benefit under the existing zoning, 52 but if the PC zoning itself was an inappropriate mechanism should they or could they propose a 53 development agreement instead? I think that’s, I think the answer is if we understood more clearly what 54 a development agreement would entail we think it would be a useful tool to allow flexibility for Palo Alto 55 City of Palo Alto Page 18 in certain situations where the PC zoning is sort of a catch all that isn’t necessarily perfect. Vice-Chair 1 Keller. 2 3 Vice-Chair Keller: Firstly I think that if we were to use development agreements more frequently the two 4 development agreements we’ve had in the recent past are involving the Stanford Mayfield Playing Fields 5 and Stanford Medical Center Expansion. So if we were to go beyond and have more development 6 agreements then we would need a development agreement ordinance that would have further 7 description of that, but my understanding of State law and I realize I’m not a lawyer is that we have 8 more flexibility in terms of what we can require with respect to a development agreement than we may 9 be able to do it in PC’s. 10 11 Chair Michael: So noted. And then well let’s see… I’m going to give Commissioner Alcheck’s questions 12 back to Commissioner Alcheck. Here. 13 14 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so we’ve had a lot of time to think about this. This is not, don’t feel scared to 15 vote on this alright? Just some quick questions, show of hands. Would you support a process that didn’t 16 treat every exception the same? I’ll rephrase. Would you support a process that treated exceeding 17 height differently than exceeding density? Or would you, if you don’t raise your hand then you’re 18 suggesting in this question that you would support a process that treated each exception to our zoning 19 code the same. Meaning would you support a process where exceeding a certain limitation, certain 20 limitations would be required greater public benefit than other? Alright, I’ll just keep going. Let me go 21 through more questions. Should the City Council be the sole determining party of what a public benefit 22 is? 23 24 Chair Michael: So I think the charge of the Planning Commission is advisory body recommending to the 25 Council the Council. 26 27 Commissioner Alcheck: Right. 28 29 Chair Michael: So I think not sole but ultimate. 30 31 Commissioner Alcheck: Ultimate. 32 33 Chair Michael: Ok. 34 35 STRAW POLL #12 36 37 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, there was no show of hands there. Is there any, are there members of the 38 Commission that would support a PC process that included a payment towards the development of a 39 public benefit? Four? Four hands? Ok. 40 41 STRAW POLL #12 RESULT (4 for) 42 43 STRAW POLL #13 44 45 Commissioner Alcheck: Another question along the lines of how long a public benefit should be enforced, 46 would you support a process that required the enforcement of a public benefit for the lifetime of the 47 development? Would you support a process… that’s five. 48 49 Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, we didn’t get the vote on… 50 51 Commissioner Alcheck: It’s five. Five hands supported that. 52 53 Ms. Gitelman: Ok, public benefit life of project. 54 55 STRAW POLL #13 RESULT (5 for) 56 City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 STRAW POLL #14 2 3 Commissioner Alcheck: Would you support a process where enforcement was 30 years, but not more 4 than 30 years? Ok, that’s two hands. 5 6 STRAW POLL #14 RESULT (2 for) 7 8 STRAW POLL #15 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: Would you support a process where enforcement, the enforcement of the public 11 benefit was only 20 years? Ok, no hands. 12 13 STRAW POLL #15 RESULT (0 for) 14 15 STRAW POLL #16 AND #17 16 17 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m just two, one more. Should the, would you… I’ll ask two questions. Should a 18 PC be allowed everywhere in the City? If you wouldn’t, ok the alternative would be would you support a 19 PC process that was limited to certain physical zones of the City? Ok so there was two that supported 20 anywhere in the City, four that support some physical limitation to the location of the PC process. That’s 21 all I have right now. 22 23 STRAW POLL RESULT (#16, 2 for, #17, 4 for) 24 25 STRAW POLL #18 26 27 Chair Michael: So the final question I had which I held back on but was directly following Commissioner 28 Alcheck’s last question was that PC zone should be considered where, only where relevant to high level 29 policies in the Comp Plan including specific plans or precise plans for particular districts. So I’m saying 30 that where now the ordinance says that the PC zone should be consistent with the Comp Plan I’m saying 31 that the Comp Plan should be more proscriptive and layout the intention of the City where PC zones 32 would be encouraged and particularly through the use of specific plans and precise plans. Yes, Vice-33 Chair Keller. 34 35 Vice-Chair Keller: I think that precise plans and specific plans are an alternative to PC zoning and that 36 precise plans or specific plans are those that specify what more detail analysis of the zoning should be. 37 Think about SOFA 2, it basically had its own set of zoning rules that applied to the different parcels in 38 there and therefore PC’s would become superfluous because it would be unnecessary to do in a zone 39 where you had that, area where you had the precise plan. So it’s an alternative not an and. 40 41 Chair Michael: Well I’m, it’s possible. You may know more about this than I do, but I suspect that let’s 42 say you have a California Avenue Area Concept Plan or a Downtown Precise Plan and you do the zoning 43 update and then something comes along and it doesn’t fit. And somebody says well we’d like to do this 44 land use, but it just doesn’t fit the existing zoning even though you’ve got the concept area plan or even 45 if you got the precise plan so we’d like to propose it because it would be, would confer public benefit 46 even though when the zoning update was done it didn’t allow it exactly. So I don’t totally accept the 47 logic of your practical advice. Go ahead. 48 49 Vice-Chair Keller: There’s a difference between a precise plan and a concept area plan. A concept area 50 plan does not do parcel by parcel analysis in detail and as for example SOFA 1 and SOFA 2 did. So if you 51 subtract out concept area plans, which are a whole other beast if you think about precise plans for 52 example if you look at the precise plan that is being done at San Antonio Shopping Center, ok? That’s 53 looking at that parcel and looking at the detailed analysis of what you want in there. That’s an 54 alternative to a PC. You don’t need a PC there because that’s supplying what you’re going to do there. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 20 It’s a design. If we have a precise plan for Fry’s we don’t need a PC there. The Fry’s site will actually 1 detail design what we want. 2 3 Chair Michael: Ok, let me try to rephrase my question. 4 5 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, Chair Michael maybe I could make a suggestion? I think you’re suggesting 6 something that builds off the last question which is that PC’s should only happen where the Comp Plan 7 says it’s ok whether it’s through a policy in the Comp Plan or a concept area plan that’s within the Comp 8 Plan. Is that where you’re in? 9 10 Chair Michael: Yeah, it’s pretty much, yeah. 11 12 Ms. Gitelman: Ok. 13 14 Chair Michael: So let’s vote again. Director Gitelman’s insight. All in favor? So there was four in favor 15 and three no votes. 16 17 Vice-Chair Keller: You want to see if the no votes were abstain or no? 18 19 Chair Michael: Nah. 20 21 STRAW POLL #18 RESULT (4-3) 22 23 Chair Michael: So let’s have a final round. So we did the straw voting, it was a little chaotic, but hopefully 24 it was useful in terms of seeing where we had a split of views. That’s true, but let’s have everybody have 25 a chance to make any final comments that they want and this is a really important topic and let’s give 26 everybody five minutes. Director Gitelman. 27 28 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, Chair Michael there’s one particular thing that would be helpful. I think when it 29 came to the discussion of should there be a menu of public benefits there were at least a few 30 Commissioners who said it depends. And so if the Commissioners in their final comments could those of 31 them who thought it depended could clarify their views on that it would be very helpful. 32 33 Chair Michael: Ok. So each Commissioner can use their five minutes however they would like and Vice-34 Chair Keller would like to ask some straw polling questions in his time. Who wants to go first? 35 Commissioner Rosenblum. 36 37 Commissioner Rosenblum: I thought this was a pretty useful exercise so thanks for doing it. I am glad 38 you asked the question about the menus so I want to address a couple of votes quickly and my vote I 39 abstained on the first and said no to the menu. The first was should there be a definition at all. I’ve 40 been thinking about in the colleagues memo there was a lot of time spent around the definition of public 41 benefit and so I looked at some other examples of this. I think it’s super hard. When I looked at the list 42 of, when I look at the list of projects especially the ones that I consider “good projects” what I realize is 43 very subjective it would have been very hard for me to write a public benefit menu or even definition that 44 would have encompassed those. So I’m suspicious of like the Napoleonic Code of public benefits and us 45 getting everything down. I think it’s tough and I think it’s going to be putting a, painting us into a 46 corner, but I’ll defer to those who know more about this, but I’m suspicious. 47 48 Then in terms of the vote around some specific policy recommendations so Commissioner Alcheck asked 49 a series of questions, would you support this for 20 years or 30 years. I think there’s a series of 50 questions that won’t in a different forum might, we might come to a better answer when we’re actually 51 drafting policy. I think it’s hard in this forum. Like after I abstained on 20 on 30 years and then I 52 thought well maybe the lifetime of a project projects go on for a long time. Do we really want to force a 53 project that is now in its 50th year are we going to check to see if that parking space that needs to now 54 accommodate hover cars is now working? But no, in all seriousness it’s probably some min length and 55 max length of project enforcement after, but I don’t think that we can really contemplate those things in 56 City of Palo Alto Page 21 this kind of straw poll setting. But I think there are probably a list of those things that would simplify 1 drafting. So I wanted to clarify a couple of answers on so there are some things that some of us might 2 have voted no because we oppose and some things to abstain because we just probably need more 3 information on, but doesn’t indicate lack of enthusiasm. In particular some of the policy strictures very 4 specific questions that Commissioner Alcheck were asking I think are really important ones that could 5 probably be answered, but would need a little bit of staff input to be able to say do we enforce for 20 6 years or 30 years or the length of the project no matter how far it goes. And those are the only clarifying 7 things I wanted to put for this process. 8 9 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 10 11 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, this is, I always think the straw polls are borderline insanity because it’s very 12 difficult to actually accomplish an effective straw poll in this format, but I applaud the effort. I too want 13 to sort of echo Commissioner Rosenblum’s comment about the public benefit. I participated in the memo 14 and I at the time felt very strongly that the failure to define it was a problem. I’m now beginning to 15 believe that the failure to define it is actually an opportunity for the public benefit to evolve. I think 16 public benefits should be evaluated on a case by case basis. I think that the community in the worst 17 case scenario always has a referendum if they feel like we’ve exceeded our authority and ultimately this 18 goes kind of hand in hand with the enforcement. 19 20 I actually think enforcement should be a case by case basis. This notion that for example a child daycare 21 center is for example a public benefit that’s a specific use; 10, 20 years from now maybe that use is not 22 really as beneficial to the public and maybe that enforcement would be in that case limited. We have 23 these uses that are public benefits take for example the idea of what did we call the development, 24 Arrillaga proposal? What was that referred to as? 27 University. Let’s say the public benefit there was 25 supposed to be a theatre. That’s not necessarily a public benefit just for the immediately surrounding 26 local community, that’s a public benefit for the greater Bay Area. And I would argue that on a case by 27 case basis we should be evaluating how those public benefits sort of weigh. Does a public benefit 28 enhance the image and pride of Palo Alto? Or does a public benefit provide a park for the 1,500 feet of 29 residents that surround it? I think there’s opportunity in the lack of a definition. Let me just put it that 30 way. 31 32 I would support a process that was exclusively initiated by the City Council. I’ll repeat that. I would 33 support a process that was exclusively initiated by City Council. I think that if they weighed in it would 34 give the developers of these projects a lot more of a comfortable process because they would know sort 35 of what the expectations of the City Council was prior to their beginning of the process. So say for 36 example the City Council said to them we generally support this type of project and this benefit, but we 37 would really want X, Y, and Z. We’d want the public to support it and so the developer could kind of 38 determine whether or not it’s worth continuing as he’s in the process if he’s going to meet those goals 39 that they’re going to be held accountable to. And frankly I don’t think that would be a problem or 40 inappropriate. 41 42 I want to say that I’m not sure and you quoted it, you stated here that public… can a public benefit be a 43 menu or should be objective, can a public benefit be an infrastructure that the community won’t that 44 doesn’t, isn’t willing to develop on their own, you wrote, “A public benefit should not be an infrastructure 45 project.” I’m not sure I feel that way. I think that if a particular project came forward and the 46 suggestion was that they would either spend a certain amount of capital in helping us provide a really 47 important need for the community infrastructure wise I think I would be supportive of that sort of PC 48 process. Again this sort of goes back to the City Council. 49 50 I think the idea of providing a great deal of flexibility for this one or two projects a year process is good 51 because our notion of what a benefit is evolves over time specifically when it’s use related. Right now 52 senior housing, BMR housing that’s regardless of whether the State or City requires it of certain 53 developments we’re still not producing it enough and so maybe we feel that that is a benefit that, a 54 greater public benefit that we should be accomplishing or childcare facility or a grocery store. And if in 55 City of Palo Alto Page 22 30 years everybody’s ordering groceries online maybe the enforcement of that use isn’t necessary. So 1 I’m kind of going back to that one real quick. 2 3 Finally, I think one of the main problems I have with the PC process is that when you start it you just 4 don’t know where the end zone is, right? I haven’t actually started one myself and I don’t intend to, but 5 it just seems so unclear and I think that’s why I would support a process initiated by City Council that 6 had a little bit more of a rubric laid out upfront of what roles should be so that we as a Planning 7 Commission participated in the process as the role of the body that helped guide the applicant to satisfy 8 those goals that let’s say the City Council identified early on. Ok, that’s it. 9 10 Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 11 12 Commissioner King: Thank you. Let’s see, regarding your question about menus I think menus are 13 probably a good tool and appropriate for when we talked about them for the density bonus and have 14 limited it to that, but I think for the PC, the goal of the PC is flexibility and that I agree that we really 15 need the case by case, the capacity to determine benefits on a case by case basis. And for me it’s 16 important that those benefits are related to the project or its impacts and I think when we were doing 17 the straw polls a lot of these things we sort of vaguely all agree on the things we voted on earlier 18 generally depend, you know, what if’s, but I think if you were trying to find things that will actually divide 19 us I think one of the things we’re on different ends of the spectrum or potentially or along the spectrum 20 are do we want to use PC’s as a tool for… how did I write it down? For the sole purpose of exceeding 21 zoning to increase the project value and profits in exchange for some payment that the City will use for 22 an unrelated public benefit. And so I would propose that that would be a good straw poll because we’ve 23 talked about that and not getting some of these things both ends of the spectrum I think came out in 24 these bullet points in the staff report so that might be a good straw poll. I’ll leave it to Chair if he wants 25 to implement that. 26 27 And then the other thing just the example of the childcare center enforcement and will that childcare 28 center why should we monitor that? Well in that case, that specific case I believe the applicant wanted 29 that childcare center and so it wasn’t, we weren’t requiring it. If at the initial point of a PC project any 30 public benefit was a childcare center then I don’t know why we wouldn’t enforce for whatever we 31 determined the period. In my opinion that’s the length of the project that that public benefit still exists. 32 I think the example last meeting had been a playground that as part of a Homeowner’s Association 33 (HOA) I think had been taken out and that had been an initial public benefit. 34 35 And then lastly and just to show the spectrum across we all exist regarding the image and pride as a 36 public benefit I’m pretty sure Palo Alto has never been accused of having a low self-image so for me 37 personally I would not, I do not consider that a public benefit. In fact that was one of the things with 38 and I don’t know if this is an actual quote, it may be one of those things that Mark Twain never said it, 39 but the building is the benefit. I’m not a believer that in general the buildings are a benefit. If you want 40 to, if somebody brings a proposal for the Space Needle in Palo Alto maybe as a tourist attraction then I 41 will rethink that, but if it’s strictly a building exceeding existing zoning for its beauty and our self-image 42 and pride I personally would not support that. 43 44 Chair Michael: So if the Space Needle were in Palo Alto it would be 35 feet high. But if you wanted to ask 45 a straw poll question, go ahead. 46 47 STRAW POLL #19 48 49 Commissioner King: Ok. Ok, do we want to allow the PC process or a replacement process for the sole 50 purpose or is a use of the PC process or a replacement process the sole purpose, can it be, I didn’t 51 phrase that very well. I’ll come back and rephrase that: the sole purpose of exceeding zoning to increase 52 project value and profits in exchange for a payment from the developer to a public benefit wholly 53 unrelated to the project itself? 54 55 Chair Michael: So yes or no on this one. So? 56 City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 Commissioner King: So. 2 3 Chair Michael: So how many think yes and how many think no? So. 4 5 Commissioner King: So yes would be yes, we allow, we want to allow a payment wholly unrelated that 6 goes to a public benefit wholly unrelated to the project in exchange for exceeding zoning. 7 8 Vice-Chair Keller: Can I suggest a rewording? 9 10 Commissioner King: I would entertain that. 11 12 Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, here’s my suggestion. Do we want to allow the PC process to be used for a 13 project that has no intrinsic benefit, but for the payment of a sum of money to the City for some 14 unrelated cause? 15 16 Commissioner King: Yes, that sounds fine. Commissioner Tanaka? 17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: So are you saying that it’s automatic approval or are you saying that we still will 19 review it? We would still consider, we would consider it but it’s not automatic approval? Correct? Ok. 20 21 Chair Michael: So? 22 23 RESTATED STRAW POLL #19 24 25 Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, so the question is: would we consider use of a PC zone for a project with no 26 intrinsic benefit except for the payment of sums of money for other unrelated City purposes? 27 28 Commissioner King: And before we say it should we also add in PC or development agreement because 29 really that’s, we’re talking about an alternate (interrupted) 30 31 Vice-Chair Keller: That’s why I said PC related process. 32 33 Commissioner King: Ok. Ok. I’m voting yes. 34 35 Chair Michael: And then no? Alright. That’s the vote. So two in favor and five opposed. Commissioner 36 Gardias. 37 38 STRAW POLL #19 RESULT (2-5) 39 40 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Chair. So just coming back to the initial question from Director 41 Gitelman about the benefits. That’s how we started. Let me start with definitions, I think that an 42 improved ordinance should have definitions that a lack thereof is the problems that we are facing. But 43 then we have to make a distinction between the definition in the ordinance and then defining specific 44 benefits. I think that definition of the benefits, public benefits should be in the ordinance, but the body 45 that would be defining benefits should be City Council. So that’s if we make these distinctions this would 46 be clear. We’re not going to just put details in the ordinance, we can just put the robust definition about 47 this what this is about, limit ourselves to certain purpose that would be clear for the public but would 48 allow the true elected body to point what really City wants. So that’s from the perspective of the public 49 benefit. 50 51 And then we can just of course just talk about as I talk about that this would be that this would be public 52 benefit that was not going to be related to the project, to the commercial side of the project. I also 53 thought that such a definition would talk about that public benefit is a market, is a benefit that is 54 unattainable under local market conditions and local housing, I’m sorry, public housing or low income 55 City of Palo Alto Page 24 housing rather is one of those benefits that they are not attainable under current local market conditions. 1 So that’s just an example. 2 3 Going back to the definitions I think that when we talk about different aspects, that in the ordinance 4 there should be also the definition of the zoning benefit. We have a beneficial, my apologies I think it’s 5 getting late. I think we have a definition of the public benefit we should also have a benefit of the 6 zoning, which would be for the developer and then this definition would just allow the developer to see 7 what he may get in exchange, which would be probably Floor Area Ratio (FAR), increasing height, maybe 8 zoning setback and some other aspects. They should be listed clearly in the ordinance. Thank you. 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: Excuse me, if I could clarify? I mean this wasn’t a point that I think that came up at our 11 last session and I want to make sure I understand. You’re saying that the ordinance should define the 12 extent of the variance from the underlying zoning standards that should be allowed. So there should be 13 a max like if you’re asking for increased density there should be a maximum you could ask for. Is that 14 what you’re saying? 15 16 Commissioner Gardias: Well, I’m saying that developers should know what benefits he would be allowed 17 to have in exchange for his providing public benefits and I think that from the perspective of developers 18 benefits this is pretty much just going over FAR for the given zoning. Going over height it would be 19 another. So those would be, those exceptions should be listed. If you talk about the limit on those that’s 20 another side of the story, I think that part of this definition or part of the ordinance would be some sort 21 of sliding scale that would show the developer or applicant to calculate that if he goes that much over the 22 limit then he can contribute this much to the public benefit. And the farther he goes away from the 23 mean then of course less he gets. That’s the purpose of the sliding scale. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 26 27 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so one reason why I didn’t support the idea of having a menu is mainly 28 because of what some of the Commissioners said, which is that I think by definition a PC is an exception. 29 If it fit the Comp Plan and met all the zoning rules it wouldn’t be a PC. It would be just approved without 30 our purview. And so I think by having a menu it’s saying that you could predict what the exceptions are 31 going to be, which if you could then it would be in the Comp Plan already. So I think it’s kind of a tough 32 thing to have a menu just because it is by nature an exception. 33 34 In regards to who should initiate one reason why I think it still should be the PTC that initiates versus the 35 City Council is because I think the City Council by its role has many more responsibilities than we do. We 36 focus very much on planning and transportation issues. And I think I know one of our functions we are a 37 recommending body I think one of our key functions is actually to help screen things for City Council to 38 actually look at the crazy ideas and help shape them into something that’s not so crazy or something 39 more useful. And I think if I look at the City Council members they’re incredibly busy doing a lot of 40 different things beyond just these kinds of issues. So I think it would be derelict for us to say well, we’ll 41 just have them do that because I think the reason why we’re here is actually to do some of that vetting 42 for them. And I think the nature of these PC zones are very much are experiments and we’re going to 43 see things that are kind of on the edge of things and they need to be explored and I think rather than 44 using valuable City Council time us as appointees should do some of the footwork for them so that we 45 could do, so that they could review better vetted projects versus using valuable City Council time on 46 things that are half baked. 47 48 And I think one thing that I heard from just about everyone is I think everyone pretty much agrees about 49 enforcement. I mean I think how you enforce, how much you enforce I think probably has to be a case 50 by case basis, but I think it has to be fair alright? Otherwise it doesn’t make sense that you have public 51 benefits that just disappear after a few years. 52 53 I think the public benefit is a tough one and I think it’s hard to have a menu as I mentioned. I think that 54 it is very much a case by case basis and I think that’s the nature of an exception. And but I do think 55 having some definition would be good although I think it will be a fairly open one because just as our 56 City of Palo Alto Page 25 needs change I think it’s not going to be something that could be carved in stone. So I think there would 1 still be a lot of debate and discussion around it. 2 3 And my last comment is on the straw vote, about should the developer be able to pay money as a public 4 benefit. And I and the Chair served on Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC). We know how 5 much the City is in debt right now, well not in debt, but there’s a backlog, a fairly substantial backlog on 6 the infrastructure side and there’s many other deficient things that we would love to improve. And I 7 think public benefits are going to come in form of exceptional things like perhaps grocery store for a 8 neighborhood that can’t have one, but I think it can also come in the form of extraordinary financial 9 payments where if let’s say oh, a public safety building was taken care of which we’ve been wanting for 10 decades it was taken care of, I think that is a huge public benefit, right? Especially we had a recent 11 earthquake in Napa. What if it was down here? Would we not regret not having a public safety building 12 that wasn’t, we couldn’t finance for various reasons? So I think that’s why I don’t think we could say no 13 to that kind of public benefit either because if… and we’re fortunate to be a city where there are a lot of 14 developers who want to develop here. They could actually afford to make large payments to the City and 15 I think that could be huge public benefit, but I don’t think it should be automatic, I think it should be 16 something that is reviewed carefully and with a lot of consideration. Thank you. 17 18 Chair Michael: So I’m going to let myself go next. So having served on the IBRC with Commissioner 19 Tanaka I think that this question of public benefit for example where you have unfunded infrastructure 20 projects opportunistically where the City, the community lacks the political will to pass a bond measure or 21 otherwise finance something that would meet the community needs, I think the being practical and being 22 opportunistic sometimes is expedient, but it’s at high risk to public trust because you get into this sort of 23 a Faustian negotiation problem. So caution I think I would go first to the public and say if you need a 24 police station if you need a public safety building you need it and you should pay for it and you should 25 build it and don’t ask somebody else to give it to you in exchange for clogging up the traffic forever. 26 27 On the enforcement question given this is something we all seem to think is important in the world of 28 legal remedies there’s often sort of use of injunctions or injunctive relief. And injunctive relief can take 29 two forms, one is against conduct that may cause harm or might violate some requirement and there 30 may be sort of an injunction requiring performance of a duty. And I think that this issue of whether you 31 have enforcement against something that’s undesired versus a requirement, the requirement that you 32 make a grocery store or a… so I think that concept needs to be considered in further study of how you 33 actually implement enforcement along with the possibilities of requiring a posting of a performance bond 34 by the applicant, an indemnity, an enforceable indemnity against a financially responsible party, some 35 sort of penalty provision in knowing who to penalize when and how or even contractual liquidated 36 damages. 37 38 Ms. Gitelman: I’m having trouble hearing you. 39 40 Chair Michael: So my list was performance bond, an indemnity, some penalty provision knowing who the 41 party potentially liable for those penalties might be, or liquidated damages provision negotiated up front 42 maybe in the development agreement or what have you. So the Council and PTC are going to have a 43 study, a joint study session in October. That’s on we have a joint session with Council (Interrupted) 44 45 Ms. Gitelman: That’s right, you do have a joint study session scheduled with Council and our thought was 46 that it would be for among other purposes to discuss your Annual Report to Council. 47 48 Chair Michael: Ok. 49 50 Ms. Gitelman: It’s on October 20th. 51 52 Chair Michael: Ok, so might it be useful we might think about whether Council would be interested in 53 having a conversation with us about the respective roles of Council and the PTC relative to PC zoning if 54 that is ripe for discussion at that time. I want to follow up on that and that’s you know I once had a 55 conversation with one of the senior partners in the biggest international law firm in the world who told 56 City of Palo Alto Page 26 me sort of an international lawyer version of a dirty joke. And it was the difference between heaven and 1 hell and in heaven the Italians are the cooks, the Swiss run the trains, the Brits run the police, the French 2 are the lovers, and the Germans make the cars. And in hell the Brits are the cooks, the Italians run the 3 trains, the Swiss are the lovers, the French make the cars and so on. So I think that, I think in 4 relationship to zoning and PC zoning and whatnot I think the relationship between the public and the 5 Council, staff, and the Commission, I think if we get the roles sorted out properly I think this might be 6 heavenly, but as opposed to having sort of cynicism and mistrust. 7 8 And I think what I see as sort of a worst case situation was something akin to what’s gone wrong 9 recently and that’s where there’s a suspicion that there’s sort of private backroom meetings with 10 individual Council Members then with or without some adequate disclosure of ex parte communications 11 there’s sort of a first time before the public there’s a maybe a study session at which point is the public 12 awareness and input happens only then and then the Council does something to initiate what they would 13 like to see happen, but I think what Commissioner Tanaka suggested is that the role of the Council in 14 setting in making the ultimate decisions is unchallenged. The role of council in setting the policy is 15 unchallenged, but I think that it’s important for Council to delegate to boards and commissions and 16 particularly the PTC some of the preliminary heavy lifting to vet some of these things so that when they 17 come to Council they’re ripe and that the public has a chance to participate and observe and have input 18 before it gets to Council and weight in on and eliminate some of the rough edges. 19 20 I think and then my example there came up yesterday in discussions with Director Gitelman and Vice-21 Chair Keller that the federal court system really achieved a transformational reform when it appointed a 22 court of special jurisdiction over patent litigation, which is the court of appeals for the federal circuit. And 23 that actually changed the value of intellectual property in America. It created validity where district court 24 judges previously had been presiding over litigation of patent cases without specific training and it flipped 25 the enforceability of patents because you had judges who understood patents deciding patent cases as a 26 specialized matter. And I think if the Planning Commission in the future helps develop its competency as 27 a sort of as a center of competency and a center of excellence relative to understanding some of these 28 zoning issues having the Planning Commission truly exercise that preliminary work would add value and 29 enhance public trust and actually support the higher functioning of the Council in setting policy and 30 making the final decisions. Ok. Vice-Chair Keller. 31 32 STRAW POLL #20 33 34 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. I guess my time is up. Ok so the first thing is about ex parte 35 communications. If ex parte communications take place and there’s nothing to be disclosed then there’s 36 no reason to have the meeting. So therefore they shouldn’t have them. If they happen and there’s 37 something to be disclosed then disclose it, but saying that it’s cumulative to the public record is useless. 38 Firstly and I have actually made disclosures of ex parte communications that have been quite extensive 39 and I think that that’s what they should be, not just simply nothing, everything cumulative. 40 41 So firstly I want to clarify one thing that was voted on before so I’m going to ask my own voting. And 42 that is how many Commissioners believe that the PTC should retain some role in the initiation of PC or 43 related zones? All in favor? So that’s six. How many people believe not? So that’s 6-1. Ok. 44 45 STRAW POLL #20 RESULT (6-1) 46 47 Vice-Chair Keller: Secondly with respect to public benefits and their duration, some benefits are of one 48 time duration; for example, a payment towards something is a one time, may be of one-time duration. 49 Allocation of a land dedication for a certain purpose could be thought of as a one-time dedication 50 because then it’s dedicated for that in the future. For example, on the El Camino and Page Mill Road that 51 land dedication was one time had a continuous use was essentially a one-time thing that happens. Some 52 things are of long duration for which there’s statute on that. Low income housing has in some statutes 53 30 years and some other statutes 55 years duration depending on the kind of how they finance it and 54 such and therefore that’s well understood, but other things the project is there for the life of the project. 55 The benefit to the developer is in general there for the life of the project and therefore the benefits to the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 27 public in general when not otherwise specified should be for the life of the project. And developer wishes 1 to cease providing that the developer can amend the PC and provide an alternative benefit to the public 2 instead. So that’s that thing. 3 4 How many people believe that we should have increased use of precise or concept plans as distinguished 5 from concept area plans? Precise plans or specific plans for areas in which we have particular needs for 6 zoning? So I think that that’s four. 7 8 Commissioner Gardias: May I ask about clarification was the relationship to the PC? 9 10 Vice-Chair Keller: Well the issue is that if we have a particular concern about some kind of particular use 11 that we want to have in a location that we try to use precise plans or specific plans as a way of 12 accomplishing that. For example, if you think about say a specific plan for Downtown in order to figure 13 out what we might want in particular places Downtown or the Fry’s site, a specific plan for that that 14 thinks about what kind of, what the arrangement we want there rather than a PC process for that. Yes? 15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: One suggestion about straw polls just in general for everyone is I think there’s 17 three votes. Three possible votes: one is yes, one is no, and one is abstaining, right? 18 19 Vice-Chair Keller: Yes. 20 21 Commissioner Tanaka: And so I think when you when straw poll, straw poll votes are like who says yes 22 and there’s no chance for no or abstaining like on this one I actually abstained because I don’t know 23 enough. The question wasn’t clear enough for me. So I would have abstained, but you took it as a no. 24 so (interrupted) 25 26 Vice-Chair Keller: I didn’t take it as a no, but anyway go ahead. You had another question? 27 28 Commissioner Gardias: No, but just coming back I don’t know what we are discussing now, but coming 29 back to the question that you asked. I mean this one can be achieved independently from the other, 30 right? So you may use the specific plans you may not need the plans. I mean this is pretty much 31 different consideration. I mean you could have a PC zone ordinance without the mentioning of the 32 specific plans. 33 34 Vice-Chair Keller: No, no. I’m suggesting that we have specific plans as a way of having an open process 35 for how we do land use in specific areas. And think of that for example Downtown or the Fry’s site as 36 examples of for which specific plan or precise plan might be useful or South El Camino where we look 37 parcel by parcel and figure out what the development potential for those really are and provide 38 appropriate zoning based on that. That’s the example of a precise plan. So my question is should we 39 have more use of precise or precise plans or specific plans? Should we encourage their use more 40 broadly? More often? 41 42 Commissioner Rosenblum: If I may just? I mean I totally agree with the comment, but I think it’s not 43 related to the PC zone (interrupted) 44 45 STRAW POLL #21 46 47 Vice-Chair Keller: Well people may think it’s not related. I think it’s germane to the topic because it may 48 obviate the need for PC. So I’m just going to ask the question. How many people believe that we should 49 have increased use of precise plans and specific plans? Yes? There are six votes yes. No? Abstain? So 50 there were six votes in yes, no votes in the nay, and one abstention. And I think that Commissioner 51 Alcheck maybe if… want to go for another round (interrupted) 52 53 STRAW POLL RESULT #21 (6-0-1) 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to suggest that while I would support specific plans once a specific 1 plan is adopted four or five years later or immediately after, that wouldn’t necessarily my vote doesn’t 2 suggest that I wouldn’t also support a PC process for a site within a specific plan area. 3 4 Vice-Chair Keller: I’m going to continue on so thank you. 5 6 Commissioner Gardias: [Off microphone - unintelligible] 7 8 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok and so that’s the first thing there. The second thing, so that’s the first question 9 should we have more specific land use through that. The second thing is should we consider greater use 10 of development agreements as opposed to PC’s in areas where we want to have a more detailed 11 discussion of public benefits in particular when there may be some risk in terms of the nature of 12 payments made? In development agreements it’s easier to make payments of certain kinds. In PC’s it’s 13 hard to have payments of certain kinds because of legal aspects. So the question is should we 14 encourage the use of development agreements rather than PC zones in situations, in more situations for 15 example those involving payments? Ok, is that clear what people ask what question is? Yeah? 16 17 Commissioner King: So I just some of these are striking me as like “Is democracy good?” sort of 18 questions where well, yes. If you phrase them should we ask staff, give staff direction to study the use 19 of these things as part of our analysis then I would probably vote yes, but when you’re saying should we 20 use them more I don’t have the information to know that so I’m just (interrupted) 21 22 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok, fine. Should we encourage staff to look into whether it makes sense to have 23 projects be done under development agreements as opposed to PC’s where there are general things like 24 payments and things like that. Ok? Is that feasible? Ok. How many think that do you understand that? 25 Is that a reasonable question? Ok. 26 27 Chair Michael: Can I just interpose a hypothetical? 28 29 Vice-Chair Keller: Yes. 30 31 Chair Michael: So in the last couple of years one of the great land use questions that’s unresolved is 27 32 University. 33 34 Vice-Chair Keller: Yes. 35 36 Chair Michael: And so 27 University provoked a lot of discussion, lot of study, lot of resistance, and the 37 question of what land use is appropriate for that site is still unresolved. It was tending to go forward as 38 it might have been a PC application, but it might have worked better if it had been considered as a 39 development agreement or it might have worked better if the City created a precise plan for the 40 Downtown area including 27 University and then what was done there could be effected as a result of the 41 precise plan. 42 43 Vice-Chair Keller: Yes. 44 45 Chair Michael: And so I think the kind of sophistication, flexibility suggested by the staff report is that 46 cities may use one or the other of these tools with respect to their land use processes where appropriate 47 in order to achieve the best result. And I think that we’re kind of suggesting that we should use different 48 tools that are available to the City and not just the same one which is kind of a square peg in a round 49 hole and creates a lot of public acrimony. 50 51 Vice-Chair Keller: Well let me put it this way, we have here 20 some odd projects that are PC’s since 52 2000. We have I’m not sure exactly the timing of them, but two precise plans that have been done in 53 that years or more in terms of SOFA 1 and SOFA 2. We have had two development agreements that 54 occurred, both involving land with Stanford. So the issue is it’s pretty clear that we’re using the PC 55 process and not using the other two processes. So the first question is whether we should make more 56 City of Palo Alto Page 29 use of precise plans and there was a sentiment in favor of that. So let me ask whether we should 1 explore using better, using more often development agreements as opposed… where there currently 2 might, where in the past PC’s were used for that. So in favor of that? Do people understand the 3 question? So the question is should we consider (interrupted) 4 5 Commissioner Alcheck: I understand the question, I don’t understand enough to vote on it. 6 7 STRAW POLL #22 8 9 Vice-Chair Keller: Should we consider greater use of development agreements in situations that 10 previously used PC’s? 11 12 Chair Michael: So you have to list abstentions, but (interrupted) 13 14 Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, I’ll ask that. So how many in favor? Three. How many no? Two. And how many 15 abstentions? Two. So we have three in favor, two opposed, two abstentions. Ok, great. The next, let’s 16 see… let me see anything else? I think that that’s, I think that that’s it for me. I think that based on that 17 I don’t have to ask any more questions. Thank you. 18 19 STRAW POLL #22 RESULT (3-2-2) 20 21 Chair Michael: Ok, well this is sort of a marathon. I’m going to suggest that we bring it to conclusion. 22 Can I just ask we’ve given you a lot of input; hopefully some of it makes sense? 23 24 Ms. Gitelman: Yes, thank you. Thank you for all of your suggestions and the votes this evening. We 25 tentatively put this on the Council’s agenda for a study session on October 6th. That is subject to change, 26 but we obviously will bring forward the Commission’s thoughts in the form of the transcript and try and 27 convey as best we can the sentiments of the Commission. 28 29 Chair Michael: You know this might actually be something that would be worthy of an executive summary 30 because I think the transcript is going to be somewhat lengthy. And I, if that’s not obvious what that 31 should look like maybe we could collaborate to make it useful. 32 33 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you. 34 35 Commission Action: No action taken, Commissioners did a series of straw polls and provided 36 comments only. 37 38 ATTACHMENT K •INCi: 1961::1 ./ POLLOCK REALTY CORPORATION August 4, 2014 For City Staff's consideration: We appreciate that the staff is first tasked with reforming the PC Process. Jim Baer has been asked to help in this regard. However, per Greg Scharff's comments, we agree that the best way to discover what works and doesn't work with the PC Process is to have a real project to consider so reforming process is not so abstract. JUSTIFIABLE REASONS WE COULD BE EXEMPTED To facilitate Council's consideration of PC changes, here is a list of reasons why 2755 ECR could be considered exempt from what could be a long drawn out PC Process reformation: 1. Other recent large projects are abusive of the PC Process. 2755 ECR PC does not abuse the PC Process; it's moderately sized and fulfills both the South El Camino Design Guidelines and Grand Boulevard vision the city provided for this gateway site and it provides desired benefits that an alternative CS zone would not. 2. There is an element of fairness to consider as we have been in the process for over 19 months and should be able to proceed with the approval process. 3. Public concern related to our specific project is minimal. a. Only 4 people were at the recent Feb. 3 meeting. Only two spoke against the project. Two spoke against the PC Process in general. b. The Petition states -"Another large project and with inadequate parking" is inflammatory -We are not oversized at 29,776 GFA (1.52 FAR) as compared with a CS Zone allowance of 19,563 SF. We are fully parked and more. 4. Re. Zone Criteria # 3 for PC's, Context with neighbors -Silverwood and Sunrise are both PC projects. Sunrise's SF is twice as large at 65,000 SF and is a 4-story building like ours, and Silverwood is about 50% larger at 44,000 SF and a 3-story building. 5. Recent PC Zone resistance -is due in part to extremely large impactful projects such as 395 Page Mill (311,000 SF additional); and Arrlllaga's MacArthur Park large office complex. We are distinctly different from those projects in these regards: a. 2755 ECR is only 10,213 extra square feet totaling 29,776 and 1.52 FAR -smaller than adjacent buildings: Sunrise and Silverwood. 150 Portola Road, Portola Valley, California 94028-7852 Telephone: (650)529-0500 Fax: (650)529-2131 www.oollockfinancial.com b. City consultant, Powers and Associates anticipates there will be NO CEQA impacts for traffic because of small project size. At the same time, we are improving level of service, thereby reducing the traffic impact at the intersection through land dedication and creation of a right turn lane. Therefore, there is no need for mitigations with 2755 ECR, unlike the large PC projects that have been withdrawn. c. 100% parked, and can park more if needed. Our TOM plan takes no parking reduction. d. 2755 ECR is offering a very compelling Public Benefits package, discussed below. 6. 2755 ECR has been in public hearings before the City Council, ARB and PTC, with none of the three bodies responsible for PC Zone review having discouraged the application from proceeding except with precautions about need for genuine public benefits and financial analysis by the City's third party consultant, Keyser Marston Associates. The reviewing boards should have indicated their unwillingness to proceed with a PC Zone for 2755 ECR if anybody held such a strong discouraging view of our PC Zone application. This feels like being told in the 9th inning of a ballgame you're winning, that games are now changed to 14-innings, and some of the rules of the game are going to change. 7 . First time financial analysis of public benefits by Keyser Marston, as requested by the city, resulted in superb public benefits proposal mostly focused on traffic and street improvements. 8. Keyser Marston Associates concluded "that the public benefits package proposed by the Applicant is equal to approximately $2,055,000 as compared to an incremental profit of $1,478,000 that could potentially be realized from the PC zoning over the "base case" CS zoning." 9. They further state that" ... from a financial feasibility and development risk point of view, it is our opinion that the Applicant is making a rational decision to develop the PC zoning alternative rather than the CS zoning alternative based on the public benefits package currently proposed." 10. The decision to allow 2755 ECR to proceed as the one exemption from PC zone "timeout" (because of its compliance with the PC Zone process over a 19-month period) does not encourage further PC Zones project abuses and actually could be used as a positive example of how to use the PC mechanism for a mutually beneficial result. Larry Klein, one of two dissenting votes to the temporary suspension of the planned community zoning, said the timeout could have "unintended consequences." The city stands to lose out on potentially beneficial projects as a result of developers electing not to wait for the return of planned community zoning and building projects that do not require city council approval, he explained. "I worry about that," Klein said. (Jason Green, "Palo Alto City Council Agrees to 'Timeout' for Controversial Zoning," San Jose Mercury News, February 4, 2014, Science and Environment Section, http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25057073/palo-alto-city-counicl-agrees- timeout-controversia I-zoning.) DESIRED PUBLIC BENEFITS The following are Public Benefits we are currently offering. However, it needs to be made clear that this offering package is only workable for a short period of time due to financial assumptions which are likely to change. They include: favorable interest rate environment for construction and permanent financing, reasonable construction costs, which are quickly increasing during this growing economy, AND a favorable lease with First Republic Bank, that is time sensitive. 11. Public Benefits: 2755 ECR is offering a Public Benefits package that is two times more investment in public benefits in total and per SF than any other Palo Alto PC Zone project. (Most recent comparison: 101 Lytton Project). While there will always be differing opinions from the dais for what is most desired, all of the benefits have been seen as desirable at one level or another by the City. And, if it turns out something else is more desirable, we can accommodate. a. Three Land Dedications • widening of Page Mill to add a dedicated right turn lane • full Subsurface Rights to the center of Page Mill • public sidewalk easement on site to create a total sidewalk of 11 feet • Without the developer's offer to provide these dedication's the City would be required to purchase the land at fair market value. b. Contribution for California Avenue Upgrades of over $1,000,000. c. Contribution for EV Charging Stations for California Ave. Parking lots/structures d. Installation of traffic calming devices for Sheridan Avenue which was deemed favorable by Silverwood residents during our outreach meetings. e. A contribution towards the Intersection Study and Upgrade Plans at this very busy intersection. We will also be the catalyst for the possible deployment of millions in funds the city has available to accomplish this. The city has asked for and we would start with the dedication of 12 valuable feet of an already narrow site to the city and county in order to provide a dedicated right hand turn lane and other improvements yet to be determined by the City and County. TOTAL CURRENT PUBLIC BENEFITS OFFER: $2.3M From what we've heard from both the City and Public perspectives, Public Benefits should be: Desired Clearly Identified and Easily Summarized Appropriately Valued (Keyser Marsten) Measurable Deliverable Enforceable Over Time ... We feel our project's Public Benefits embody all of these characteristics. If there is not a resolution for the PC Zoning process in a timely manner, there would be tangible "unintended consequences" if there is not decisive action. The time delay could result in the City missing out on a beneficial project if our project is not allowed to be considered for a PC Zoning. ADDITIONAL "LEADERSHIP" BENEFITS 2755 ECR is OFFERING As Advised by the City Council and PTC, 2755 ECR has separated out "leadership benefits" for the project from true community public benefits. As an example, 2755 ECR has about $1M of sustainable design and transportation features that are specifically not valued as "public benefits," per se. These include a high level LEED certification; Photo voltaic panels, becoming the first PA building to be entirely all electric as requested in early 2013 by City Council, who asked us to move towards 20% reduction of carbon emissions now that CPAU uses only electricity with no carbon impact. EV Charging stations for private as well as public use. Car and bike share options at the site . Transit pass programs including assisting with Stanford Shuttles from the train to ECR and a comprehensive TOM program, for which we seek no parking reduction . These sustainable features are consistent with Palo Alto's stated desire to minimize its carbon footprint. A WORD ON THE TENANT First Republic Bank has a history of working in PA for many years. They are a very stable bank, desiring to build a long-time presence with many PA clients. They serve the unique financial needs of a full spectrum of clientele, from working with the best and brightest Silicon Valley has to offer to working with non-profits and other community involvements. They want to continue to be "part of the solution" in Palo Alto, continuing to invest in the community in meaningful ways, and they want to be headquartered at this unique gateway location. (Read: they help fund the hi-tech, innovative startups that the California Ave. vision states Palo Alto wants to attract.) This gateway site into Stanford Research Park deserves much more than an underutilized and unattractive parking lot and residential does not make sense. Our First Republic Bank building, which is fully parked with cars tucked underneath, will raise overall values in the area and bring a prestige of which the City can be proud. This is the right project at the right location with the right tenant. CONCLUSION We feel the merits of the project are clear. Pollock Financial understands the Council's desire to consider PC reforms and the reasons behind the "Time Out," but feels our project offers a solid package of benefits. Ours is a modest proposal that has been proven to be commensurate with the economic value of the benefits offered. It should not be hard for our project to be presented in a positive light, whether it's called a "PC Zone" project or not, as one that is good for Palo Alto. 1 Hernandez, Consuelo From:Ellner, Robin Sent:Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:06 AM To:Gitelman, Hillary; Silver, Cara; Wong, Tim; Hernandez, Consuelo Cc:Keller, Arthur; Carl King (crking3@gmail.com); Eric Rosenblum (ericr@alum.mit.edu); Greg Tanaka (gltanaka@gmail.com); mark_d_michael@yahoo.com; Michael Alcheck; Przemek Gardias (przemek@gardias.com) Subject:PTC Aug 27 Review of Planning Community and Public Benefit Issues Good morning,    Please see Neilson Buchanan’s email below.    Thank you,    Robin         Robin Ellner | Administrative Associate III| P&CE Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2603 |E: robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!      From: Neilson Buchanan [mailto:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 7:59 AM To: Planning Commission Cc: Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; Breena Kerr; Diana Diamond Subject: PTC Aug 27 Review of Planning Community and Public Benefit Issues I now have scanned the report and want to make a few comments. The "macro view" staff report is a thorough capture of historical information that tends to be "lost" with the passage of time. Citizens certainly cannot create this type of analysis. I deeply appreciate City Staff and PTC for this compiling information to formulate new city policy. The devil is always in the details and I encourage that the PTC spent time digging into the micro specifics of only a few projects. In the healthcare business autopsies are not always needed, but occasionally micro- analysis produces new insight that macro-analysis failed to see. For example, 101 Alma is a project that is very much alive and warrants an intensive, retrospective visit. I think citizens, staff and Council can 2 learn from this project. Please evaluate the issues listed below and, if appropriate, ask for a brief staff report within 90 days. 1. How well are the private "gated" parking spaces utilized as the building reached full office space occupancy? What is the utilization of the mechanical stacking mechanisms? The mechanical devices are unproven in Palo Alto and this project will provide useful information before proliferation. 2. The "A" underground level has a mixture of public, private, reserved and handicapped parking spaces. Are these spaces subject to Planning Department oversight and management as parking space reforms are initiated in commercial core? A photograph of merchants blocking off public space will follow this email. There seems to be no time limits or enforcement. Is it possible a smart CalTrain passenger can use some of these spaces as free all day parking. If residential permit parking is implemented, will the tenants of 101 Lytton be eligible for permit parking in the garages and/or residential streets? 3. Subsidized rental space is a public benefit. Which non-profit organizations were offered an option to rent and how was the final decision made? I assume the property owner has final authority for that decision. 4. Is it time to introduce conditional use permits on properties such as 101 Lytton to assure that on-site parking (both public and private spaces) is fully utilized before tenants and visitors are allowed access to worker/visitor permit parking in residential neighborhoods. Prudent city policy could exclude these workers/visitors from the RPP program? 5. What will be the tenant/visitor/guest/shopper densities in this gateway project? What is the current and future demand for the on-site parking spaces? Over or under the expectations of city staff? 6. The developer has provided a large sum of funds to various city projects. What funds have been spent? What are the result? And what funds are unspent? I dont expect the PTC to delve into this level on detail on Aug 27, but I sincerely hope the PTC will ask City Staff to response to issues above and others that may be presented at the meeting tonight. Thanks for readying this. I am out of state. PS 101 Lytton is just a convenient learning opportunity for staff and the public..Lytton is not an isolated project. These questions and others 3 apply to almost all new properties and expansion of existing properties throughout Palo Alto. The real issue is development policies [beyond PC and PB] that allow over development relative to parking, traffic, safety, open space, etc. Your stewardship of California Avenue Commercial Core and adjacent neighborhoods is badly needed and I hope staff soon can produce comparable oversight for your review. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 From: Neilson Buchanan [mailto:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:39 AM To: Planning Commission Cc: Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Diana Diamond; Breena Kerr Subject: Management of public and private parking at 101 Lytton Here is a photo that mentioned in my previous email to you. Please do not waste PTC time tonight on the photo. The photo is just a small symptom of much bigger issue Approving more and more commercial properties with no negative impact analysis is the issue. Some citizens state the situation more simply. "Stop digging the hole deeper". I dont see how this could be feasible legally or politically. Slowing down development warrants debate. Why? Because COPA has very limited ability to retroactively manage negative parking and traffic impact in the next 2-3 years. Growth in demand will be far greater than city sincere efforts for increased parking supply and mitigation. I make this statement after months of work with the RPP stakeholder effort. I hope I am wrong. Activist residents around the California and Univ Ave commercial cores just want to point out the complexity of parking policies when demand far exceeds supply. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Ellner, Robin From:Arthur Keller <ptc@kellers.org> Sent:Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:59 PM To:Ellner, Robin Cc:Keller, Arthur; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:Fwd: Precise Plans and Planned Community Permits Robin, this was addressed to me, but should probably be forwarded to the Commission as a whole.  It elucidates the  issue.    Best regards,  Arthur    >From: lynmelena@aol.com  >To: ptc@kellers.org  >Subject: Precise Plans and Planned Community Permits  >Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:52:08 ‐0400 (EDT)  >  >Arthur,  >  >From your vast viewing audience tonight, I heard you say something that   >is not correct. In Mountain View, every project in a Precise Plan (of   >which there are about 30 in Mountain View) requires a Planned    >Community Permit (some are "major" and some are "minor").  >In fact, PC Permits are only used in Precise Plan areas (except for a   >few very old ones).  The PC Permit is the basic project approval, and   >is much more detailed than the Precise Plan itself.  >  >As a planner who worked 17 years in Palo Alto and 16 years in Mountain   >View, I have often been struck by how differently PCs are used in the   >two cities. But in both cities, the goal is to accommodate development   >that does not fit into the standard zoning classifications.  >  >Lynnie Melena      ‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Experienced advisor to leading edge startups and accomplished expert witness on patent infringement cases.    Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303‐4507 tel +1(650)424‐0202, fax +1(650)424‐0424  CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 6, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Selection of Applicants to Interview on October 15, 2014 for the Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board, and Selection of Applicants to Interview on October 22, 2014 for the Planning and Transportation Commission Enclosed are: 1) Ten applications submitted for two terms (Lippert and Malone-Pritchard), ending on October 31, 2017 on the Architectural Review Board; 2) Six applications for four terms (Bernstein, Kohler, Makinen, and Wimmer) ending on October 31, 2017 on the Historic Resources Board; and 3) Eleven applications submitted for two terms (Keller and King), ending on October 31, 2018 on the Planning and Transportation Commission. At the Council Meeting on Monday, October 6, 2014, the City Council will select the candidates to be interviewed for the Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, and the Planning and Transportation Commission. Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board interviews are scheduled on Wednesday, October 15, 2014. Planning and Transportation Commission interviews are scheduled for Wednesday, October 22, 2014. Each Council Member will receive a selection sheet to use in determining who will be chosen for an interview. Recommendation The requested action is for each Council Member to fill out the selection sheet indicating which of the candidates they will be interviewing. The City Clerk will announce who will be interviewed at the same meeting. Candidates who receive four or more votes will be scheduled for an interview. The applicants are as follows: Architectural Review Board Catherine Ballantyne Valerie Driscoll Matthew Harris Qiming Huang Kenneth Huo Kyu Young Kim Page 2 Daniel Pho Flore Schmidt Richard Schoelerman Mark Weiss Historic Resources Board Martin Bernstein Kenneth Huo Roger Kohler Michael Makinen Iqbal Serang Margaret Wimmer Planning and Transportation Commission Yekaterina Vershov Downing Valerie Driscoll Claude Ezran Adrian Fine Kenneth Huo Arthur Keller Jeff Schneble C James Schmidt Richard Schoelerman Lyn Tillery Asher Waldfogel ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment: Ballantyne, Catherine ARB (PDF)  Attachment: Driscoll, Valerie ARB (PDF)  Attachment: Harris, Matthew ARB (PDF)  Attachment: Huang, Qiming ARB (PDF)  Attachment: Huo, Kenneth ARB (PDF)  Attachment: Kim, Kyu Young ARB (PDF)  Attachment: Pho, Daniel ARB (PDF)  Attachment: Schmidt, Flore ARB (PDF)  Attachment: Schoelerman, Richard ARB (PDF) Page 3  Attachment: Weiss, M ARB (PDF)  Attachment: Bernstein, Martin HRB (PDF)  Attachment: Huo, Kenneth HRB (PDF)  Attachment: Kohler, Roger HRB (PDF)  Attachment: Makinen, Michael HRB (PDF)  Attachment: Serang, Iqbal HRB (PDF)  Attachment: Wimmer, Margaret HRB (PDF)  Attachment: Downing, Yekaterina Vershov PTC (PDF)  Attachment: Driscoll, Valerie PTC (PDF)  Attachment: Ezran, Claude PTC (PDF)  Attachment: Fine, Adrian PTC (PDF)  Attachment: Huo, Kenneth PTC (PDF)  Attachment: Keller, Arthur PTC (PDF)  Attachment: Schmidt, C James PTC (PDF)  Attachment: Schneble, Jeff PTC (PDF)  Attachment: Schoelerman, Richard PTC (PDF)  Attachment: Tillery, Lyn PTC (PDF)  Attachment: Waldfogel, Asher PTC (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 4 Contact the Clerk's Office to View Additional Attachments or Images Related to this Document Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without ffrsl obtainin_g the written permission of that indi\lidual." T)1e full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to /he Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below. 0 I give permission for the City of Palo .Alto lo post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Appncation Intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke, this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR @ I request that the City of Palo Alto redac~ my home address, phone numbers, and eman, address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the Cilis website. I am provldinEl the followihg alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: 805 Sycamore Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Cell Phone: 0Home 10office Phone: E-mail: ~~~~ September 22, 2014 Slgnature: ___ ...c~;.,,.,,,,,;~;;:=::;:=~....._~'""" ...... =-.:1:.-<..,...,~-=LX...;:a.._=<=-------Date:------ P~ge3 Archfteotural Revi1:1w Board ARB application – Catherine Ballantyne List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: BS, Material Science & Engineering, Cornell University MS, Electrical Engineering, Cornell University Executive MBA, sponsored by Allied Signal Real Estate Salesperson License, #01360055, State of California Landscape Design, Foothill College, Horticulture & Design Employment Present or Last Employer: Principal, Ecological Design Occupation: Landscape Design Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I've been an active participant in the Palo Alto community on multiple fronts --- as a HAM radio operator CERT [Emergency responder], as a neighborhood community builder [co-host of my neighborhood's 4th of July celebrations], as a parent volunteer first within the Friends Nursery School community, and now within PAUSD where I will shortly have four children concurrently enrolled at elementary through high school levels. I am also involved as a cyclist delighted by safer passage ways through certain thoroughfares, as a classically trained musician participating as a parent coach for talented youth selected to participate in the Palo Alto Chamber orchestra community, and as a tech leader at a hot local start up [Medallia]. Since 2001, I have been continuously engaged as a landscape designer where I have crafted the street-scapes of a handful of residences within the Palo Alto and mid-Peninsula areas. Currently I serve on the leadership committee created to facilitate community dialog around the updates to the comprehensive plan. 1. What is it about the Architectural Review Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am a fan of harmony. I am specifically interested in delving head first into the complexities of defining/evangelizing/achieving contextual harmony. Having lived in Palo Alto for the last two decades and watched how the community weathers cycles of change, I wonder if there isn’t a distinct shift occurring right now that may well become a tipping point for Palo Alto. As a design professional working in 3D on providing beauty over a 10+ year time horizon, I bring a distinctive perspective to build conversations. Although all five of the articulated responsibilities of the ARB appeal to me, I am keenly interested in the promotion of orderly and harmonious development of the city and in promoting high quality visual environments that are considerate of their context. ARB application – Catherine Ballantyne 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. As an advocate for contextual harmony, I cannot help but be attracted to the project at 385 Sherman Ave. near Sarah Wallis Park that came before the board in August. It illustrates well how perceptions regarding development trends coupled with ARB design review effectiveness have polarized the community. One only has to look to a few of the online comments to get a sense of the passion ignited by the complicated issue of context. That the ARB voted 3/2 to approve it, is further evidence that even given a couple design cycles, ARB architects still wrestled with it's scale/ramifications/contextual harmony. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Given that the goals already defined for the ARB are sufficiently lofty, I would suggest considering a few alternative methods of achieving them. Principal among those alternatives would be to consider how to help our community better understand the bounds within which the ARB operates. I wonder if much of the recent skewering of the ARB by the public it serves could have been somewhat mitigated if people knew more about the ARB as a tool for the CC. Repeated evangelizing, for example, of both the five responsibilities of the board and the contextual constraints [zoning/ceqa/psa, etc.] within which those five responsibilities must be executed, might help to better equip community conversations around development which, in turn, might yield more fruitful hearings. 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. Provided in separate .ppt file 5. Architectural Review Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. As a member of the leadership committee created by the city council to facilitate community dialog around the updates to the comprehensive plan, I am working my way through the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan document. Although my experience with the zoning code is scant/dated, I have slogged through some portions of it in connection with a project in 2006. My exposure to both the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the El Camino Real Master Plan Study documents is limited to that which I gleaned as an observer of the recent ARB meetings in which the build to line was discussed. i I l ·y . ) .. .. . ./. • .. ·. ~ . ,. ~~><: Phone2: E-mail: Are you : -:; ' . ' ; '; .. ~ ~ . Do you ha11e any relatives or memt>ers of your household who are employed by· the City of Palo Alto,who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? Nii, Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? c::.Q. ~ . ..<J.A> • California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an Investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely io; 1j engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? M.G , Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? f\l(). Community Group Email from City Clerk Palo Alto Weekly : Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK . · Zoning Code LINK ; El Camino Real Design Guidelines and Master Plan LINK '. Urt>an Design Guide/Plan LINK 1 Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA} I and II Plans LINK · California Environmental Quality Act LINK ' Pennit Streamline Act LINK Density Bonus Law LINK · Secretary of the Interior's Standards LINK ) California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the i home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first ! obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not 1 be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. ' The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21 . I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR · I r~quest that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Phone 1: Valerie Driscoll Tel; ~.Palo.Alt<h.CA 94J01 I am seeking a volunteer position within your Boards and Commissions with City of Palo Alto after education and some Business research. Please review and contact. Thank you. Volunteering Experience: Healthcare- Breathe California, e.g. (American Lung Association): Teaching, database management, article writing, general office and internet, some marketing consulting regarding advertising, phones and accounts updating, processing. O'Connor Hospital Behavior Coaching-(formerly): Wisdomful.com Psychology/Sociology-Counseling Internship with Agency: ACT, San Jose Politics-Campaign Support to David Cortese, Santa Clara Supervisor Asked to run for office while volunteering with Alza C~rporation Voter Registration League of Women Voters Santa Clara County Recreation Dept. Land and Water Preservation Education and assisting with water testing for environmental concerns. Stmttt-C.Jar-a ~Bmeet .C'91HKy-eff'teeS: ·Meetiegs -r-egariliBg tfflMk transportation (concerned citizen). Investigations-Atlas Investigations, San Jose, CA Artist-and consulted with local gallery, feeling them most successful in a more appropriate iltar1'fl-Helped ti mueh -as I -eould. Safety and Emergency Preparedness-Neighborhoods-City of Pafo Alto Paid Internships and Jobs: Law Offices, Palo Alto, CA 1992-Intern Law Administration: Gvil, 'Criminat and Probate: Agency 1ype of-pr.irtice un Park Blvd., 'behind 'Superior <;ourt~ Investigations-Business Law: San Francisco Agency, CA 1989-Intern I was offered a position with Reynolds Kendrick and Stratton stock brokerage, San Francisco, CA, 1"96-I declined. j ) " ) Education: Associates Degree: West Valley College, Saratoga, CA 9/2000-6/2006 Liberal "Studies/ Paralegal; also-: Telecommunications, Networks and-Software entry; eottege of San Mateo: dnJftiug, -'llld woi:~. htt~r i.n Si.Ii.~ Valley with an Ar~h.iteC.t on blueprints and. plans for building. (I was told I had the talent for it, when helping with drawing). Also, Student of World and Global History-History buff, including Government History. Additional Study: Fort Hays State University, Bays Kansas Major Sociology 2010-2011; Published. Paralegal Studies: West Valley College, Saratoga, CA-2006. Work Skills: Administrative, with respect to contracts, purchasing and leasing, as well as accounting and administrative functions, management and some H.ll in computers, biotech engineering, defense, law, investigation, healthcare, oil industry and non-profit 501 CJ, and apartment complex management. Comp~ter: Hardware and Software assembly, building with Stanford Engineers; Technologist with Comp. USA. Software: Microsoft Word version 2003-2007, Windows XP and 7 platforms, Quickbooks, Peachtr~, PowerPoin4 Explorer 9 with Desktop use of Goo_gle and Yahoo~ toolbar~, and Search Engines; DOS trained, trained in Fortran, in early years of education 1985-1990, C++, Perl, Java, Html, some experience with PeopleSoft, school experience assisting on databases and Networks, with some interest eventually in I.T. database management; Tech Trouble-shooting. Accounting: In General Management and Business; Jr. Accountant/auditor, and database files, yr. to date totals, logs, bookkeeping, AP/AR in purchasing and records. I Saved company 1 million dollars, entire database review of POs and AP/AR and Journals; Jr. Accountant in Fixed Asset Accounting, Ledger input (data entry) Double-entry "boo1ckeeping, and Vear-10-date1otais on Financial Forms and1ogs, processed W.;l~sfur em.pJoyees; Job-Costhig; Organization of logs; use of Peachtree accounting software. Some experience with payroll as well as auditing. I conducted employment skills review and performance, for cost-effective management. Accounting Office Administration H.R-assisting/hiring Quality Control, Administration and Quality Assurance, Tech Troubleshooting Insurance A. Prelicensing and B. Code and Ethics: Quick Learning School-2011 Apartment complex assistant management. Teaching: Christian Education Banking Research-Psychology/Sociology: Freud, Jung and the major psychologists and history of their practices and techniques in the field of psychology-Thesis prep work. More research .on .str.eu .iD the wor.k.place, biofeedback, families, w.or.k.and .ecouomic .tr..aositions fr.om Social Darwinism (Darwin era) including the 1930's, to world war I and II, 1940's, 1950 to 1979, in America; Analysis of complex cultur~ in America and other countries from the 1700's to 1979 and the global impact of cultures and business on the economy, including the media and religion, gender and wage statistics, family raising techniques and gender -ro1·es·in 1he ilome and ·in 1he-woTk-ptace: Fort Hays-State University--Suciotogy mdies- Published under Kirk Johnson, Archeologist. Author of a guide book on economics. Work Experience: American Oil Transport company, Santa Clara, CA Comp USA-Technician Assistant, San Jose, CA Genesis Biotech Engineering, MenJo Park, CA Goodman Defense (Missiles), Mountain View, CA Cisco/Lucent Technologies, Cupertino, CA San Mateo Apartment complex, CA Highland Academy with Highland Church (Christian Church School), Sao Bruno, CA Eureka Federal Savings Bank, San Mateo, CA Architectural Review Board Application Personal Information Name: Matthew Harris Address: 217 McKendry Drive Cell Phone: 650-690-6282 @Home t00ffice Phone: 650-325-4157 E-mail: Harris_architect@yahoo.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?Qves@ No 6UY Gf PALO ALTO. CA errv CLERK ·s OFFICE 14SEP 15 AHH:f17 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City oJJ;.alo A.JR, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? UYes(!) No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ®vesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Oves®No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?()ves @No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board? [{]community Group 0Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly 0Daily Post D City Website 0Flyer Other:------------------------------- List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: B.A. Art History, UCSC, M.Architecture, Univ. of Oregon; professional architectural practice experience 1994 -present; Owner of architectural design I engineering firm, 2010 -present; professional registration, CA licensed architect, #C33395 Employment Present or Last Employer: Sole proprietor, architecture firm, Matt Harris Architects, Menlo Park, CA Occupation: Architect Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Active in re-organization of City of Palo Alto waste treatment facilities 2011 -present, Measure E ballot measure, participated as citizen activist, attended PA City council meetings regarding post-Measure E agenda items Page 1 Architectural Review Board 1. What is it about the Architectural Review Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Architectural design is an important component of quality-of-life in City of Palo Alto, and the stewardship of the same requires some amount of education and knowledge. I believe my experience of growing up in Palo Alto as well as my professional training and experience as an architect could be useful in serving the purposes and functions of the ARB. It is my understanding that the ARB should protect and help shape the architectural integrity of the city. I can do that. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. Review of 240 Hamilton Avenue / 615 Ramona Street proposed new project was of interest to me because it featured the ongoing debate about balancing traditionalist, historicist design themes with modernist design themes in the downtown area. I do support the sense that the emphasis of the Board should be on encouraging high-quality architectural design and promoting a fairly liberal environment for architectural expression and development without narrow interpretations. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would support the Board in encouraging high-quality architectural design and promoting a fairly liberal environment for architectural expression and development without narrow interpretations of style or compliance with any historical period styles. The way to achieve this goal might be to seek continuous improvement practices and methods within the Board, that is, to work to improve the clarity of public communications about the Board's means and methods of review. 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. 325 Lytton Avenue. Good example of balancing traditional architectural elements with modern office design. Examples of historical elements in this design include the contrasting colors in masonry exterior wall material, balanced against the modernist, hi-tech style of the glass canopy details at the cornice position. Overall effect achieved is good balance of architectural features from a fairly wide time period with regard to palette of materials and styles. 5. Architectural Review Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK Permit Streamline Act LINK Density Bonus Law LINK Secretary of the Interior's Standards LINK Comprehensive plans are required by CA State code as an aid to good government and regional planning. Familiar with State code which sets guidelines for municipal comprehensive plans. Page 2 Architectural Review Board Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: ® I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 10office Phone: E-mail: 9/13/2014 Page 3 Architectural Review Board Architectural Review Board Application . Personal Information Name: Qiming Huang Address: @111'Y 0f. PALO ALT.&. 0A ~f'f Y €LERK'S OFP.1Ue-';, i~SEP 16 PH -6:25 Answers to narrative questions in full sized text attached to application Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City o!-ealo AJt?., who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? UYes(.!,l No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?@YesO No California state law requires appointed boar~ and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1 ) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Oves@No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property In Palo Alto?()ves@No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Architectural R_evlew Board? Ocommunity Group· [2]Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly Doail~Post Deity Website 0 Flyer Other: _______________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: · I got my master deg<ee in Computer Science from University of TeKas at Austin. I have been working in high·lech companies for years, including Oracle and Cisco, as senior principal software product manager. I also volunteered In a non-profit organization, Sllcon Va•ey Wireless Technology Association, as a boardd director. · Recently, t buita few houses in Palo Alto. Through the building process, I read a big portion of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and learnt quit a lot of buUding knowledge. Now. I am helping my friends buading new houses or doing major remodels, providing them da&ign end malarial selection advice. I am also reading the Caifomia State License Board recommended documenls for building professionals. I may take some of the examines for varied state professional licenses. Employment Present or Last Employer: Asquare Occupation: Software Product Management Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Besides my volunteer work for Silicon Valley Wireless Technology Association, I also volunteer for Silicon Valley Youth, which is an organization to encourage students to explore in science, technology, engineering and math. I organized a few visits of students to local IBM and Google offices. I am helping Terman Middle School Game Club to invite game industry experts to share game design, creation, operation and marketing knowledge with the Terman students. I have been helping a few Palo Alto City Council candidates reaching out to the votes and collecting votes' feedbacks and suggestions. Page 1 Architectural Review Board 1.What is it about the Architectural Review Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? 2.Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. 3.If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? 4.Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, Vtaff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. 5.Architectural Review Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK Permit Streamline Act LINK Density Bonus Law LINK Secretary of the Interior’s Standards LINK Page 2 Architectural Review Board I am very interested in the design review and would like to share my opinions based on my building experience from a resident point of view. I found myself enjoying architectural design and interior design. I usually drive by Palo Alto streets and pay a lot of attention to the house style, color, material, height, and landscape in different neighborhoods. I like the design harmony and consistency on a street. I also think new residential house should be comfortable, elegant and built with latest materials and technology. I am a first-generation immigrant from Asia. I will bring culture diversity to the ARB, representing a large resident base working in high-tech industry with children going to local public school. I remember there was a case about the 'Grocery Outlet' signage on Alma street. It passed the ARB review, but a local resident organization brought up the issue to the city council. It is an issue about special case vs the common practice. Normally, a projecting sign should not exceed 12 feet. However, for a fast-driving street like Alma, people normally do not catch the signs along the sides. I never know there was a grocery store in the same location even though I drove by the location for hundreds of times. It makes sense that this case is considered in the special context and approved by the ARB. Here are some approaches that the ARB may try. 1. Offer tangible suggestions and guidance to the architects and property owners to meet the design requirements. Pointing out the problems is just the first step. With the ARB board members' experience through many building reviews, the ARB board may have a good solution for both the property owner and the neighborhood. For most of the issues found during the review, ARB may try to provide a potential solution. 2. Give certain flexibility for the architects and property owners to design the property. At the end of the day, the property will be occupied by the property owner. They have their special needs and preferences for their homes or commercial buildings. Those preference make each house/building unique and add a lot of personality to the neighborhood, especially in Palo Alto, the innovation center of the world. If the designs do not violate the city's codes and regulations, ARB may want to leave the final decision at the owner's discretion. 3. Review the design based on the code and regulations. Enforce strictly the zoning and building codes on all the designs. Provide feedback based on the city's municipal codes. This results in consistent execution on review process and fair judgement across all the projects. Give less consideration to other subjective opinions, which can be varied greatly from one person to another. 4197 Baker Avenue, Palo Alto, CA The home is a typical spanish style house. The design is clean and neat. The window is traditional spanish window, without unnecessary trims. The windows are quality wood clad ones with chestnut brown frame. All the doors have consistent spanish look with old-world-styled clavos and speak easy, in dark walnut color, matching the window frame color and making great contrast to the bright wall color. The bright ivory wall really light up the house and bring the spanish style out. The wall color goes very well with the dark red clay tiles on the roof. The balcony, covered porch, and the chimney all add layers to the design, avoiding flat and plain. The details, like the exterior lights, deco gable vents, and the deco tiles on the chimney bring elegant finishing to the house. The fence of black railing and short stucco wall create the sense of coherence and completeness. This is one of the references with aesthetic architecture and quality construction. I read some sections of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan when I purchased my home in Palo Alto. I read the majority of Zoning Code when I built my new houses. I read California Environment Quality Act and Density Bonus Law when I did research on Maybell Project last year. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: Home / Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: ________________________________________________________ Date: _____________ Page 3 Architectural Review Board 3790 El Camino Real, #300, Palo Alto, CA 94306 408 667 8769 Qiming.Huang@gmail.com Architectural Review Board Application – Qiming Huang List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: I got my master degree in Computer Science from University of Texas at Austin. I have been working in high-tech companies for years, including Oracle and Cisco, as senior principal software product manager. I also volunteered in a non-profit organization, Silicon Valley Wireless Technology Association, as a board director. Recently, I built a few houses in Palo Alto. Through the building process, I read a big portion of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and learnt quit a lot of building knowledge. Now, I am helping my friends building new houses or doing major remodels, providing them design and material selection advice. I am also reading the California State License Board recommended documents for building professionals. I may take some of the examines for varied state professional licenses. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Besides my volunteer work for Silicon Valley Wireless Technology Association, I also volunteer for Silicon Valley Youth, which is an organization to encourage students to explore in science, technology, engineering and math. I organized a few visits of students to local IBM and Google offices. I am helping Terman Middle School Game Club to invite game industry experts to share game design, creation, operation and marketing knowledge with the Terman students. I have been helping a few Palo Alto City Council candidates reaching out to the votes and collecting votes' feedbacks and suggestions. 1. What is it about the Architectural Review Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am very interested in the design review and would like to share my opinions based on my building experience from a resident point of view. I found myself enjoying architectural design and interior design. I usually drive by Palo Alto streets and pay a lot of attention to the house style, color, material, height, and landscape in different neighborhoods. I like the design harmony and consistency on a street. I also think new residential house should be comfortable, elegant and built with latest materials and technology. I am a first-generation immigrant from Asia. I will bring culture diversity to the ARB, representing a large resident base working in high-tech industry with children going to local public school. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: I remember there was a case about the 'Grocery Outlet' signage on Alma street. It passed the ARB review, but a local resident organization brought up the issue to the city council. It is an issue about special case vs the common practice. Normally, a projecting sign should not exceed 12 feet. However, for a fast-driving street like Alma, people normally do not catch the signs along the sides. I never know there was a grocery store in the same location even though I drove by the location for hundreds of times. It makes sense that this case is considered in the special context and approved by the ARB. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Here are some approaches that the ARB may try. 1. Offer tangible suggestions and guidance to the architects and property owners to meet the design requirements. Pointing out the problems is just the first step. With the ARB board members' experience through many building reviews, the ARB board may have a good solution for both the property owner and the neighborhood. For most of the issues found during the review, ARB may try to provide a potential solution. 2. Give certain flexibility for the architects and property owners to design the property. At the end of the day, the property will be occupied by the property owner. They have their special needs and preferences for their homes or commercial buildings. Those preference make each house/building unique and add a lot of personality to the neighborhood, especially in Palo Alto, the innovation center of the world. If the designs do not violate the city's codes and regulations, ARB may want to leave the final decision at the owner's discretion. 3. Review the design based on the code and regulations. Enforce strictly the zoning and building codes on all the designs. Provide feedback based on the city's municipal codes. This results in consistent execution on review process and fair judgment across all the projects. Give less consideration to other subjective opinions, which can be varied greatly from one person to another. 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, �taff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. 4197 Baker Avenue, Palo Alto, CA The home is a typical Spanish style house. The design is clean and neat. The window is traditional Spanish window, without unnecessary trims. The windows are quality wood clad ones with chestnut brown frame. All the doors have consistent Spanish look with old-world-styled clavos and speak easy, in dark walnut color, matching the window frame color and making great contrast to the bright wall color. The bright ivory wall really light up the house and bring the Spanish style out. The wall color goes very well with the dark red clay tiles on the roof. The balcony, covered porch, and the chimney all add layers to the design, avoiding flat and plain. The details, like the exterior lights, deco gable vents, and the deco tiles on the chimney bring elegant finishing to the house. The fence of black railing and short stucco wall create the sense of coherence and completeness. This is one of the references with aesthetic architecture and quality construction. 5. Architectural Review Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. I read some sections of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan when I purchased my home in Palo Alto. I read the majority of Zoning Code when I built my new houses. I read California Environment Quality Act and Density Bonus Law when I did research on Maybell Project last year. @ITY ©f PALO 11.ue. CA (tt[f '( 0LERK'S OFPIS.E It. SEP 22 AH llJ 15 C l fY OF PALO ALTO Application to Serve on the Architectural Review Board Palo Alto welcomes volunteers and we appreciate that you are taking the time to apply. Completion of this application provides valuable information to the City Council. Please complete the application to the best of your abilities. If you have any questions or concerns please contact the City Clerk's Office. Authority of Board: The Architectural Review Board is charged with design review of some new construction, as well as changes and additions to commercial, industrial and multiple- family projects. The Board is responsible for: • Promoting orderly and harmonious development of the City, • Enhancing the desirability of residence or investment in the City, • Encouraging the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements, • Enhancing the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas, • Promoting visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. Please see Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.16 and 2.21 , as well as Titles 16 and 18 for more detailed information. The Architectural Review Board is composed of five members who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of the City, at least three of whom shall be architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals. Palo Alto residency is not required. Terms of Members will be for three years. The Architectural Review Board typically meets on the first and third Thursdays of each month at 8:30 am. In addition to regular meetings, Members may be asked to participate on at least one sub-committee which could hold additional meetings. Click here to receive email notifications of vacancies CLICK HERE. You are also welcome to contact the City Clerk's Office at 329-2571 or David.Camahan@cityofpaloalto.org. Personal Information Name: Address: Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?_ Yes»o Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?~ Yes_ No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe Is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?_ Ye;< No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alt~Yes _No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board? ,X-community Group __ ·-~Email from.City Clerk _ Palo Alto Weekly _Daily Post _ City Website _Flyer Other: _____________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: I ttt} ~ C-1'-l-1r~~1t>--l/i U~,?G-P P--~ rTftC::1 -~~ -re~-~ .. rf~'-" ~Gt~M 1..-1~!71f~f~Ht16c-"T ,, ~11,,---~~~/~>t!.-FG~t-~"(-tv1~1i;~ C?f~ 1.1JML11!£ cl LJR~ ft,,Ai'Jf\J'Gj ,, () lJ _ c:>"'f 1\111vH1~.PN/~N A~~-f../lA~ .~ P.. .J..H. 4 t.Jf{~l'J p~hl~ b . P-M K~N iJ... Al w~ N ,,, ~c.-H ~J..P ~ c::> t>-~4-f .. JJ :t4--j l.-6+J 'IJ ·1 I Employment Present or Last Employer: j4:N N ~ H H i.Jo ,. .J..RCH rr ~ Occupation: 6. r2.VH 11 i· ·, 1. What Is It about the Architectural Review Board that Is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? h -~f7~t1jl.__t} 6f~~ L.b.t~rz.-~?.51J~J._/" µfi.,ev'fi~Gf ,,5~N1, 61~W IN6j ,?.U~ yz,@ 1}1G CA1i..t.-ev11v~ ~'i(fG1'<4GrNC¢.. f1'<!0 fe?*Jo,Jt)ouy .,.~~NG-l/ I t>'P p-~411-f~v·i>· j?~NG~/ r.~N ~V11f'N eN6j IN~f 1'-l/'l,1'it f./1~!:>/"fl~D,. VM~'"' V-17 p.~.JC1-1tr i;vru~ / 1?1--04 ·/-.i0JJ '"'t/ &e?ue:1'6 /tt-ts-.C+-t '~ ,, c;Al.o?'? vviAtJ rz.e 1?X ~9 i;:; ~")(pe~b.Jc.-~,, If ~ ~ ~Ht>-4.-l-i~ I o "'y..,. '>-. r? ~ M iJ ~ii l'1 (N p.. vJ IP c1 I tJ c aJ j;"f p~J!>. r--?y ~() tJ "'0 IN Gr. 2. Pie e describe an issue that rece tly came before the Board that Is of partlc lar Interest to you I and describe why you are Interested In It. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. _ p..ep· jrt~ t>rzc.tf /4'~1tJ~L---~~ 0oP.~ MGY!r?~7 VPL-IJN'f~~~N ·fJPlf~ 'fP if~ IN 111e ftu"'I 4 ~N'T~fL °'f'~l ~oV117iiJar &Flt--Ht:7N<=-::> ,.,. .. -1~e 17w1i..tv, 1~ t?iitGv11"'1 t711"<6C/flt'N f iiJ,,,,.1 ~NvrrVN'tvt~rl;rr'~/ vJ~ 5'-1-f~~ 14 I f'i MltJp ~ ·"'(, 711 lf1 viM f~~ 1JG716iN IN ' f-orz_ o t?~7t Gtr..f 1 "1 -w14}t "'.: CAJ v 1v~ tt-'1 ~'1H · i;f£11Z.. Si.1~ M ~T, 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural eview Board achie e, and why? How would you suggest accol:mlshing this? I . 1 d -r-11111 > ~Jt~?pec:-11'V"¢ ~r~rz-r1~e '"" ~R.0"'41,.. 61 h .7~i-1tJ6f /J'JNj;¢"1?~ I 1H¢ ~Cf+l1 Ge i.J~ rz..ev'l~ 1:-iive-~?~ -J ?Ht>-~ ~hl'ftt.i--1tt1t --f" P"N1~~"*.JV1ep f?tc...-171~1'1-ivt~KIN&f r?t1711Je~::::> M""~,,..., W M<>1tlR-11tJbf P~i,t.-t7~NlU1toN~ P..U~~ .r>-~~QP-C> rz~ & Pf' p.izG-i>.S . P.l7V17C'A~ ~ A ~t...e75 ~.51q ...J ! w vJ. '(I ;::rr'(i£-!! 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find o be examples of good architecture, an explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach ·-samples·,-staffmay-requesrtllaryou bring hard copy prlrit outs to tile Interviews.--· -· -~"c.p P.-te..t-1-i tr~ui<:6 cJ?V'fJ~?:? 1--.lrt~~ of~N e?? /56N7~ 1 7~ t?j f..I H J''f"' WG"t.-v&> MIN U:f t1 l17fLJ ~ I~ iJ 1---e 7 4H ~ P6~~s ?J f tU~tu-t?l 1k '91'-IP-I/ 0·1'rfP'17I1it?N~ &f pP rJ t> ~vH Ii f;Vfilf'4t: -r~l'67 r~~ t>'I e--o&iWl~vv r~~A., L-'(1"'10"1 f~~~/.6--NP N t~ % , tAN~D ·tl£ 71H~--oL.I 1HG c-11 ui~v Rl~f~. 5. Architectural Review Board M bers work with th documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. ~lo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK ~K--- Vzoning Code LINK ~ V )I Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK · ~ VEI Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK ~ ~a Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK vCalifomla Environmental Quality Act LINK if~ ~mi! Streamline Act LINK 4L-- Density Bonus Law LINK ~ Secretary of the Interior's Standards LINK p~vc ~t? ~~ f~"fJ~7 P-C--clv1Ma.INJ:'( v-.J117&. o/rl~ ~-f ''~'11f"""'V/"f-l"f :'Giit·W~~~ ~~~ 1 ll'1N'0 V~t'f'W / -·· Page2 V' . I ~ Architectural Review Board t?~--~---l·'t Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that indivldual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: & i?t? .... ti' ~ 5-·-bt? 1 g Home I Office Phbne: E-inail: r ~ ;s..i...'fo P.j'l.t.ti 11"'167 Gt Mt>f 1.--, u-11 Signature /~ ·---· ~hl'-N -l?f rt Hi.Jo Date:~1 r . . . -· - /~ Architectural Review Board 01 ,-z..o _.rt Architectural Review Board Application Personal Information N. . Kyu Young Kim ame: Address: 1128 Oregon Avenue Cell Phone: 650-852•9747 @Home 10office Phone: 650-852-9747 E-mail: kyu@acsarchitects.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?@Yes Q No GUY OF PALO ALTO. ClA CtTY CLERK'S OFflGE D. o .you have any .relatives or !11embers. of your household ~h~ are .employed .by the City oJ:.ealo ~.·. , who are currently serving on the City Counc1t, or who are Comm1ss1oners or Board Members? LJYes\!) No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ®xesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to fife a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or . 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Oves@No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ()res @No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board? 0community Group Ooaily Post 0Email from City Clerk lv'ICity Website 12]Palo Alto Weekly 0Flyer . Previously applied, practicing design profressional in architecture. Other: ____________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: -American Institute of Architects Associate Member ~ Bachelor of Architecture degree from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Employment Present or Last Employer: ACS Architects Occupation: A h' I D . I D fts re 1tectura es1gner ra man Describe your Involvement in community actMtles, volunteer and ciVic organizations: -A member of Palo Alto Forward -Children's Ministry teacher at New Community Baptist Church Page 1 Architectural Review Board 1. What is it about the Architectural Review Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am a practicing design professional, living and working in Palo Alto. I have grown up in Palo Alto and plan to conitnue living here and contributing to Palo Alto's future. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. 636 Middlefield Road -I am involved with the project and gave the last presentation to the board Little League Cell Tower -... 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Making meetings and hearings more efficient, bringing in a younger point of view. 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. Los Gatos Library -organization, relationship to surroundings, materials, space Stanford Clark Center -relationship to people in-and-out of building Apple Store -Downtown & Stanford Mall, innovative details and materials, sustainable strategies 5. Architectural Review Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK Permit Streamline Act LINK Density Bonus Law LINK Secretary of the Interior's Standards LINK Page 2 Architectural Review Board Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part. "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: @ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: @Home 1QOffice Phone: E-mail: ~ 9/29/2014 Signature: ---ilh4~1!!!'.:tf::J~!!!!!l!!!!!-=~"T~~111111· ·,:____~·------------Date: _____ _ Page 3 Architectural Review Board Architectural Review Board Application Personal fofonnation Name: Daniel Phb Addre•s: 11i()1181h$lre,et San Francisco, CA$4107 ce.11Phone:415-81~ @Home tOomee Phone::41.5-(J.16-588a e-mail: dpflP1m30.groail.rx>,m ~Y® a Pali> Alto R~_,,t?Qv•(i) Mo . &HY OF PALO ALro CA €1TY CLERK'S OF'FJDE 14 SEP 22 PH 4: 55 ~oyouh. av.e. a. ".r:i.el·a• tives. ormem.be. rs of. y. ()Ur. hou.aeh. otd·~.o a.re. em···.··p. loyedbyth.e C. Ttyoifalo~,who ~re eurrentlytiM\ling on we. Clo/ CQyncll, c:>t Whc;> are .comirli$$1Qne,rg or Bpard M~ml>er$? Ul••\!1 Mo m:ye>µ avatraple at;d.®mmitted tO t;OJTlplete the term ~pplij:Ki to(? (i:y._QNo C:alifornJa. state law req,ulres appointed board and commlss1on membeis to file a detailed dlsolosure· of tb~r finani;iii;il 1.ntereit1. 'Pair P<>litl~I Practices Oommlssioi'I• C()nftict :¢ Interest (fQ!lY'I 7PO). ~ you h~v~ an 1nves1tr1et!Un, or do y.ou serve as an ofliCer or dire¢tor of; a OQJ'npany doing buslne&!l in Palo Alto Whidh you believe lstlkel~ lo: 1.) engage. in busln,!*,ss'.wittrtbe Ctty; 2) ptovkfe produ~s or services ror:city projects; or 3) be affected :by deelsi.ons of the board or ®rnmission you are applying for? 0 v,s@No !=XQIQdil'lg yo:µr piinc:lpal r6idenee, ~o you own re~I property in Palo Alto? ()y.s @No . . M9w <lid you Learn about the vacancy on th.e Archtt:•l:®tal Review Board? Ocommunlty Group Ooaily Post [l)emall from City Clerk Detty Website 0Palo AlfQ Weekly QFlyer dllier.~~~~~~~~~~~~~--,~~~~~~~~~--~~- List re.levaot education, training; experience, cerUficates of training, Hcens", Qr prof'8sional regti.ttation,; Nine years of experience working on projects in the City of Palo Alto (Rehabilitation othistoric • residence.a, historic community la.ndmarks and Birge Clark buildin9s) Registered California Archi1ect, 033844 Employment J:1,ruentor LastEmployer.· Cody .Anderson Wasney Architects., Palo Alto, CA Q®!JP8t1Pn; Architect, Prqject: M~naget O.~~ri:be yt>ur involvementln community aotlvtt1'8r volunteer and civic organliatlcms: LJ:eP $anlli~tle Btiildiqg Cor;itest Volunteer Save the Bay Volunteer & Cpmrnunlty Outreach Pege1 AtdtiJlt!ltt.u~I R~vieW ~am 1. What Is it about the Architectural Review Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I've worked on a handful of great projects in the City of Palo Alto in my short career and have had the honor to make a small impact and contribute to this treasured community. My goal for applying to become an Architectural Review Board Member is so I can take on a larger role to shape and help the City preserve its historical resources, encourage harmonious and sensitive development through great architecture and enhance the community environment for the public and Its residents. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. As a recent applicant that jusl submitted a historical rehabilitation project lor review at a ARB Board meeting, I experienced lirst hand how the Staff, Board members, architects, ownership, public and residents participate in the meeting. I observed that prior to the presentation and understanding all the positive I negative impacts of the project being proposed, neighborhood residents had their minds set against development. I'm aware that this happens a lot during Board meetings and believe we need a better forum to roster projects so that everyone Is clear on what was is at stake for each pro)ect much earlier in the process. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? The City of Palo Alto is thriving and has been for many years. It's recent challenges include the need to balance its exciting growth and innovation with all of its great historic resources and growing negative public sentiment for development There is a disconnect between new development and the members of the public that the Board is often ushered in to manage. We need to encourage more community involvement through study sessions and outreach meetings to shape developments in earlier stages of the project. 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. Ramona Street Historic District, Palo Alto CA The one block National Register historic district in downtown Palo Alto was designed mostly by two well known local architects, Birge Clark and Pedro de Lemos. The rehabilitation work that has occurred to the historic buildings on the street is a great example of successful adaptive historic re-use, acute sensitivity to historlcal building character and harmonious architecture. 5. Architectural Review Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK Permit Streamline Act LINK Density Bonus Law LINK Secretary of the Interior's Standards LINK CPA Zoning Code, El Camino Real Design Guidelines, Permit Streamline Act, Secretary of Interior Standards Page 2 Architectural Review Board Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21 . I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR Q I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Page3 Architectural Review Board Architectural Review Board Application Personal Information Name: Flore Schmidt Address: 1091 Tanland Drive 207 # 94303 Palo Alto Cell Phone: 0 Home 1®ottice Phone: 650 494 43 41 E-mail: schmidtflore@gmail.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?@Ves Q No ©HY OF PALO ALTO. CA GITY CLERK'S OFFIC& I~ SEP 29 PH 5: 2' Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City o!.falo A~.o,, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? UYes\!) No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? Oves®No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Oves®No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?()ves @No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board? Ocommunity Group 0Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly 0Daily Post Deity Website (i]Flyer Other: ______________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Full architecture degree, Paris-Versailles -France 1988 Graduate year in Rome La Sapienza University-Italy 1990 Cofonded and run 20 architects architecture firm in Paris area, France 1991-2013 Experience includes: Residentials & multi appartment buildings I education (3 high school - 2 middle school) I remodelling university campus in Orsay 11 Goverment (Civic Hall, library ... ) I sport facilities (stadium) I international experience I many competitions Not a California licensed architect Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Moved to Silicon Valley 2014 /Currently works with Sunplanter INC a Solar building start up company, Palo Alto Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Recently arrived in California. I am looking for involvement opportunities in subject I am deeply interested in. As Teenager I have consistently been engaged in Christian charity actions During the students years I have also given art classes (painting, drawing, sculpture & models) to 5-12 year children Page 1 Architectural Review Board 1. What is It about the Architectural Review Board that Is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? For 20 years, I have been in France, on the other side of the table, submitting projects to building departments, boards & governments. Although the administrative organization is quite different, I have been wishing the French permit granting authorities were more open-minded, more professionally experienced and supported a higher vision. I also wished they better understood the designer's constraints and quest and there was a productive dialog between the designer and the authorities. I have been member of many architecture competition juries and I have been involved in several city planning projects from small to very large scale 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that Is of particular Interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I have pleasure to hearfl debate goes on ! 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I am very impressed by the level of the thinking I have seen at work here. I understand Palo Alto is headed to strong urban density which is something that occured in Europe decades ago. I have spent a large part of my professional life curing the failures of too fast or ill designed density all over France. I understand Palo Alto approaches is very smartly, with much reflection and inverting a genuine American way based on a series of great principles that drive American city planning. It must harmoniously develop the environment but still preserve every one's identity, freedom and potential to grow. I think it is a fascinating high level mission. How does city planning encourage "living together", "energy and ressource conservation" "meanningfull llfe", "efficient business", while make denser? 4. Please Identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the Interviews. Let me talk here about PA City Hall. I don't know if ii works well internally, but I feel ii provides PA downtown with remarquable qualities. Its volume make it stand apart like a government building should, ifs architectural design, the material employed gives a scale and style reference. Ifs a landmark. It's also manages to create a European style "piazza" which is both a focal point, a breath in the city, a harbour while its reveals the institution's importance, providing public parking too. I absolutely do not mean private buildings should be allowed what the City Hall is. I mean that architectural design, volume, layout, building implementation must be use to build a neighborhood quality, an order in the city, meaning and hierarchy. However for the future, I strongly believe buildings should be designed around the sun so they are positive energy solar powered, so they treat the sun light and allow quality inner spaces while reducing reducing the need for air confitionning and artificial lighting. To my European ayes, LEED Platinum is an easy target, I wish Palo Alto invents the next step. 5. Architectural Review Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK Permit Streamline Act LINK Density Bonus Law LINK Secretary of the Interior's Standards LINK I am familiar with the French equivalent of most of these documents however I have no specific experience with the cited links. Page2 Architectural Review Board .. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 10office Phone: E-mail: . ~ Signature:_~_·_1 ____ U_r--_____ oate: 09/29/2014 Page 3 Architectural Review Board Personal Information Name: Address: 1<. I c H.:Al~ ?c Hie £1-;::. 'RMA.N. ~74' Lc::>MA V£ROE. f,l.1-D AC-To I Cell Phone: ~5 O • S~ep -lbo ~ 3 ®Home 1@0ffice Phone: 'B1'M €. CITY 0F PALO ALTQ. CA cny CLERK'S OFFICE 14 SEP 29 PH 4: ' ' E-mail: t<.CCHAP.P@ "?CHoEi....6~1'ViA.N. ~(V) Are you a Palo Alto Resident?@Yes Q No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City o~.: alo A~. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? UYesQY No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ®vesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Oves~No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ©v es 0 No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board? Ocommunity Group 0Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly Other: .Le 8 .U PfE,rg- 0DailyPost OcityWebsite 0Flyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Page 1 Architectural Review Board List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: • Licensed Real Estate Salesmen/ 2004 -present • Licensed California General Contractor / 1989 -present • Licensed Architect / 1983 -present o California / 1989 -present o Texas -1983 / Louisiana -1986 /Arizona -1986 /Arkansas -1986 / New Mexico -1986 / Florida -1986 / Colorado -2001 (pass licenses) o Licensed Texas Interior Designer -1994 (pass license) • Master Degree in Architecture, University of Texas at Arlington / 1982 • National Council Architectural Registration Board certification number 41623 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Independent Contractor -Coldwell Banker Realtor, Architect, General Contractor Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: • Palo Alto University Rotary Club I 2003 -present o President elect I 2014 -present o Club President for the coming term I 2015 -2016 o Community Service committee chair I 2010-2013 o Club Annual Fundraising Committee I 2011 -present o RotaCare Clinic Annual Fundraising Committee I 2011 -present • Deacon Menlo Park Presbyterian Church I 2005 -2008 • City of Palo Alto Community Development Block Grant Citizen Advisory Committee I 2007 -2008 • Safety Assessment Program Volunteer (SAPV) Disaster Service Worker (DSW) State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services I 2005 -2008 • Rebuilding Together Peninsula Playhouse Donation I 2005 and 2007 • Realtor Service Volunteer Program (RSVP) 2004 (free home repair services for seniors and the homebound) • Tour de Menlo bicycle ride volunteer (sponsored by Menlo Park Rotary Club) 2004 • Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce I 2003 -2005 I 2013 -present o Business Association Public Policy Forum (BAPPF) committee member I 2013 -present • Rotary Club Denver Southeast I 2001 -2003 1. What is it about the Architectural Review Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? • Architect for over 30 years • Palo Alto realtor for the past 10 year • Developer of residential property in Palo Alto and Menlo Park • General Contractor who owned and operated an 80 employee commercial construction company with projects including public schools, universities, medical facilities, retail, office, juvenile detention facilities, daycare, banking, churches, etc. • Many commercial properties are nearing the end of their building life cycle. o Replace buildings with higher density and mixed uses o Build with better efficiencies o Consume less energy, not more (net zero) o Reduction of operating costs o CalGreen Code energy performance standards which use LEED and built it green standards. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. • Build to Line requirements o Urban Design addresses the character and quality of the built environment in relation to the human scale. o The understanding of walking distances and spatial perceptions at a human scale determines the most positive placement of buildings, o Buildings ranging in height from two to six stories, trees, and pedestrian scaled signs and street lights, textured pedestrian paths, and semi-private spaces all enhance this positive scale. o Alleviate the fortress like feeling of recent developments such as the Alma Village / Grocery Outlet at 3445 Alma. • Streetscape compatibility with site landscaping requirements. Unified urban forest. • Context based analysis to ensure new buildings do not overpower existing development and to fit into local and regional visions for vibrant boulevards 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Architectural Review Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? • As new developments are occurring on El Camino Boulevard there is a unique opportunity to redefine the existing streetscape in order to bring it closer in line with Comprehensive Plan polices and the Grand Boulevard Initiative. • Encourage tree lined streets in Midtown and South Palo Alto to create a harmonious streetscape throughout the city. • Encourage undergrounding power lines to create a pleasing streetscape and showcase Palo Alto as true Silicon Valley leader. • Remove some on street parking along University Ave in front of restaurants to create pleasing outdoor dining opportunities without encumbering the sidewalks which will also increase restaurant economic viability. 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. • 245 Lytton Cornish and Carey, demonstrates balanced massing and scale. Not all the building is built up to the sidewalk. It provides human scale with a pedestrian friendly streetscape. • 400 Hamilton Wells Fargo Bank, utilizes the art of negative space and proportional massing to create human scale on the ground level and pleasing patios on upper levels. 5. Architectural Review Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. As a Realtor, Architect and General Contractor since 1982, I am well qualified to review and interpret the requested documents. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK Permit Streamline Act LINK Density Bonus Law LINK Secretary of the Interior's Standards LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: ~ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 100ffice Phone: E-mail: Signature~ Page 3 Architectural Review Board I Archite )ural Review Board Ar.11ication Personal Information Name """A~ {J'"~ I ~ S t ~:~::ne• rf W 04 K CA El«' [)I 'I/ 211-l'4 C# ,y>o 0Home10office Phone: 6P Jd t 0 r ' I E-mail: l ~A WO'-' e [A,,, •. ( • /14 Are you a Palo Alto Resident?.Yes Q o · . Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City o}.ealo A~, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? UYes-., No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? 9veseNo California state law requires appointed board and commissi~n m7Riiffirs to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you hav~ an invest~ent _in,. or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing busin:!5 in . 0 Palo Alto which you believe 1s likely to: ~ ~·.=! Col) .-<-< 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Oves@>No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?Qves .No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Architectural Review Board? Ocommunity Group 0 Daily Post 0 Email from City Clerk 0 City Website 0Palo Alto Weekly 0 Flyer f"l'1 (p -0 ~-n I'" w f'1'"l-0 0 :::o~ ::x:r- -u;o ::c C):,t> 'II ::5 (iii) ¢'>. en ljl1·~ Other: (M111Q c4l.Nj UN t/l(i It SfllfMC.. List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: 6Ullllll t•f'l DA'-T1'••1 H c•c14,f .,'4t, ,,,, f.t•Tl'I/~ l'ftt---t-01\. Employment Present or Last Employer: 'A ~1 /ff.II Ii 0 F A I• Occupation: cto/ (~~' .. ,. ,,.,,.,,*~L IJf ,,, .. ,f Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: · ,.,,, ~ 'Bl16 ("2''" -2"'f} {-AP PLl cAIJtJN :Lssue:-s 0AJ ~ .s£ o F CeM. f'UTEll-AccJE PTeJ) /&: or:=:cAV I Page 1 Cf/ :l. CJ I Ji ~ ~ Architectural Review Board Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 ·states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number q,f any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is ~ttacfied. Tnis consent form will not" be redacted arid will be attach~d to the Application and posted to the City's website. "' .. "' ~ • .:a • . .. The full code can be read here: l.INK Ir ....... Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 4 I give permission· for the city of Palo ·Alto to post to the Ctty"s website the attached Board and F' Commission Application~intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR ·~. 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home addres~. phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am . providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 10office Phone:. E-mail: ' 1 ~ y/l." ~ Signature: _Ml_· -~-----------~111"=-----Date• 'f /Jtj /'I , .. ... ,,. .. ~· • . ·• Page 3 Architectural Review Board Carnahan, David From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:15 AM To:Grider, Donna; Council, City; Shepherd, Nancy; Holman, Karen; Carnahan, David Subject:weiss applies to Architecture Review Board concurrent to Council bid Ghost-dogging and gehry’d ARB ap Posted on September 30, 2014by markweiss86 Hoover Tower by Michael Broadhurst, of Abilities United and Greensboro, N.C. In the film you and Gehry compare filmmaking with architecture. What similarities or differences in the two arts struck you the most? A: They’re both mosaic arts in that they’re comprised of many, many, many other art forms all put together like a big puzzle. When they’re successful, they have a pleasurable dreamlike element – the shape of a piece of sculpture, of a building, the way light hits it, the dream of a movie, the idea of a movie. But in order to achieve either you have to break it down into technical components, which are sort of mosaic in nature. In order to build the building you have to understand all kinds of physics. You have to figure out how to get people in and out of the building, how to get sewers in and where to put the loading docks, etc. If I want to make people moved or cry in a film, I figure out what the room looks like, what the people are wearing, what time of day it is, what the light is, how to photograph it, where to put the camera. It involves optics and costume design and set design and architecture. (Sydney Pollack on Frank Gehry and Dr. Milton Wexler) event 9/20/14 Lytton DESIGNED site specific by mark weiss for earthwise of paloalto I’m lampin’, I’m lampin’, I’m cold cold lampin’ Arrington et al 1. What is it about ARB that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I design concerts, especially site-specific events like on Sept. 20, 2014, “!Taylor Ho!” featuring Taylor Ho Bynum and Ben Goldberg, free jazz concert at Lytton Plaza, when the music stopped Taylor and I biked from Lytton Plaza (he had started his day in San Francisco), to Bol Park and past Gunn High, towards Foothill where he proceeded on to Cowell Redwoods Park and eventually Los Angeles. I’ve produced more than 200 events here, most at Cubberley, and, based on that, submitted to Mandy Lowell et al a white paper on the value of Cub as a regional arts venue. I think the board would benefit from non-architect design values. In Pollock’s film about Gehry and his therapist Milton Wexler, the doctor noted that couples come to him to be happy while artists come to change the world 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board …and describe why you are interested in it. I’ve spoken on about 10 projects in the last six months. Regarding the antennas at the Little League field I wrote, published and read into the record a prose poem about there being no “center field foul pole” which was not quite to the standards of Jack Hirschman or Lawrence Ferlinghetti, but borrows form it. I called it “chin music for corporate creep”:Old timers recall Art Kuehn bouncing a ball off the library, a long home run — he is our Babe Ruth. calling a shot Also, because my partner Terry Acebo Davis, the former two-term arts commissioner, once owned a house on Venice beach, which we checked on in July, I commented on a current downtown plan, the one designed by a psychologist but not Dr. Milton Wexler, and lauded it as “sorta Abbott-Kinney”. I knew slightly–ok, we met once, on the stairway, between the 5th and 6th floor of 77 Maiden Lane — Jay Chiat, the early champion of Frank Gehry — this is 1986 — and immediately sero- converted to Frank, and just this same July — we actually stayed Downtown LA at the old Universal Studios buildings — Pickford, Fairbanks — now called the Ace Hotel — with the JESUS SAVES neon intact — on Broadway but zipped out to Santa Monica Venice to see the Oldenburg binoculars at what is now Google La (goog lay lah) and made a little film there, similar to a film I made just last weekend walking from the new Anderson building thru the Richard Serra corten steel structure, to Cantor. We also, Terry and I, walked on the Disney concert Hall, exterior, a Gehry. Palo Alto needs, if not a Gehry, our version of such. We are more garish than Gehry. artwork by Stacey Carter, based on photo by Mark Weiss, NYC, summer 1988 I also own a print of the Oldenburg baseball bat; if you want to put one of those on Middlefield and pack that with senders and receivers, that I will support. 3. If appointed to ARB — but not seated by will of the people to Council November 4, 2014 — the specific goal I would like the ARB to achieve, and why and how I would suggest achieving, as part of process per se, an effect where, as Thoreau in 1849 and George Packer — Gunn 1978 — said in 2013, the leadership seems representative of and responsive to the people, and it’s not so much what color stucco or how much glass each new investment into our skyline and walking tour adds, but that there is a little of us in each brick, nail or plate so to speak, and, with due respect, to for example my Fremont Hills, Terman and Gunn schoolmate RP, there is at least a perception of lack. So maybe a sound and ambience slash negative space bricklayer would add a nuance to these proceedings and not just as a finish fetish. At the Tsuchianura Festival at Lucie Stern Sunday a lady named Nemet (but not unlike “Broadway Joe”) suggested we, like our Japanese Sisters, adopt a mascot; maybe we need a monster-mascot, to exorcise from these flippers and tear-downs and carpet-bagging opportunities, that which lurks herein. Maybe a zombie- ice-cream-cone fetish will make the monster homes seem more humane. 4. (long question, but opens doors, so to speak, to these visual aids) event DESIGNED by mark weiss for earthwise, lytton I like 250 Hamilton just fine, with or without the $4 mil facelift, Phil Ciralsky. (insert photo). I can also link to or reproduce in entirety here my previous draft of this posted as “Dancing About Architecture”. (I wrote two previous versions of this, from 4:20 to 5:25 while seated in lobby of 7th floor of 250, on my Apple laptop, but twice had the file deleted after answering the 4 questions above; David the clerk said “use Acrobat not Preview” and I admit I don’t know everything about this little doo-hicky — Terry did pay for, it was my 50th birthday — time at the “genius bar” but so far I have been faking it like an idiot savant, so maybe its just me. Number 5 I could not even get the thing to let me squeeze in a doomed bit of copy between all the links. I did suss out a bit on the previous links, thusly: Our forty six (46) not 80 zoning ordinances under Title 18 and our 38 not .62 building regulations, (i.e Title 16 et cetera) including the new ordinance about Public art and private development (which incidentally, I privately opposed, although I am somewhat known as proponent of the 1 percent in muni projects, and my partner is a former two-term arts commissioner). I likes me some Birge Clark. I think we should be charging Joe Bellomo for his bike racks on Civic Center MKL Plaza — it is not a park, it is a limited public forum. Can I say that here? This is my 59th post this month alone and my fourth attempt to be boarded. Two hundred fifty patters by “Christ” to 618 shields of reality by “King” David. Ten titles, or volumes, pulled somewhat hastily from my shelves, and then stacked neatly on a table at Peet’s about three hours and two posts ago: 1. Hiroshi Sugimoto & Jonathan Safran Foer, “Joe” about Richard Serra and Ando, in this case; 2. Art in America, June/July 2014 for article about architecture at Venice Bianalle, 3. Off The Wall!: A Guide to Greg Brown’s Murals in Palo Alto; 4 Trisha Brown, So That the Audience Does Not Know Whether I Have Stopped Dancing — if and only if it has the photo of her site specific piece of people waving flags from rooftops; 5. Scott Meacham, Dartmouth College: The Campus Guide; 6. Almanac Chapple-Mazinani-Thomas which I think is about recent grad students at Stanford, and something in a tower, ala Ann Hamilton tower at the art colony up in Petaluma I toured a whiles back; which reminds me to look for content I created or documented when John Barton had some cute young French exchange students talk in a compelling way about 27 University; and further about John Barton, who said, at the time, I could ring him> 7. Al’ America, by Jon Curiel, the former Chron writer and friend of a friend thru the dear Charlotte Gerstein (Dartmouth 1986, from West Hartford, CT, whose father made a film about the fact that Mark Twain deliberately made his house there face that of Harriet Beecher Stowe, to annoy here) the connect being that Barton and Carrassco here build a lovely mosque; 8. From Bauhaus to Our House by Tom Wolfe; 9. Fodor’s New York City from 1983 back in the good old days (and very avid Plastic Alto readers or close personal friends my recall that I spent February, 2001 that is in the final seven months of Western Civilization in New York, or Brooklyn for you sticklers and bums; and lastly a 10. Frank Lloyd Wright Field Guide Clayton, Running Press Cyclopedia, this fits in my pocket although I shlepped all ten, plus David Shields Realty Hunger and a Linda Ronstadt cd in a canvas bag from SXSW 2009; I regrettably sold off my Christopher “Christ” Alexander, “A Pattern Language” which I bought in 1988 because Rob Bagot had it, Rob a future Howard Gossage winner, compared to Dan Mountain the 1988 Howard Gossage winner, Dan and HISWIFE, who Terry and I saw in July, Clay Kershaw was on the mound and the tv, in Venice Beach, an Abbot Kinney kind of thing, you know. This is my way of announcing that beyond or technically before in some ways running Mark Weiss me that is for Palo Alto City Council — and again, since we are on topic, exactly 26 years after conceiving of an actualizing and presenting the 1988 Goose Gossage Award for copywriting-reading to Jeff Goodby– I am also concurrently little poMo and yes “pomp” (my computer is now ghost-writing this part, on auto-Pilot the pen) that I am applying for the appointable position or seat for Architecture Review Board. Not being an actual architect – although Matt H. Porteus and I, in Clay Leo’s 1978 HisGoBAM/APB History and Geography of the Bay Area Metropolis slash American Political Behavior did once design a lovely little piece of fiction, and fishin’ for that matter, Port Weissius, somewhere between Escondido and San Diego or in another dimension, an architect. But I have a good eye for music. More to comb. (Do I get bonus points, in some universe, parallel or on a different plane, for bridging, like the grandfather of a nice lady from Michigan in Old Palo Alto, Claytons Kershaw and Leo?) edita, ten minutes later: I also shot on my Moto Android a group of 11 photos of works on paper (and in one case tin) of architectural themed art works, that I hope color, shapes, supports and bulwarks (if that is a verb) this application, or essay, or exercise, from a private collection; a private collection {self-edited} and then addendumbed down. >>>sarsaparilla, and this is NOT a Palo Alto Buildings Inspector training film, unless we want to be SEIU’d: Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here. Tell me more | Dismiss this message Related Frank Gehry Jazz Bakery Long interview with Jessica Yu, lifted in honor of 148th anniversary of Gettysburg Address Two points for Gehry and assorted dribblingIn "art" About markweiss86 Mark Weiss, founder of Plastic Alto blog, is a concert promoter and artist manager in Palo Alto, as Earthwise Productions, with background as journalist, advertising copywriter, book store returns desk, college radio producer, city council and commissions candidate, high school basketball player; he also sang in local choir, and fronts an Allen Ginsberg tribute Beat Hotel Rm 32 View all posts by markweiss86 → This entry was posted in art, Plato's Republic, sex and tagged arthur bert kuehn, birge clark, christopher alexander,flavor flav, frank gehry, sonny valario, stacey carter. Bookmark the permalink. Edit .~ • C!iY OF PALO ALTO Application to Serve on the Historic Resources Board CITY Of PALO AL:Ta CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I 4 SEP -4 AH ff.: 13 Palo Alto welcomes volunteers and we appreciate that you are taking the time to apply. Completion of this application provides valuable information to the City Council. Please complete the application to the best of your abilities. If you have any questions or concerns please contact the City Clerk's Office. The Historic Resources Board is responsible for: • Reviewing and making recommendations to the Architectural Review Board on proposed exterior changes of commercial and multiple-family buildings on the Historic Building Inventory; • Reviewing and making recommendations on exterior changes of significant (Categories 1 and 2) single-family residences on the Historic Building Inventory; • Researching and making recommendations to the City Council on proposed additions and on reclassifications of existing buildings on the Inventory; and • Performing other fu nctions as may be delegated from time to time to the Historic Resources Board by the City Council. Please see Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.16, 2.27 and 16.49 for more detailed information. The Historic Resources Board is composed of seven members who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of the City. Members shall have demonstrated interest in and knowledge of history, architecture or historic preservation. One member shall be an owner/occupant of a category 1 or 2 historic structure, three members shall be architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals and at least one member shall possess academic education or practical experience in history or a related field. Terms of Board Members will be for three years. The Historic Resources Board typically meets on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 8:00 am. In addition to regular meetings, members may be asked to participate on at least one sub-committee which could hold additional meetings. Click here to receive email notifications of vacancies CLICK HERE. You are also welcome to contact the City Clerk's Office at 329-2571 or David.Carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FOR DUPLEX PRINTING Personal Information Name: Martin Bernstein Address: QHome 1@offlce Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident?@YesQNo Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? Oves@No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ®ves 0 No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ()ves @No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Oves@No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Historic Resources Board? §Community Group §Dally Post Email from City Clerk City Website Palo Alto Weekly Flyer Other: ______________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Mr. Bernstein obtained his Bachelor of Architecture degree from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Martin has also lived in Italy, where he has studied the Italian and European traditions. He is well versed in styles ranging from historical to contemporary. Martin has been active in Bay Area home design since 1984, and is familiar with the unique character of various neighborhoods, as well as local building regulations. Employment Present or Last Employer: Martin Bernstein Architect Occupation: Architect Describe your involvement In community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: President, Los Altos Hills Historical Society, Los Altos Hills, CA. USA. and served as President, Palo Alto Stanford Heritage. Palo Alto, CA, USA. Martin's Architectural Travel Drawings have been exhibited in San Francisco, CA, USA and Santa Clara, CA, USA. He currently leads architectural walking tours in Pacific Heights, San Francisco, CA, USA and the Professorville National Historic District and Downtown Palo Alto, Palo Alto, CA. USA. Martin provides architectural freehand drawing instruction and cover art drawing services for Mills College Cottage Tours, Palo Alto, CA, USA. Chair Professorville Design Guidelines Committee. Page 1 Historic Resources Board 1. What is it about the Historic Resources Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Membership on the HRB provides an opportunity to assist in educating the public about the cultural value of historic preservation. Being a fair judge when balancing the concerns of historic preservation with the needs of contemporary life-style needs is an important aspect of a Board Member. My practical experience includes restoring and remodeling 20 historic structures. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. A discussion that explored balancing the requirements of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation with the intentions of individual property owners. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would like the Board to be an approachable resource that provides public education about historic preservation. A suggestion to accomplish this includes inviting school-age children to attend a HRB Public Hearing. 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good historic architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. Several homes in Professorville that conform with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. 5. Historic Resources Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element LINK Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 LINK Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK I have experience with all of these documents. Comprehensive Plan: I contributed comments to the City Council during the Plan's development. Municipal Code: I utilized the Code when analyzing proposed projects. SISR: I utilized the SISR when analyzing proposed projects. CEQA: I applied the CEQA when analyzing proposed projects. Page 2 Historic Resources Board Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR ® I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Cell Phone: 650.324.9610 0Home t{!)Office Phone: E-mail: 04SEP2014 Page 3 Historic Resources Board I ·• elTY.·Of.· PALO· ALTO. CA ~ITY el.rnK'S OFflGE 1 lt. SEP 2·2 AH H'= I 5 0 C I TY OF PALO ALTO Application to Serve on the Historic Resources Board Palo Alto welcomes volunteers and we appreciate that you are taking the time to apply. Completion of this application provides valuable information to the City Council. Please complete the application to the best of your ab.ilities. If you have any questions or concerns please contact the City Clerk's Office. The Historic Resources Board is responsible for: • Reviewing and making recommendations to the Architectural Review Board on proposed exterior changes of commercial and multiple-family buildings on the Historic Building .Inventory; • Reviewing and maki ng recommendations on exterior changes of significant (Categories 1 and 2) single-family residences on the Historic Building Inventory; • Researching and making recommendations to the City Council on proposed ·--additions and on re·classifications of existing buildings on the Inventory; and • Performing other functions as may be delegated from time to time to the Historic Resources Board by the City Council. Please see Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.16, 2.27 and 16.49 for more detailed information. The Historic Resources Board is composed of seven members who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of the Ci.ty. Members shall have demonstrated interest in and knowledge of history, architecture or historic preservation. One member shall be . an owner/occupant of a category 1 or 2 historic structure, three members shall be architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals and at least one member shall possess academic education or practical experience in history or a related field. Terms of Board Members will be for three years. The Historic Resources Board typically meets on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 8:00 am. In addition to regular meetings, members may be asked to participate on at least one sub-committee which could hold additional meetings. Click here to receive email notifications of vacancies CLICK HERE. You are also welcome to contact the City Clerk's Office at 329-2571 or David. Carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org. Historic Resources Board Application Personal Information Name: Address: Cell Phone: ®Home/. E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? Oves®No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ~es 0 No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of theirfinancial interests, Fair Political Practices Commis5ion, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of a company doing business. in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ()ves ©No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? ®vesONo How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Historic Resource's Board? Community Group §Daily Post .. f;_l!lail. fr~m. 9.ity Clerk City Website Palo Alto Weekly Flyer ·Other: ________________ ....._ __________ _ Present or Last Employer: ~~tJ r.J ~ 1 f1 H L.IO Pi(c.-111<Je-c.:y Occupation: P..~ 11~(/f Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21 . I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alt9 City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact inforrn·ation instead. Page 3 Historic Resources Board Personal Information Name: f!.!:613/Z l<' Kolfz..-&1(. Address: 41--1} W/~}(,JE wA'f Cell Phone: (plJ!.1 ~.7/' &~;;Z> QHome t@Office Phone: ft?t?t? ~2.8 I o/J.(p ' E-mail: f" /< /{ t\ Y' c.h @-at>/, ~b h1 - Are you a Palo Alto Resident?®YesQNo UITY tJF PALO ALT~. CA CITY ©LERK'S OFFICE' Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? OvesfbNo Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? .. es 0 No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; ~JllJ;Gtt ... /(L>/.1-Z.&"f!. Jl,~IA""I~ }r-'fh::;8-J"Tf?L-14 ' 2) provide products or services for City projects; or .M:>,vE 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? eves QNo Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? 8'ves0No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Historic Resources Board? §Community Group §Daily Post Email from City Clerk City Website Palo Alto Weekly Flyer other: IHtJfJ@az PF Jf-1212 '[1Jll-7-f? Y;;f'rfZ.Cj ' ' List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: . ~ ):JJ.bJ-rr1t;:£-T ~IC~l57 )fV CA-L JFCfZMA-1 ClZc-Z"TL>/V) AA~l} t ~ ,kf/ A12-61+11~t.-'T 1 -:t: RA-:V~ Jt~?/Z;zcr.J b/U ,%t,µl 7""1PL,E' f2,~Jlt /l/Ji=l -ft-JJ!J/1/PJJ 7 7b Jl!11b!ZI c 1ffeo~/llll.l?7 /IV f')fz,R A-CW )tJV!) /t/cJ6,f,f(}/:tltM£, &lt I tf 7 · Employment hnvl::71 /ij:: V-..,u., ~~~I~ )r}u::.-J(J~'7' Present or Last Employer: UV/Ye-iv l-f.V71 vvcv Occupation: ~JTe3CT . Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: ~ IF Htz_13 91 µ65 fo/lty /tf t/4-'r flf .lj( !Jt~'fO~ 7Pf{Efl-kl--!JOtl--QIAJft Pi?if'T U><4P/>y11 Ti?/£-27 ~ -C/L2?tr/)/Vq 1?Wt=l-DPY>1$VT C,.t;;:.(Vl-5-!Z... ~ !t-A;tl ~ P~~7-- µpJ;>; ..-/L~-rz.y ~ W& PJZ.Pr£<:~f2VIZ-LG C?'lU)'kr j Js!ri~sources~a~=r~ 1b Wi71t7£: IR 6Vlti-Jrve? t?ZXZ-P~?:ftVll-LE: ,... 1. What is it about the Historic Resources Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? -ffV0/!3/J Jli?>t:;fZJG---PA-JZ..»t ff'Pf,J~JY7 W/--rli.E A-I V!Vll/, ~~btV -oµ.6 op my J,)tf?P-y Fl~ p,ttNG-cr-> ;;v fl A-IN 1q1e JUk-& "JO A-ov '}.,JV!) /=uz Jb;;IJJ{/!7JV /0 Jflk/T J-r}!f",Mf/~J?PZo/ 7 llz;V¢; If/ 3/C( ktJlllf7t?/V · ltV f1!.!,w£347az-//I~ 2. Please ~escribe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and de~cnbe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. k/P /Z~Ui\rf~'-/ IAW!~c?O J11VOJrl~~ Tu-~ 1/lrfl,,-&JJ"/ ~T~., Tf:f!-? I-? PJlPEJJ:rf}J..,l.f Ir.¥ lrt-1(20 IJY'h~ k/p MV~ ~ fiT /7ikv? T/7P-ffel7 Vl<P-111y ·r~- 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? ' ~ll!Wlf ~ 4c?fri.-~ 1;v~<7J~ PV{jy1~JJW/A-JZ~ tr--JI) f3 l/7t Z..vG. tl{Z j{pt?P; ;v6t ffJJ4} p;;;;:-1iJ?t2-;!V67 /Jiqf,$Z l D f l/2.VC"rvt2--t7~ - 4. Please .identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good historic architecture and explam why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If ' you attach samples, staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews . .--Affiw f1PJWJN6' gv,z.T A:/ZL51.>'ND RPUC!Z/ WAP6.t:.e>o1 -r1~/ ~1A!i12A'-'PA--2.b/2- f11PfJJr1eo PE?1~v 11-1 5v~a~7TGJJ Py ./1,JUO ;a~e~-;; - -fJJ/1-JiV lJ/#P.4RY fll?-71&/V r.t¢. 57f2.VCTV!Z14z.,, '?t>PPCIZ> ~?; WH~ Kt:rl?ciJ ;t-7 ~4>~ l.7'-f H1?-8 - 5. Hi~toric R~sources Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience ~1th any of.these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents 1s not required for selection. V Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element LINK V Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 LINK v v Se?r~tary of the Interiors Standards for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK Page 2 Historic Resources Board Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, ''No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: • I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: ~ftl --ei:J~/ 'V5/f~ QHome t@Office Phone: blJP ':f-Z,g /tJ~ E-mail: Page 3 Historic Resources Board Historic Resources Board Application Personal lnfonnation N Michael Makinen ame: Address: Cell Phone: ~,~ .z:-~ QHomeiliiiiiiiillOffice Phone: ~ -<-< -0 ~G'l E-mail ,..,, N ,..,-a Are you a Palo Alto Restdent?@v_-QNo N ~~ Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alt~ho~:x> are currently serving an the City CGwncil; er who are Commissioners or &Gard Members? Oves@ic, ::tj~ Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? @v es Q No ~ ~ n CalifOmla state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of )> their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or de you seFVe as an affieer or director of a eompany doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ()f es @No· Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Oves®No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Historic Resources Board? § Community Group §Daily Post ~~ail.from City Clerk City Website Palo Alto Weekly Flyer I currently serve on the HRB and I am the Vice Chairman. Other: ___________________________ _ U•t relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, llcenses, or profetslonal f!tDlstratlon: My education includes a BSME and a MSME. I am currently a historic preservation consultant for NASA at Moffett Field. Prior to my retirement from NASA, I was the NASA Ames Historic Preservation Officer. I was responsible for all aspects of historic preservation, relating to Individual historic buildings, historic districts and historic landmarks. I worked with the California Office of Historic Preservation and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on actions at Moffett Field relating to all historic properties Including the airship hangars and historic districts. I have attended over 50 trajn!na sessions and seminars on hjstorjc nreseruatjpn Employment Present or Last Em 10 er: NASA, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA """'"' ti. Hlstorrc Preservation Officer, Chief of Facilities Planning Office V\Nupa on: Desc;rlbe Y.OUI ll)voiumtnt 111.convn.uoitY ac.tivltlet, ~lta\teer 8.{td civic Ol1Ulnlzatlone: I pan1c1pate m the Restorauon AaVJsory Boara (HAts), a cmzens aav1sory group that reviews actions proposed by the US Navy for the environmental remldation of the former Naval Air Station property at Moffett Field. The RAB provides oritque of proposals and makes recommendations to the Navy regarding actions to eliminate environmental sontamination at Moffett Field . · · · · Page1 f'flstorte Res1:1ur<:E1s Board 1. What is it about the Historic Resources Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Tfle Historic Resources Boaro deals with many of the same issues regarding the treatment of historic properties and historic districts that I have worked on at Moffet Fieldlo resolve. The Historic Resorces Board utilizes tne Secretary of tl"le Interior's Standards to address evaluations of proposed treatment and rehabilitation plans of historic properties in the same manner as my experience and interest in solving historic issues related to modification, adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of historic buildings and historic districts at Moffett Field. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that Is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in It. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. A project that came before the HRB on December 5, 2012,was the so called "Arts & Innovation District" also known as 27 University Ave, (MacArthur Park), was of particular interest to me, This project was developed and matured before it came to the HRS for review in a study session, It was obvious from the first review that the project had not considered any impacts to the city owned historic resource (27 MacArthur Park). I expressed strong objections to the impacts that the project would have to a National Register listed property. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve, and whY.? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would like to see the citizens of Palo Alto become more aware of the value of historic preservation. This value is expressed in maintaining a high quality of life for our citizens and the enhancement of property values. One project that the HRB is currently working on is the Professorville design guidelines to better acquaint and guide home owners. The HRB also invites homeowners to seek advice from the Board on rehabilitaion planning of their properties. Educational outreach is a goal I would like to to see the HRB expand on. 4. Please Identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good historic architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If _you attach samples, staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the Interviews. TheHRB reviewed the rehabilitation planning for 345 Forest Ave. (Lanning Chateau apartments) on June 5, 2013. The HRB was able to agree with the selected modification of the building that allowed for commercial use In the ground floor space while still preserving the historic character of the building. Additional windows and doors were designed and installed that were compatible with the historic character of the building. The successful application of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards allowed modern usage while still maintaining historic integrity. 5. Historic Resources Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with then documents Is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element LINK Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 LINK Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK As a long standing member of the HistOFic Resorces Board we worked with all of the above documents. The documents most frequently utilized are the Secretary of the Interiors Standards and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The HRB also references the Palo Alto Mun1c1pa1 Code for most of our reviews and the comprehensive Plan is sometimes referencea. Page2 Historic Resources Board Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and wHI be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto red~ct my home address, phone numbers, ancf email address from the attached Board and. Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: <!/46 J 5'0.3 -9-9 2.6 QHome !@Office Phone: r!t-fo) 2-?3 -4'12..' J E-mail: (_ ~sn) .3 23 -4~t:JlJ /"1 I l<G' 4'12 G a /t'OL , Cd/f-1 Signature: _......_.;n......,_~ ........... ~ ........... /.-..... U>_. _,.-~--~--~------Date: l' /z; /1-1- Page3 Historic Resources Board ~ • ' Piease ·return to: . HISTORIC RESOURCES ~OARD SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE (659) 329-2571 Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto,.CA. 94301 Name ___ M....,i=·(~ ... ha""tl=-P .... ._,_.f:fa;;ki=' .... ne...,n ______ _ Please prix!t or type yow answers to the following qu~ti9ns and submit wilh your completed appiication. You may submit additional sheets, if necessat}', to complete yoilr answers. · . 1. Have you· aneoded any of the followfug meetings? a BoardJCommission Orientation Session Date_· ---------- • Historic Resour?Cs Board · ( MISHISc'"ll) x Date :1Jff2·~ ~ . IC> · ~llTG · 2. How did you leai:n about vacancy on the Historic Resour?es Board? Comi;nunity. Group-._ Newspaper Ad-.--Place of Employment __ Utility.Bill Stuffer __ . · City Clerk's Office ·-- .. , ) Other (specjfy) c l.llUU7v7LY JI/. 1"1EM<ft:~ OF r.#c /.f.RK (Vice~; Cl/If It~ .. il~8) 3. Are you an owner/occupant of an historic structu;re (Category l or 2), or of a structuie in an histori~ district? oui»6t OP 'If Cip7GC'-(),ey .3 /ltJi.J.5(7' ) I" . ' ) . . ) \ I ) · 4. Ar9 you an architect, landscape arChitect, building designer or other design prof essionan I am a mechanical engineer by education (MSME) and I have worked as a NASA engineer, manager and supervisor for many years. I taught (part time) ·ar~hitectural graphic·s at Baldwin Wallace College in Ohio for 20 years. I also have experience in renovation of historic properties. I currently serve as the NASA -Ames Historic Preservation Officer. As the chief historic preservation official at NASA -Ames, I am responsible for the NASA -Ames Resear.ch Center historic preservation program and negotiating historic preservation Issues (undertakings) with the .State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on all matters relating to compliance with historic preservation laws. I have also been responsible.for developing urban planning concepts for the reconfiguration of existing property and land at Moffett Field. This property includes an airfield, golf course, 750 units of military family housing and various other US Navy buildings and land. This property was conveyed to NASA in ~994 as a result of the U.S. Navy Base R~duCtion action.· NASA is currently adaptively re-utilizingJhe historic properties at Moffett Field for Carnegie Mellon University's new.western campus. The California Air And Space Center wHI soon begin the conversion of the historic dirigible hangar # . 1 into an air and space museum. Another'new facility, the Computer History Museum, will soon be erected adjacent to the Moffett Field historic district property. I am re~ponsible for directing architects and planners working on these lssoes. I have also worked with traffic analysts and the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority {VT A} on traffic planning issues related to Highway l01 ·interconnects tq Moffett Field {Moffett Blvd. and Ellis Street exits). Additional work with the VTA involved establishing the NASA alternate commute program. t have also managed anq coordinated contract urban planning and historic preservation work being performed by.EDAW Inc, OMJM Architects, Beyond Buildings Hi.storic Preservati9n Consultants,.Bay Area Economics Inc., Caltrop~ Associates, Page & Turnbull Preser.vation Architects and Architectural Resources Group (ARG). This work at Moffett Field has also involved coordination with the planning departments of the City of Mountain View and the City Of Sunnyvale on a frequent basis. I developed the NASA -Ames Research Center Historic Resources Protection Plan for the Shena11daoh Plaza Nation~! Historic District at Mo ff ell Field. This plan has been submitted to tlie SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Prior to this work, I managed the development of a report known as the Cold War Era Survey <;>f buildings at Moffett Field for historical significance related to the cold war ~ra. · I-have recently.been involved in the creation of the Environmental Impact Statement of the NASA Ames Development Plan which includes work related to historic properties at Moffett Field. !1 .,. • • .. ... . ·-·~; . : California state law requires appointed board and commission.mciµber.s . to file a detailed disclosur~ of their ~ial 4iter~l$. DQ you.have an . .-, inves~ent in, or do. yo_u.serie u an o~r or 9i;rector of, .a comI)anw doing business in Palo Alto which you ~lieve is likely 1) to engage in busio.ess·wi~ tlie City;2) ttfprovide pr6dl!cts (jr services for'City-projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board ~r cominission you are applying . ,for? . If.yo~ answeted yes, you may wish to consult with thC. City Attorney . before filing tIW -appli<;ation. Please contact Ariel Cciloone at (650) "329-2171 to arian~e ~ appoin~ent. · Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property ill Palo Alto or with.in two miles of P~o Alto? lf you answere<! yes, you may wisll to co~Ul.t )Vith the City Attorney before filing this appli~tion. Please ·contact Ariel Calonne at ( 650) 329-~171 to arrange an' appointment. EMPLOYMENT ) .Ya· .. I \ ' . ' .. I ) • x. '."~):::;~~~·>~?:?'}:.: ,; . ' ':;,4\';<~ ·. ~ .,.~::· __ ... _.,. ..... ~· . ' Present or last employer · 1 .. 1orc~'!1Pani . NITS;:/-/1/l'!EJ l?e'MCH . CC/t'7c7f!. FHC/L.IT/li'.$ fl:t~> N/1..SJ:l F/ .O~atioo tVlifll lf/ST"ltlC:.pi;SIF.RWITI~~ . t;>FP:lt;.F~· .. l ) . .·. t). ··.•'· . ,. \ > ) ) 10. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve? · Improving the Image of the Palo.Alto.Historic.Resources program with the community and developi.f"!g greater community support . . . ~ ;,. , . ... . : '\, ,; . ·.' .,_:.;,. '., 'l• /\ ~ Personal Information Name: .lcQ~kV ~ 's~~tJCr . Address: ·~f/ ~\\Jf-~£ 'fft .f,.\J't. ={f:307 cen Phone: b6D £ qot> /oSq 9J'Home /~Offife Ph,one: ~e,. ·E-mail: tAGqe~~\t\S@o.c,\, C-o~ Are you a Palo Alto Resident?~YesQNo CHY 6F PALO ALTO. CA CITY GLERK'S OFFICE . I~ SEP 22 PH 3: 85 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? Oves,ilNo Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ~es 0 No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Qv es St No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Oves®No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Historic Resources Board? Ocommunity Group §Daily Post D Email from Cit. y Clerk City Website OPalo Alto Weekly Flyer t>E:N't~h .. S ~~Nl>. Other: A'IVJ....\ ~kf.JcJ;S l H~~\~ ( +\ \e-~ ~EY\~) List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: ~Of:-e~f,\O tJ~ ~~rtU.-T'&-t_AC£.f\j~-t,;4t= '2~534- "B . .-k, f\2-oH 0N\\J~\\L(' or G/\l..-\F. ~\C..e.LE.'-f ~AC\\v\ ~~ ~~t\\\e;c.,,-~~ t:"~t£>b~'TvL(' Employment Present or Last Employer: SC:-\..-~ ~t-\Pt..DL.(f:.D .,...T f, ~ • g, pe:S\~NS · Occupation: fq2C-H rr ~I Page 1 Historic Resources Board 1. What is it about the Historic Resources Board that is compatible with your experience and of SP!i!Cific interest to you, and why? \ ~\;\ *. 1'~kl,.,-~ \ C..-\ '\\) &> ~o ~~\,&\J~ -A-\2Utt''T~T Wf{&' ~\~\)€$ t~ ~~i~ .ft~S~D [2-\(., <5~vc;;fu~ · + ~~\Jt~iJ~s ~ fUi"~ ~~etJr, 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interes~ted in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. . __, . 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Co~ltJ ue:: -ro SA..\J C:.. ~ ':f\2:~~\)e;.., i\l~T0 12-tLA L-~ue$T-f\NCL l~ ~T~t>C..10~&-f 4 ~Vlf!Of'JlMWT~ Sc> TtteY ~M.€=. ~et..~\JNJT 4 5TA4 "'UV~ 4 . {tJ USt +.S "11,-\\I E::. i-\ l~Te>p-"( IC i-ft\S ~\..{ AJ)HE:fa-1~ 'to ~ $f?F-~\t>S · +. ~\~~ \~T 1' ~w~ -BJ"f\\'--f L~ flsW A'<To , 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good historic architecture, and explain why. You may attach samples, identify project addresses, or provide links. If you attach samples, staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to t~interviews. \ 12fbE:; ct..-k~ 130\ LD\t-ttos) , I e, (j) f'f2.-Eb\ t>~' ~ \-\tf(l::L-. ~rs . K~\~ 'Pvs.,-off\& @ VA~S\-t°i Ttl~)Xti2-{j) HAltJ U~~\2-Y lt>t)O fo~\ "-.J & · 12-f;S\t>W~ 6!lC-T0\2-l~ 5. Historic Resources Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element LINK f==A't'\ \ v\~~ \A.) 1'1'.\-\ \\ ~~U.V Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 LINK ~\-\ \iU~~ 4f \>S~ ~R \>t2ef-€:SS \e t0 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings LINK 17kt-\\Uk{2. ~ ~\_,., r\ \S T~ ~~ ~~.-.\\\S\e~(C. California Environmental Quality Act LINK *='--u 1 , L 4 ~~~K{'tt'JN • - ' f'T' \ '-"~{?--~ ~ IT l S \/~ '{ ll-\O~f.'\AN'T f.::>1.--\C-i ·0oc, +~~ ~· ~ue,uc_· t ~'f~toN'M--S nJ :D\t<ecnotJ t &l>~T~~ or "b~~l,o-Pt-\~T' Page 2 Historic Resources Board Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: ~ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: QHome tQOffice Phone: E-mail: Page 3 Historic Resources Board Historic, kesources Board Appl ..... '>ation Personal Information CITY eJF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Name: Margaret Wimmer Address: PO Box 60681 Palo Alto. CA 94306 CeUPhone:650-646-1610 ()HomeBE)OflicePhon~ E-mait mmwimmer@yahoo.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?®vesQNo 14 SEP 22 PH 3: '43 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are emproyed by the City of Paro Alto. who are currently smving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? Oves®No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ®res 0 No California slate raw requires appointed board and commission members to fife a detailed disclcsure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an offieer or director of a company doing business in Paro Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City;; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Qves @No Excl'uding your principal residence, do you own real proj,erty in Palo Alto? Oves®No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Historic Resources Board? §Community Group §Daily Post Email from City Clerk City Website Paro Alto Weekly Flyer Other: I am currently serving on the Board List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: I have a Bachelors Degree from the College of Architecture and Environmental Design from Arizona State University. Employment Present or Last Employer: I am Self Employed Occupation: Residentfsl Designer Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am currently a board member of the HRB. Page 1 Historic Resources Board ) ) 1. What is it about the Historic Resources Board that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I have done work on local historic residences and have presented to the board in the past. I have a special interest in historic architectural design. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Board that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Board meeting you can view an archive here: LINK I think the whole process is interesting and educational. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Historic Resources Board achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I think greater community awareness of the board and the boards purpose would be a great goal to have. 4. Please identify a project or projects that you find to be examples of good historic architecture, and exprain why. You may attach samples. identify project addresses,, or provide links. If you attach samples. staff may request that you bring hard copy print outs to the interviews. I think most of the historic residences in ProfessorviHe that have come before the board have been great examples of projects that are maintianing historic character while trying to acomodate modem lifestyles. building codes and technology. 5. Historic Resources Board Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Paro Alto Comprehensive Pfan Land Use Bement LINK Paro Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 LINK Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Preserving. Rehabilitating. Restoring, and Reconstruciing Historic Buifdings LINK California Environmental Quallly Act LINK I have experience with CEOA. and the Secretary of the Interiors Standards mostly with my work with the board. I have experience with the PAMC thru my work as a residential design professional. Page2 Historic Resources Board .. ) Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Cod.'e Section 6254211 states, in part, vNo state or focal agency shall post the home address or tefephone number of any erected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining 111te written permission of that individuae The full code is attached. This consent fomr will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City"s website. The full code can be read lltere: LINK Read the code, and check onl'y ONE option below: ® I give permission for the City of Paro Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Apprication intact I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alb City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Pa!o Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the atra.dtedl Board and CommiSsi.cn Appticaticn prior to posting to lhe City''s websile. I am providing the fotrowing alternate information and request that they use the following contact Information instead .. Address: Cell Phone: QHome 1Qomce Phone: E-mail: Signature:__,_kJ_..____· -----~--· ..___,_V6<\\_______,_ __ Date 1/ 'to( ]/0/4- Page3 Historic Resources Board Planning and Transportation Commission Application Personal lnfOnnation Name: Yekaterina Vershov Downing Address: 450 Pepper Ave Cell Phone: 650-575-9843 QHome 1Qomce Phone: E~mail:k~te.vershoy@gmaH.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident? @ves 0"11o OITY ©F PALO ALlO, Q~ (ilTY BLERK'S Of1:FIOE 14 SEP 22 AH 10: \ ! Do you have any relatives or members ofyqur househqld.who are employed by the. City oj.Ralo ~.''who are currently serving orl the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? l)Yes \!}No Are you available and committed to oomplete the.term applied for?. ®vesO No Callfpmia state law requires appointed board and. cornmission mem.tiers to .file a detai.led disclosure of their fjnancial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investrl'lent in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the. City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the.board or commission you are applying for? ()Yes® No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Oves@)No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Plan!'ing and Transportation Commission? OcorJimunity Group OoailyPost 0Em~il fr()m City Clerk Deity Website 0Pa!o Alto Weekly 0Flyer . Other: Eric .Rosenblum List rel,vant education, training, experience, certiflcate.s of training, licenses, or professional registrati~n: .. Georgetown University, Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (finance major) Columbia University, Juris Doctor Member ofthe California Bar Employment Present or Last Employer: VMware, Inc. Occupation: Products and technology attorney Describe your involvement In community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Pro :'Bono voluntee.r for the Housing Negotiation Project, representing families facing evictipn. . Volunle.er for Northern California Farnily De>g Rescue. Co'."founderof Palo Alto ForWard, a non-profit dedicated to better housing and transportation options;in Palo Alto. Page 1 Planning & Transportation Commission 1. What is It about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I have developed a deep interest in the details of city planning and have spent a lot of time getting up to speed on key documents. I believe that I can offer the City Council timely, concise, easy to parse recommendations based on rigorous analytical assessments that leverage my analytical, detail-oriented, and fiscally-focused skills. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested In it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I'm interested in the future of the RPP program. It's the sort of solution that we need to try before we move onto solutions with much larger capital expenditures. It may not be a solution for all causes of parking shortage and it may not be city-wide, but together with other solutions like TOM and ride-sharing apps, it can be part of a winning toolkit. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I'd like to assist the PTC in successfully updating the Comprehensive Plan, including appropriately framing the options the EIR should explore to make sure they reflect the gamut of options posited by the community. I would also like to work on refining the Housing Element to make sure that additional units required by ABAG/RHNA are located near transit, thereby minimizing attendant traffic and parking issues. 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK City Charter LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK As an attorney, I'm well versed in reading and interpreting very dense, technical documents. When I became interested in local planning, I read through most of the Comprehensive Plan, and like Pat Burt recently underscored, was surprised to find it focused on "directing growth to appropriate locations within the urban area, particularly along transit corridors and near employment centers," given the current tenor of the community. I've also looked through the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and read through the El Camino Real Master Plan. I live just a few houses down from El Camino, so its development and improvement is of prime importance to me. The vision for El Camino is especially poignant because it is one of most underutilized corridors in our community, with great potential for something that resembles more of a beautiful Parisian boulevard with outdoor cafes, shops, and people strolling about, than the unwalkable and unwelcoming current reality. Page2 Planning & Transportation Commission Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: @ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: Q Home IQ Office Phone: E-mail: ,---- Signature:~/ Date: 9/21/14 Page 3 Planning & Transportation Commission E-mail: Are you ... -..... -: ·- r , po you h~ve any relat\v~s or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Board or Commission Members? ~ - Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ~ ~ ,4.-o • California state law requires appointed Board and Commission Members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ~ , Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? 1-f-K· Community Group Email from City Cieri<. Palo Alto Weekly Daily Post Other. _ _J...Lf:.~~~~~:::::::::::__::__..l...:::i~~l:ll.f~::=:::.-'e.J.....&:!~~~..),.L'....l!::i.~:!:::!::::S~~~ ---.v-.:~ Occupation: ) ! California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, i part, "No state or local gency shall post the !71!7_ d"'<..J ! home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first {'i /J 1 obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not ~::4J l be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. ~ i The full code can be read here: LINK 1 ~ : Read the code, and check only ONE option below: (~'. ....._. j _ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and . ~lo : Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code , - '·-··-·-+H ..... 0 . -·· ,._ ... ""' .... 00 J 0 •• --0 00 ~·----··· # ... ~· ~~ c£ -~v-.c-J . -·· • I ) ) ....... , .... -··· .. ·-·· -............ ·--· ..... --·· .... ··-...... -. -·· . -··· ... ····-··--·-·--· ......... -···· ---·---····. ··-................ ---·········. --··" ...... -···· ······-........ -····--... -·· ........ ... . "l Section 6254.21 . I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo l ~ i ! ·-' i I ! ; ' ~~~ I OR i I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Phone 1: Phone2: f ! E-mail: '>.•• •••• ' •••• ·~"" ........ . Valerie Driscoll Tel: Palo Alto, CA 94301 \ .J I am seeking a volunteer position within your Boards and Commissions with City of Palo Alto after education and some Business research. Please review and contact. Thank you. Volunteering Experience: Healthcare-Breathe California, e.g. (American Lung Association): Teaching, database management, article writing, general office and internet, some marketing consulting . regarding advertising, phones and accounts up~ating, processing. O'Connor Hospital Behavior Coaching-(formerly): Wisdomful.com Psychology/Sociology-Counseling Internship with Agency: ACT, San Jose Politics-Campaign Support to David Cortese, Santa Clara Supervisor Asked to run for office while volunteering with Alza Corporation Voter Registration League of Women Voters Santa Clara County Recreation Dept. Land and Water Preservation Education and assisting with water testing for environmental concerns. Santa Clara·Govanment C~tHlty iMf'rees: Meeting5 regarding public transportation (concerned citizen). Investigations-Atlas Investigations, San Jose, CA Safety and Emergency Preparedness-Neighborhoods-City of Palo Alto Paid Internships and Jobs: Law Offices, Palo Alto, CA 1992-lntern Law Administration: Civil, Criminal and Probate: Agency type of practice on Park Blvd., behind Superior Court. Investigations-Business Law: Sao Francisco Agency, CA 1989-Iot".ro I was offered a position with Reynolds Kendrick and Stratton stock brokerage, San Francisco, CA, 1990-I declined. ) Education: Associates Degree: West Valley College, Saratoga, CA 9/2000-6/2006 Liberal Studies/ Paralegal; atso: Telecommunications, Netwurks and 'SuftwaTe entry;Cottege of San Mateo: drafting, and work later in Silicon Valley with an Architect on blueprints and plans for building. (I was told I had the talent for it, when helping with drawing). Also, Student of World and Global History-History buff, including Government History. Additional Study: Fort Hays State University, Hays Kansas Major Sociology 2010-2011; Published. Paralegal Studies: West Valley College, Saratoga, CA-2006. Work Skills: Administrative, with respect to contracts, purchasing and leasing, as well as accounting and administrative functions, management and some H.R. in computers, biotech engineering, defense, law, investigation, healthcare, oil industry and non-profit 501 C3, and apartment complex management. Computer: Hardware and Software assembly, building with Stanford Engineers; Technologist with Comp. USA. Software: Microsoft Word version 2003-2007, Windows XP and 7 platforms, Quickbooks, Peachtree, Power Point, E~lorer 9 with Deskto,p use of Goo_gle _and Yahoo, toolbars, _and Search Engines; DOS trained, trained in Fortran, in early years of education 1985-1990, C++, Perl, Java, Html, some experience with PeopleSoft, school experience assisting on databases and Networks, with some interest eventually in I.T. database management; Tech Trouble-shooting. Accounting: In General Management and Business; Jr. Accountant/auditor, and database files, yr. to date totals, logs, bookkeeping, AP/AR in purchasing and records. I Saved company 1 million dollars, entire database review of POs and AP/AR and Journals; Jr. Accountant in Fixed Asset Accounting, Ledger input (data entry) Double-entry bookkeeping, and Year-1u-date totals on Financial Forms and logs, processed W-l's for employees; Job-Costing; Organization of logs; use of Peachtree accounting software. Some experience with payroll as well as auditing. I conducted employment skills review and performance, for cost-effective management. Accounting Office Administration H.R-assisting/hiring Quality Control, Administration and Quality Assurance, Tech Troubleshooting Insurance A. Prelicensing and B. Code and Ethics: Quick Learning School-2011 1 1 ~ ) Apartment complex assistant management. Teaching: Cbri.stian Education Banking Research-Psychology/Sociology: Freud, Jung and the major psychologists and history of their practices and techniques in the fietd of psydtotogy-Thesis prep work. More research on stress in the work place, biofeedback, families, work and economic transitions from Social Darwinism (Darwin era) including the 1930's, to world war I and Il, 1940's, 1950 to 1979, in America; Analysis of complex cultures in America and other countries from the 1700's to 1979 and the global impact of cultures and business on the economy, including the media and religion, gender and wage statistics, family raising techniques and gender roles in the home and in the work place: Fort Hays State University-Sociology studies- Published under Kirk Johnson, Arcbeologist. Author of a guide book on economics. Work Experience: American Oil Transport company, Santa Clara, CA Comp USA-Technician Assistant, San Jose, CA Genesis Biotech Engineering, Menlo Park, CA Goodman Defense (Missiles), Mountain View, CA Cisco/Lucent Technologies, Cupertino, CA San Mateo Apartment complex, CA Highland Academy with Highland Church (Christian Church School), San Bruno, CA Eureka Federal ~avings Bank, San Mateo, CA Planning and Transportation C0:mmission Application .Pe:rSonaJ·JnformatJon Name: Cl~ug~ Ezran AcJ'°'ress! 71:fi Se.al~ Avenue; PaloAlt~» QA:Q430$ ¢~ll Plio11~: Qt).0-248'-!)706 ®Ht>m¢.J 0PfflP~Phon~;6oQ~324..2040 &rn~jl; ctaude@ezran.com Areyou·~ f!atoAlto'Resitten~?@Y'50tio CITY QlF PALO ALTO. Cl\ c:t'fY CLERK'S 0Ff'ICE 14 SEP 19 PH 4: $I Do yoyb~ve,any relatl:I~~ ormembel'$ ofyo4r qous~hotdwho ;;are employ~~ !)y theClfy ot.faJbcAltQ.1 who are:eurrently ,.erving.on the CityCounctl,orwho are-CommissionersorSoetrd Members? V¥es'~No Are you available and committed to·oomplete the·term'applJed·for? @ves()No ·catifOmla State: Jaw tequtres appofntett beard and commission members to·fiJe a detailed dls:closure of their t111~MJaUotete$!$1 Fair P~Jitlci:ll PractiC,e$ Ooromisiit!:>n, confli~ oflntete$t {Form 1001. po yotttt~v~ ~rt 1nv~~r11eot 111, or Clo y.ou seNe ~~$ an Qffi~t9rdirector of, i:t company <toirtg J>~s111.e.s$ in Pa!Q AK9 WhlQftYQu b.en~ve;ts llkely~o~ 1)~ogaga'ih 04sinesswifh the city: 2) provide products or services .for City pro}ects; or 3) be affected by declslons ofthe. board or oommisslon you are applying for? ()Yes ®No Excludibg yourprtneipal residence, do you ownteal prqperty in Palo Alto? Oves@No How. did you Leam about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Oommission? Ocomtriunity Group Qoa11y Post li]em. autro·m· .c.·ityCterk OcttyWeb$tte 0Pflf0 AltoW~Kly 0Flyer Other:. ________ __......,.-. ___________________ _ l.fttt ttilevar1t t";d\ic;ati~n. tn:Jtnlng, experienc~. certiflcateS of tralrUng, licenses, ()r professional regtst@tion: -MB.A,.Harvard Business.School -MSEE, Eoole:Superieure .d'Electricite (France) -B.S1 Ady,aooed Math & Phys,ics, Lycee LOY.is Le .Grand (France) Employment Pre$entor Last.Employer: Lab:orVoices, Inc; Also worked for Intel, Xerox, 3Com, A<Jobe~ Qooupat1on:Viee.President of Marteting Describe your Involvement ln'Community ·aclivltlas~ volunteer and cMc organizations: -Human Relations Commission, including.vice..chairand chair: 2008-2014 -Found~r, Palo AltQ Wort(! Music Pa1y; 2t>Oa-.Pr~se:nt •Member oHhe Ek>ard,of Directors, Palo Alto. Recreation Foundation (PARF).2010"'.Present -M~mb~r of.$t$ering Committee for Measure A ($ChoQl par~~ttax): 200$ · .. Treasurer .C)ftne PtA council: :2004,;;2001 -Member of .the $oard Qf Oirectora, Cabl~ Co-op: 19Q2-1998 P~e,1 Pl!!nn!ng& .T.rllnsPOl'.t!!Uon Comm~$lon 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I have a passion for public service and would like to continue to serve my community. While on the HRC for six years, I was exposed to many of the P& T Commission's critical issues. Furthermore, I supervised the design and building of my current home from 2009 to 2011 and had to frequently interact with the Development Center. Based on my experience, I presented a series of recommendation to Curtis Williams, just as he was starting to improve the process. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. The Palo Alto Shuttle Program is of interest to me. On the HRC I saw how transportation is a major issue for seniors, youth, and low-income individuals. I am also interested in improving public transportation and bicycling opportunities to reduce traffic and improve the parking situation. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would like the Commission to continue to assist the City Council in improving the traffic and parking situations. Some things to look at: Transportation Demand Management, more bike-sharing stations, counting of available spaces in garages coupled with electronic signs. Other objectives: improve the PC zoning process (evaluate better the real benefits to the developers and to the community), and continue to focus on improving customer satisfaction at the Development Center (e.g. customer surveys). 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK City Charter LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK As part of my duties as a Human Relations Commissioner, I reviewed several chapters of the Comprehensive Plan: Transportation, Housing Element and Community Services. I sent many detailed comments to Staff regarding these chapters. Over the years, I also participated in many community meetings organized by the City's Planning Department, including several of the Our Palo Alto community meetings. I am familiar with several of the Zoning Code designations, but not in detail. I have heard about CEQA many times, but I am not an expert. Furthermore, I participated in the Community Workshop for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, in March 2012. Page 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: (!) I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: QHome tQ Office Phone: E-mail: Signature:----~---'-+->,....._,_.....,_'/_/_~_/ ___________ Date: 9/19/14 Page 3 Planning & Transportation Commission Planning and Transportation Commission Application Personal Information Name: Adrian Fine Address: 2002 Columbia St, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Cell Phone: 650-468-6331 @Home I Oottice Phone: E-mail: adrianfine@gmail.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?@Yes QNo . : ! GHY ©f PALO ALTO. CA GITY CLERK'S Oflf'WE 14 SEP 22 PH 4:J • Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City o~alo AJ!Q, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? UYes ~No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?@YesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ()yes @No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Oves@No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission? §Community Group 0Daily Post Email from City Clerk (2]city Website Palo Alto Weekly 0Flyer Other: ________________________ ~----- List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: University of Washington 2008 -BA Geography Honors, Cum Laude University of Pennsylvania 2012 -MA City & Regional Planning, Cum Laude; Graduate Teaching Assistant for Planning Department Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2007-2010 -Intern+ Program Coordinator City of Philadelphia 2012-2013 -Planning Intern Employment Present or Last Employer: Nextdoor, Inc. Occupation: City Operations -www.nextdoor.com/city Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: My passion is building mutually beneficial partnerships between stakeholders including the public, interest groups, government agencies, and private parties. I have helped communities in the US and abroad achieve consensus -or at least define their differences-through design studios, planning workshops, GIS analysis, and civic outreach for underserved communities. Currently, I have the opportunity to connect public agencies across the US with their residents through the Nextdoor City Program (www.nextdoor.com/city), of which Palo Alto is a member. Page 1 Planning & Transportation Commission 1.What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with yourexperience and of specific interest to you, and why? 2.Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. 3.If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? 4.Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK City Charter LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK Page 2 Planning & Transportation Commission I am a lifelong Palo Altan interested in smart planning, economic development, and public service. I enjoy the technical aspects of planning and transportation, but I also recognize that these issues are contextual - you have to talk with the public, business owners, and the development community. Even though I'm not yet 30, my background in planning is diverse, and I thoroughly enjoy this type of work. I would be proud to help Palo Alto move forward. The Mayfield Agreement and housing project is a complex public private project that has shown the best and worst of planning and engagement in Palo Alto. While the agreement identified a laudable set of goals and stipulations, many Palo Altans felt blindsided or ignored. There is a healthy middle ground, but Palo Alto, Stanford, and the community have yet to find it. The commission has an opportunity to increase visibility into the planning process for the public, developers, and other partners. The perception of an opaque planning process is driving dissatisfaction and causing the City as a whole to miss out on genuine opportunities. Through a mix of streamlined decision-making, information sharing, and meaningful engagement, the commission could turn this perception around. The community needs to understand that planning is a partnership for shared growth. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part. "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: @ l give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home I 0 Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: , Adrian Fir:ie ~ ~Date: 9122114 Page 3 Planning & Transportation Commission / / I -· / .. ---· . OITY OF PA LO ALT@. GA . CITY €LERK'S OFFl6E I~ SEP 22 AH 11-: 85 • CITY OF PALO ALTO Application to Serve on the Planning and Transportation Commission Palo Alto welcomes volunteers and we appreciate that you are taking the time to apply. Completion of this application provides valuable information to the City Council. Please complete the application to the best of your abilities. If you have any questions or concerns please contact the City Clerk's Office. The Planning and Transportation Commission is responsible for: • Preparing and making recommendations to the City Council on the City's Comprehensive Plan regarding development, public facilities and transportation in Palo Alto, • Considering and making recommendations to the City Council on zoning map and zoning ordinance changes, • Reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council on subdivisions, __ on appeals on 'iadanc.es_and.use.permits, • Considering other policies and programs affecting development and land use in Palo Alto for final City Council action, • Reviewing and making recommendations on individual projects such as Planned Community Zones, Open Space development, and those other projects as are directed by the zoning code, staff and City Council. Please see Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.16 and 2.20, and 19.04 for more detailed information. The Planning and Transportation Commission is composed of seven Members who are not Council Members, officers, or employees of the City, and who are residents of the City of Palo Alto. Terms of Commissioners will be for four years. The Planning and Transportation Commission typically meets on the second and last Wednesdays of each month at 6:00 pm. In addition to regular meetings, Commissioners may be asked to participate on at least one sub-committee which could hold additional meetings. Click here to receive email notifications of vacancies CLICK HERE. You are also welcome to contact the City Clerk's Office at 329-2571 or David.Carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org. Personal Information Name: Address: -~ .. -.... - E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? '[8 Yes D No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ¢..f;'alo ~. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?UYesl23No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?181Yes0No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yes~No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?f81,Yes0No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission? ~ommunity Group 0Emall from City Clerk LJP~lo Alt~ Weekly. Ooaily Post D City Website 0Flyer 2. Please describe an Issue that recently came before the Comm slon that Is of particular interest to you and describe why you are Interested In it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. ~~Y171~1N6' l?tJIWiN61 -'iH~ -pu/'Llr<e-1 !Jt-/ ... IANG:f i..e (HG-¢~-p;; l Pl9N7 t1]'/ H~ltfl-+1"~ ~'(t.-e <ft.fG e-o f-IJM}7$-f "N 7HAU.-~ff 01Z/i C-H ... Nt1~1---fH.if14111r1C...i-I/ flB.5·iJ~c.G'S ~vo:fGJ? fo :7-r~r:J Hef'i1Nq I t>-IA ~o ~ c-. ~01' .,,, 0 s.~ tt.~~v .-d-1 e 1L---c¥N1~ ~ I NN<>Vi;.111N .. . If appointed, what speci ic goals ould you like to see t e Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How woul~ you suggest a co'rplishlng this? ~r'N1iJLj 41~t-1?-r"rz.-r~-n °N va MM1 ~?1 °N 7 HAu..-r~~~ A l---«'l\IGJ ~lZM V/~,,.J IN r-~xGr~-H,JGt A H~L-1H'( a ?JJffdf<...t'lvr;; ~N y1r<4JmL1 ~ vi~ / N " rz-K :f ~ ~"NI >-t-.l v .t>-~ !f'At.ftl fJ L-c.<>1V1 fl/I L1 ,.J 'l l 1"H Ar p.Uf\~l--f C-o NN~cf r~rl-£ pP.1.-oP.~ro 7H~ r=~~;U~ A CoNM1'~11T yJll?~ 7f'~i4/. ''17o-Jt1 ~p"', N ·, ''G11tei &~· ~t?I~ 1 ./tlP0ik1T~ • 4. Planning and ransportatlon Commission Members ork with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. ve~10 Alto GomQreheosiveJ?lan LINK ~ ../zoning Code LINK c7lL-- /c1ty Charter LINK ~ V California Environmental Quality Act LINK ¥- v'EI Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK ~ ...J El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK v' Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK v Baylands Master Plan LINK ¥-.--- ~ Page2 Planning & Transportation Commission CJ 1 r-Z,-0 -I it .,A ',, ,. i I ~ Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR ~ I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address · from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 6§&...-1/~..-671 ~ ~ome 10 Office Plione: E-mail: r ,,s..1.-<> Ai.;::fo ~ 01tf~@6f ~ 11--, C-o rv1 Signature: /~ Date: 01 '1AY11' ~NNGfrf Hi.JV Page3 Planning & Transportation Commission Personal Information Name: Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D. E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident? @Yes QNo CITY @F PALO A~TO. GA E:ITY eLERK'S OFFICE 14 SEP -9 AH IQ: 05 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City o~alo AJtQ., who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? UYes \!)No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? @vesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? ()yes ®No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Qves@No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission? Ocommunity Group 0Daily Post [{]Email from City Clerk Deity Website 0Palo Alto Weekly 0Flyer Other: ____________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, license~, or professional registration: Ph .D., Computer Science, Stanford University, 1985; Lecturer and Researcher, UC Santa Cruz, 2001-present; Senior Research Scientist, Stanford University, 1987-1999; Co-Founder, Board Member, and CFO, Mergent Systems, PSYCHeANAL YTICS, Active Ion Displays; Chief Technical Advisor and Board Member, Persistence Software. Employment Present or Last Employer: Minerva Consulting Occupation: Co~sultant Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Served on Planning and Transportation Commission for the City of Palo Alto since August 2006; Founder of Adobe Meadow Neighborhood Association, 2005; Gunn PTSA Public Transit Coordinator since 2008; Gunn High School Facilities Steering Committee, Standards Coordinator, IEEE Voting Systems Standards Committee; Site Council, Ohlone Elementary School; Board Member, Girls Middle School in Mountain View, Cong. Kol Emeth, Electric Auto Assoc.; member, City of Palo Alto's Website Advisory Cmte. Page 1 Planning & Transportation Coomission 1. What Is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific Interest to you, and why? As a data scientist, I am interested In how to apply data about Palo Alto to make better decisions about Palo Alto's future. For example. I identified the need for smaller housing units (studio and 1 bedroom) providing housing for seniors and young professionals, based on housing stock mix and demographic need. I've also done analysis of the Census Transpartation Planning Package to observe that transit use among Palo Alto residents is so low that the concept of transit-oriented housing Is better supplanted by housing near services, where transit Is Just another service along with shopping and other amenities. Indeed, the number of Palo Altans taking any form of transit to work is exceeded by each of the number of those who work at home, bicycle, carpool, or walk. And nearly as many Palo Alto wo11<ers walk or bike to work than take all forms of transit combined. So clearly we should do more to promote biking and walking in general, and facilitate commuting by public transit by those who work in Palo Alto and live elsewhere. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the· commission that Is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. Planned Community zone regulations have been before the Commission repeatedly. My suggestions for reform include having the PTC make formal recommendations upon initiation that are tracked through the process, saying "n.o" early to undesirable projects like those that overwhelm the surrounding community., quantifying public benefits and the benefit to the developer so that they are commensurcite, but not "upzoning for sale." Palo Alto also needs to enforce that the public benefits are actually ·provided, whlch·can be more difficult when the development is no longer owned by the original developer, such as 800 High St 3. If appointed, what speclflc goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? The current Comprehensive Plan was written in the last millennium and has served us well. But economics and development pressures have changed since 1998. Section 19.04.010 gives the planning commlssio.n the "primary duty to prepare, adopt and recommend to the city council for their adoption, a long-range comprehensive general plan .... " Further, Section 19.04.030 states that the "planning commission shall annually review the general plan ... : I would like to see the PTC work with the Council, staff, and consultants to complete the Comprehensive Plan update process to extend its life until 2030, and then have a formal review process to proactively recommend changes to the Comp Plan based on changing circumstances. 4. Planning and TransPortatlon Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents Is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK City Charter LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK During my service on the PTC, I have participated in amendments to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (including being the primary editor of the Transportation Element draft that is part of the Comp Plan Update process), a variety of changes to the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Ordinance Update Process), the Baylands Master Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and the preparation of the East Meadow Circle and California Avenue Concept Area Plans, the Rail Corridor Study, and the 2007-2014 and 2015-2024 Housing Elements. I have also reviewed several EIRs as part of CEQA reviews. I also participated in the development of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure ordinance as part of the EV Task Force, including working closely with the City Attorney in its drafting. Page2 Planning & Transpartation Commission Cbnaent to Publlah Perao.nal lntormatlott. on tht CltV of P•to Alto W.eb1IHt CellfOfnil Govetnment Gode -$ectlon $254.21 atat••, rn part,. "No tttte Q'r iocal agency shall JX1$l the home 'addr.&U or telephQne numb:er of ~ny e.Jected or appointed officlat on th$ Internet without ·flr'St obtaining 1he wrl~en. petmls•lo.n . .Of ·th·at lildMdu~I. ~ 'Jl'he 1ull bDde. ls tttachfld. This condnt 19.rm 'Will not be tlldseted and win "' attadhfKI to M Appl/o.atton and f»S.18(1 ·tQ ihf. Ctty..'t;. we'lfl.lts .. Tht f.ull o.od&. can b:e r.ead. here:.~ Read the co.de; and .check cn1Y ONI! option below: 0 · ! a.tve per~l&G.lbrrfor the ·City of Pllo.Alt6 to pqet to t~e City~& webSit«J the ~tfMbed ·"°a.rd ~net oomm1as1on Appltoatton lnt•ot; 1 .. have t~d-and urtd6.retanc1 my rlghtJ. und•rGovernme,nt :CQ<ie Section 8254.2'1. I. may revoke 'thls:permlsalcm '$f a.nytlltle by ptovldlng wdtt'o n(ltloe tQ the Palo Alto City Clet.k.. · . · ,. OR t requeatthtJt the. ·e1ty of Palo Alto. reaact my home ·~ddrEtlsi phone n\Jmber.a, 4nd eman .$~"" f~ thi.~ot.\9.d eoard and Comm1$alon Appl(~atloi'l. prl~rto PQ$t1ng to th9 q1iy11 WebtltJ .. t •m .PFO.Vldfn.s th• follO:Wlhg altemat~ "'fotrrtatlotunq reqtfettt'th$ttt.ley-1.1se:thefoJIQWlng.cont .. ct lnformatlon lnst&ad. Addrns~as·a1 Corina Way. Palo Alto, CA ··94903-4507 Cell PhonEii (!')l~ome-tO Offlee Phone; sso,.424 .. 0202 . E·mall: Planning and Transportation Commissio'1rl\PF1[~~l~~~. Personal Information GfTY CLERK'S OFFl~A Name: C :fa,1'1 Cf SchM tdf' 14 SEP 25 PH 2: 02 Address: ;;. Lj 'j /-0Ye51 Ave Cell Phone: · ~Home 1,QOffice Phone: 3;2;J :2., 15'..! + E-mail: J 4/v/ e.f7) ~ C:Ohq:t?/, r)e/ Are you a Palo Alto Resident? (JJ/ves QNo Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City o!.falo A~ who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? UYes }o/No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? 9f) YesO No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Qves ©No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Oves~No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission? Ocommunity Group 0Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly 0Daily Post ~City Website 0Flyer Other: _____________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: r ~..f-i_ /. U. , Bii vii 'P 11c, n y t/ /1Sl> Col11A}1a_ · f/, j) f/0Y1~ _s'~i:e_ I Employment R!iJfr.~ Present or Last Employer: 5~n ~ ;e. 5-/CifJt Occupation: fdJrq_ r41 jh tecffr Describe your involv~ent in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: /1~1 'L;ff.a.;, 'ruc'ft~ G:;,.,iss/on /J~, (;JA AJv1ro~ Co1'11111tee, ~~ Be'11cl . VV/l jt;r:~ fi-111 ( ffee fo_<Lf t ~"' cliuit,. · 1' H-'1 ~. of +J,.e, L~YctrtJ .Q j_. ~ ~/1~ ~ Page1 ~ r y ej"/ CtR/J1/I; I ,f L/T/ Planning & Transportation Commission 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? 2. Pleas~t>e'an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. /W1~~ t:;~~,ft}j!JGl;~!Pj1'~ Z!oYJl'!j 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? ~pa:..r~ ~~·-/frrCdhf-f~ ~ ~~dlvJ/cd~~Y- 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK City Charter LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK Page2 Planning & Transportation Commission Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: ~ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I req1.Jest that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home I 0 Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: Page3 Planning & Transportation Commission I Personal ·information Name: ~e\.~ <;.ch,v'\;1 ~\ (2..- Address: s; Cd ~o t l t.+ Ava., li=\-<6'0 G , pc., l 0 ce~ Phone: .~ ({ ·G\ q '{ <if? G '1 IS1Homel00fflce Phone:· , E-mail: rsdy(\.ebl t--Qg__~ot ~ L . (Q vvt Are yQu a Palo Alto R~1dent?"MY••0No ©TTY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE f 4 AUG 21 PH 2: 21 A\ 4-o Do you have any r&l$tives or memQ~rs .o ... fyoqr household whcta.re enip·l·o e.d by.· the City Qf.li'alo ~ho are currently serving on the City .Council, or who are Commissioners or oard Members? WYes.t:::::JNo Are you available and committed to complete the term applied fort Yes 0No California state law .requires appointed board and ootnmission members to file a detailed disclosure of their fin~cial Interests, FQ1r Political Practices Commi!;sion, Conflict of Interest; Form 7QO; Do you have ~n Investment lh; or do yoo serve as an officer ar director of; a pompany doing· business In Palo Alto Which you believe Is likely to; 1) engage In business with the City, 2) provide products or service$ for City projects, or Ef'. 3) be·. affectedb.ydecisions of.the board or.com.mJssion you are applyingfor?0Yes · .. o Excl1.1ding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Oves ·· · No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commlsslcm? Dcommunlty Group 0DJif5' Post 0Email from City Clerk [9tity Website 0Palo Alto Weekly 0Flyer Other; _____________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: T I . p 1 D · ' . /1 -\'\Iii. ./L ~ v1 I V'\ e •tJ. l I\ ..ee {' I v14 I c; VLC!. ot J'l v'V\ BA. v ' Employment ' Present or Last Employer: S \ \.ti ~r Occupation: Tu v .( S ~ ( Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations~ 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I I I (/\UV) v u 'I " ti\_ l-e /'"' ~ .(_ .e ct l v\ \ V1lt r r 0 v ' v:y .e~Lu·~ ~1 a-.C lo cu\ -+rc.ivt > :>•tki .'c;VI ;-t CC< <11 ; ~'\.'\ p ~CJ\/ e..-~ I,>.,.<;. oi r.(J '> 1;,t'. e~5; 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that Is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. \~., , (\t'sc"'~s,'0111 ot.-+~e dovv,\4ovVvt. d.ev.e/opri-i-ec!l+ b ( c., \> ' Ii\ -l-tv... '11lq 1 ?. '? { "' '111.e .e: +, .' L'l , 'c " II]+-.e 1 e ,/. -Q (vt (.( > e._ L.' vVh +: \J\~ c\:e v~ lo vV\/\e(/\ l-C(/tV) Vil~) a l L 1 f V\ '0t+e +;-~~. 3. If appointed, what specific gJ.lls would you li~e to see the Planning and Transportation (' Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? T ei W\ p0 ~ ~ , 'o i/\c;A 4--a,, et be>(/\ t. e ~~.le l'J flc i o+. 0 Vl I' (<.?Cut l L' k.{ +a e'f p to re_ ~ II vV\ ) f'(J V >I V1.y f-~~ ro1c,c.~ ~ . \./ l. vvctlJ er{-+~c~Vltl dJ i -l-o f<dvt~ 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed beloW. If {u·Vlt; ~5-)., vVI. you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience J with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK City Charter LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK Page2 Planning & Transportation Commission Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Reacr{he code, and check only ONE option below: ~ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: D Home tD Office Phone: E-mail: Page 3 Planning & Transportation Commission Personal Information Name: Richard Schoelerman Address: 674 Loma Verde Cell Phone: 650-566-8033 0 Home I Qoffice Phone: 650-566-8033 E-mail: richard@schoelerman.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?@YesQNo CHY OF PALO AlHJ, CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE r 4 SEP 2 2 PH 4: I 9 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ot.falo Ajt,Q, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? UYes (!)No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? ®vesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Qves @No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? @Yes Q No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission? Ocommunity Group D Email from City Clerk D Palo Alto Weekly Other: Lee Lippert 0DailyPost Deity Website 0Flyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: see attached responses Employment Present or Last Employer: Independent Contractor -Coldwell Banker Occupation: Realtor, Architect, General Contractor Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: see attached responses Page 1 Planning & Transportation Commission List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: • Licensed Real Estate Salesmen/ 2004 -present • Licensed Architect/ 1983 -present o California/ 1989 -present o Texas -1983 / Louisiana -1986 /Arizona -1986 /Arkansas -1986 / New Mexico -1986 / Florida -1986 / Colorado -2001 (these licenses have lapsed) o Licensed Texas Interior Designer -1994 (lapsed) • Licensed California General Contractor / 1989 -present • Licensed California Real Estate salesperson / 2004 -present • Master Degree in Architecture, University of Texas at Arlington / 1982 • NCARB certification number 41623 Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: • Palo Alto University Rotary Club I 2003 -present o President elect I 2014 -present o Club President for the coming term I 2015 -2016 o Community Service committee chair I 2010 -2013 o Club Annual Fundraising Committee I 2011 -present o RotaCare Clinic Annual Fundraising Committee I 2011 -present • Deacon Menlo Park Presbyterian Church I 2005 -2008 • City of Palo Alto Community Development Block Grant Citizen Advisory Committee I 2007 -2008 • Safety Assessment Program Volunteer (SAPV) Disaster Service Worker (DSW) State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services I 2005 -2008 • Rebuilding Together Peninsula Playhouse Donation I 2005 and 2007 • Realtor Service Volunteer Program (RSVP) 2004 • Tour de Menlo bicycle ride (sponsored by Menlo Park Rotary Club) 2004 • Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce I 2003 -2005 I 2013 -present o Business Association Public Policy Forum (BAPPF) committee member I 2013 -present • Rotary Club Denver Southeast I 2001 -2003 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Planning and Transportation is part of the overall needs for great urban design. My experience as a Palo Alto resident, Local Realtor, Architect, and General Contractor can bring useful insight and guidance to the planning and transportation process from several different vantage points. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. Housing shortage, parking and traffic are the three ongoing problematic issues facing our city. We need to be mindful of the greying population of our city and look at ways to offer higher density with smaller units that are closer to shopping and entertainment for these residences. This can in turn free up some of the single family homes for younger families. Find creative solutions in identifying locations for diversity and density implementation. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? The comprehensive plan is ready for an update. Consideration should be given to a better balance between job creation and the housing imbalance. Continue efforts focusing on growth and planning which will help resolve the parking and traffic problems. 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. My experience since 1982, as a Realtor, Architect and General Contractor, has me working on a regular basis with these types of documents. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK City Charter LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK 'J ' 1 ; Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: ® I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home I 0 Office Phone: E-mail: Page 3 Planning & Transportation Commission Planning and Transportation Commission Application Personal Information CITY o'F PALO ALTQ. C~ CHY CLERK'S OFFH~E i Name: Lyn Tillery Address: 139 Hawthorne Ave Apt E Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cell Phone: 3104004611 Q Home I @office Phone: 6504978203 E-mail: c.lyn.tillery@gmail.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident? @Yes QNo 14 SEP 2 2 PH t.: I 4 ' ' Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ot,ealo AjlQ, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? UYes (!)No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? @vesO No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Qv es @ No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Oves@No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission? Ocommunity Group Ooaily Post 0Email from City Clerk [{]city Website 0Palo Alto Weekly 0Flyer Other: ____________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: I have ample experience that makes me qualified and suited for this commission. Specifically, my Masters . in Public Administration has given me the foundation to apply the concepts I learned to the Issues presented to this committee. I gained city zoning and constituents related experience while working with LA Congresswoman Karen Bass and my perspective as a Palo Alto resident should add value to the scope I bring to the commission. Employment Present or Last Employer: Stanford Children's Health (AKA. Lucile Packard Children's HospQ Occupation: Revenue Cycle Operations Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am very involved in my community. Specifically, I am a member of the California Association of Healthcare Leaders and the Healthcare Financial Management Association. While I served as a Public Allies Silicon Valley Fellow (AmeriCorp's Program) I worked with various city nonprofit organizations ( Boys and Girls Club, Year-Up, etc) to execute town halls, community events, and specific education initiatives. Page 1 Planning & Transportation Commission 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am very interested in the Planning and Transportation commission because I think that many of the topics you approve and overview directly impact my life as a downtown Palo Alto resident. Specifically, I am interested in helping to build sustainable communities that meet house supply challenges and provide alternative transportation options as outlined in the comprehensive city plan. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. The residential preferential parking program is very interesting to me. As the amounts of offices and commercial construction developments in grow throughout Palo Alto J think it is very important to develop a sustainable plan that allows for residents to have various parking options. Personally as a resident that does not have non street parking this program will directly impact me as I take a community shuttle to work and leave my car parked on the street. As it stands now I sometime have to find creative ways to find open parking new my residence. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? If appointed I would like to see the committee continue to work on creating more alternative methods of transportation. As a downtown Palo Alto resident that also works in the accompanying area I often use the shuttle system to get to my destinations. I think we can accomplish this goal through the help and involvement of community members. Their input can help us to optimize our routes and shuttle times. 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK City Charter LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK I have experience working with and evaluating City plans and capital improvement projects. I also have seen some of the El Camino Real design ideas and side width related pedestrian nodes. Page 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home I 0 Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: _C_· ·-~-+-t---mt~,___,~ __ ':\__·~---------Date: 09/22/14 Page 3 Planning & Transportation Commission Planning and Transportation Commission Application Personal Information Name: Asher Waldfogel Address: 300 Santa Rita Ave Cell Phone: 650 224-2425 @Home/QOffice Phone:650 321 -6745 E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident?@Yes QNo Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City oJ.ealo Aj!Q, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? UYes ~No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?@YesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest (Form 700). Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to: 1) engage in business with the City; 2) provide products or services for City projects; or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Qves@No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Qves@No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Planning and Transportation Commission? §Community Group Email from City Clerk Palo Alto Weekly 0Daily Post Deity Website 0Flyer Other:-------------------------------- List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: 20 year tech innovator and entrepreneur. 6 years PA City commission experience and very familiar with City processes and budgets. Client for simple and complex residential development. Facilities and Finance committee member for multiple boards. Client and owner of most-published residential project in PA history. Employment Present or Last Employer: Self Employed Occupation: Technology entrepreneur and innovation consultant Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: PA Utilities Advisory Commission. Boards: California College of the Arts, Castilleja School, Zoolabs (music incubator), Nexleaf (global health care). Adjunct Professor at CCA. MIT Visiting Committee. SFMOMAArchitecture and Design Acquisition Committee. Former PA Library Technology Advisory Commission, Global Fund for Women (Investment Committee) Page 1 Planning & Transportation Commission 1. What is it about the Planning and Transportation Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am interested in how we can shape land use policy for the 21st century. We're a 20th century garden community struggling with 21st century regional land use problems. I am interested in protecting our core values while finding innovative paths forward. I work closely with residents, innovators, artists, designers and architects who can all provide insights. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. Planning code revisions. Our planning code has gotten very complicated and yet it doesn't seem to lead to the results the community wants. Housing is getting replaced with cookie cutter tract houses and many of our new commercial buildings are large and ordinary. Code confusion aggravates the problems. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Planning and Transportation Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Ensuring that Cal Ave and Midtown districts remain neighborhood retail friendly. Commercial dev.yA,9<,Jiment and transit opportunities in the El Camino corridor. Minimizing commercial district ihtrusion into neighborh.oods. Ensuring consistency and intent in building and planning codes. Advocating for public, park, not-for-profit and non- commercial land use designations and overlays. 4. Planning and Transportation Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan LINK Zoning Code LINK City Charter LINK California Environmental Quality Act LINK El Camino Real Design Guidelines LINK El Camino Real Master Plan Study LINK and Appendices LINK Area Plans such as the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) I and II Plans LINK Baylands Master Plan LINK Page 2 Planning & Transportation Commission Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: @ I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home I 0 Office Phone: Page 3 Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto (ID # 5137) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Community Partnership Presentation by Gamble Garden Title: Community Partnership Presentation by Gamble Garden From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services This is a Public Private Partnership Presentation by Gamble Garden. No Council action is requested. Attachments:  Attachment A - Gamble Garden Flier (PDF) u Introducing u Gamble Garden: Landscape of Optimism by Susan Woodman A new book that celebrates ~ an early twentieth-century property in Palo Alto, California and how it has become a haven and treasured community centerpiece through a generous gift made by Elizabeth F. Gamble ~ the energized citizens—with entrepreneurial spirit and compelling plans who prevailed in implementing their vision and ensuring the stewardship of the garden ~ the deeply meaningful rewards in creating a public garden and its value to all who enjoy its offerings Purchase From ~ Elizabeth F. Gamble Garden ~ 1431 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 M-F 9 a.m. - 2 p.m. 650-329-1356 online at www.GambleGarden.org Limited quantity $40 + tax (shipping extra) T h e E l i z a b e t h F. G a m b l e G a r d e n p a l o a l t o, c a l i f o r n i a Susan Woodmanf OREWORD by LUCY TOLMACH L A N D S C A P E of O P T I M I S M All proceeds benefit the Elizabeth F. Gamble Garden, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. Thank you for your support. 200 photographs, 136 pages, 8 1/2 x 11, hardcover A Garden Legacy New Pathways in an Old Garden Gamble Gardeners at Work Spring Tour Community Day Classes and Events Artists in the Garden Sharing Garden-fresh Flowers and Food Roots & Shoots Intergenerational Gardening City of Palo Alto (ID # 5026) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution to Approve Revisions to the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy Title: Staff and Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation Staff and the Utilities Advisory Committee (UAC) recommend that the City Council adopt the Energy Risk Management Policy (ERMP), which includes two changes specifically recommended by the UAC to change the Council review schedule from annual to biennial and to add a definition of “resource adequacy capacity products” to the glossary of the ERMP. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto’s ERMP serves as the overriding document for the monitoring, measurement, and control of risks associated with electric and gas commodity transactions. Substantive changes to this Policy are: identified two new authorized products (purchase and sale of emission allowances and purchases of carbon offsets) and modify one existing product (purchases of resource capacity products); cross-reference the City’s conflict of interest code in the conflict of interest section of the Policy; add a new section concerning compliance with Dodd-Frank legislation and regulation; and enhanced the Policy’s glossary with definitions for relevant term used in the Policy. Background The Council last approved the ERMP on July 9, 2012 (Report ID# 2916). The ERMP review process involved staff review of the document along with our energy risk management consulting firm providing recommendations to modify the ERMP. These reviews included extensive internal discussions across various departments. The UROCC reviewed the document as well as the UAC and they both made recommendations to enhance the Policy. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion Electricity and gas prices have displayed significant volatility over time and purchasing electricity and gas can carry inherent financial risks. The ERMP is the overarching document for the management of the City’s risks associated with purchasing electric and gas commodities. In addition to the ERMP, there are two more detailed sets of documents that support it and are used to mitigate risk: the Energy Risk Management Guidelines (Guidelines) and the Energy Risk Management Procedures (Procedures). The Guidelines are prepared by Administrative Services and Utilities staff. The Procedures are prepared by Utilities and ASD staff. As a whole, the ERMP, Guidelines, and Procedures documents contain principles and activities designed to minimize risks by, for example, ensuring transparent and appropriate purchasing procedures, segregating duties, establishing acceptable risk parameters and limits, and instituting multiple review processes. The ERMP and Guidelines are reviewed and approved by the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC), which consists of the Directors of Utilities, Administrative Services, Public Works, and a representative from the City Manager’s Office. The Procedures are approved by the Utilities and Administrative Services Directors. The ERMP clearly delineates that all contract transactions, whether carried out under purchasing Master Agreements or not, must fully comply with the Municipal Code. Transactions with the Northern California Power Agency, including scheduling, are covered under a separate Member Services Agreement. Compared to the existing ERMP, the proposed 2014 ERMP reflects the following changes:  Addition of ERMP Program Structure Diagram  Authorized Product Section - Addition of purchase and sale of emission allowances as Authorized Products - Addition of purchase of carbon offsets as Authorized Products - Modification to include the sale of resource adequacy capacity products to reduce cost associated with the City’s resource adequacy obligation  Modification of Section I. Conflict of Interest Policy so that it reflects requirements of all employees and the Municipal Code  Addition of Section J. Dodd-Frank applicability and compliance paragraphs  Modifications made to enhance the glossary of terms including added resource adequacy capacity products definition  Edits to clarify or “clean-up” text and to make the ERMP easier to use. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Staff has identified changes to the existing ERMP for the City Council in the “redlined” version of the document, included as part of this report as Attachment A. The UROCC has reviewed and approved the attached, updated ERMP. Board/Commission Review and Recommendation Minutes from the UAC discussion of the proposed Energy Risk Management Policy are attached to this staff report at Attachment C. The UAC’s discussion focused primarily on whether the policy should come forward for approval on an annual or biennial (every 2 years) and on a new energy product - purchases of resource capacity products being defined in the glossary. The UAC took the following action: Commissioner Melton made a motion to support the staff recommendation with two changes: recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Energy Risk Management Policy with two changes in paragraph (c)(1) the required annual review of the policy be changed to a biannual review, and that resource adequacy capacity products be defined in the glossary. Commissioner Eglash seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0) with Commissioner Chang absent. Staff agrees with UAC recommended changes and incorporated them into the revised policy document, included as part of this staff report as Attachment A (redline) and Attachment B (clean copy). Environmental Review The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and no environmental assessment is required. Attachments:  Attachment A: Energy Risk Management Policy - Redlined Version (PDF)  Attachment B: Energy Risk Management Policy (PDF)  Attachment C: Energy Risk Management Policy UAC Minutes (PDF)  Attachment D: Energy Risk Management Policy Resolution (PDF) City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 July 2012 Formatted: Strikethrough CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 i City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy Table of Contents A. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE.................................................................................................... 1 B. APPLICABILITY ................................................................................................................. 21 C. RISK MANAGEMENT ROLES, RESPONSIBILITES, AND ORGANIZATION ....... 32 1. CITY COUNCIL ..................................................................................................................... 32 2. UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION (UROCC) .................................................................... 32 3. CITY MANAGER ..................................................................................................................... 3 4. UTILITIES RISK OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATING COMMITTEE ............................................ 33 5. MANAGEMENT CPAU/ASD OVERSIGHT ............................................................................. 43 a. Utilities Resource Management Front Office – Planning and Procurement ............... 43 b. ASD Middle Office – Risk Management Controls and Reporting ................................ 54 c. Back Office – Settlement and Recording ...................................................................... 65 D. TRANSACTING POLICYONS .......................................................................................... 65 1. ANTI-SPECULATION ...................................................................................................... 65 2. MAXIMUM TRANSACTION TERM .......................................................................................... 75 3. COMPETITIVE PROCESS ........................................................................................................ 76 E. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT POLICY .............................................................................. 76 F. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING POLICY .............................................................. 86 G. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS POLICY ............................................................................. 87 H. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY POLICY ......................................................................... 98 I. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY ............................................................................... 98 J. DODD-FRANK APPLICABILITY AND COMPLIANCE……………………………… 8 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ......................................................................................................... 109 Field Code Changed Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Font: Not Bold, Small caps, Not Allcaps CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 1 A. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE The City of Palo Alto’sAlto (City)), Department of Utilities (CPAU) purchases and sells gas and electricity and gas to meet the needs of its customers. The City’s Energy Risk Management (ERM) Policy (ERM Policy) describes the management organization, authority, and processes to monitor, measure, and control market risks, which include price risk, credit risk, and operational risk, to which the City is exposed in the normal course of managing its energy portfolio to meet the needs of the City’s gas and electric and gas utility customersutilities. The ERM Policy describes the key policies and control structures for prudent energy risk management processes, in accordance with the City’s municipal code,. This occurs while ensuring adherence to financial requirements set forth by the City Council and the Director of Administrative Services, and applicable law.. as well as all pertinent legal requirements. The ERM Policy focusescontrol structures and policies are focused on the following areas:  Segregation of duties and delegation of authority (Section C, pp. 4-5)  Organizational structure for risk management controls to include the front, middle, and back offices (Section C, pp. 4-5)  Transacting (Section D, p. 6)  Counterparty credit (Section E, pp. 6-7)  Reporting (Section F, p. 7)  Permitted transaction and product types (Section G, pp. 7-8)  Conflict of interest (Section I, p. 8) The ERM Policy sets forthserves as the City’s objectives, policies and control structures for prudentkey policy level document on energy risk management. This Policy is supported by policy/implementation-level and operations-level documents, including:, the Energy Risk Management Guidelines (ERM Guidelines);), Energy Risk Management Procedures (ERM Procedures) for the Front, Middle, and Back Offices;, and the Long- Term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP), Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP), and the Utilities Strategic Plan. Together these three documents serve to meet the requirements set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.30 Contracts and Purchasing Procedures (“PAMC”) as they relate to Wholesale Commodity Contracts, Authority, and TransactionsThe ERM Policy does not address general CPAU business risks such as fire, accident, casualty, worker health and safety, and general liability. Neither does the Policy cover the water fund, the electric and gas distribution business units, nor the telecommunications business unit. Formatted: Underline, Font color: Red Formatted: Underline CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 2 Energy Risk Management Policy, Guidelines, and Procedures Diagram Energy Risk Management Policy (Highest Level) Energy Risk Management Guidelines (Guiding Principles) Energy Risk Management Procedures-Front Office, Middle Office, Back Office (Detailed instructions on how to perform the procedures.) B. APPLICABILITY The ERM Policy applies to all City employees engaged in the decision-making process for transacting in the electric and gas energy markets. AllIt is critical that all members of the City are aware that participation in the City’s energy procurement business entails a host of risks and that all members participating in the energy procurement process must have knowledge of the ERM Policy and adhere touse it during such participation. The ERM Policy applies to the electric and natural gas supply business units. The electric and natural gas supply business units are part of the electric and natural gas enterprise funds that deal with the acquisition and potential sale of energy supply resources. The relevant business units are required to follow the ERM Policy regarding these topics: describes the management, organization, authority, processes, tools and systems to monitor, measure, and control risks to which CPAU is exposed. This is in relation related to the acquisition and management of wholesale electric and gas commodity products and services to meet load. The City is a member of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), which executes transactions on the City’s behalf. The NCPA Commission approves its own energy risk management policies and procedures for the acquisition of energy supply resources. The City’s energy risk management staff, however, will be actively involved in NCPA’s Risk Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold Formatted: Strikethrough CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 3 Oversight Committee and meetings to monitor possible risk exposures resulting from the City’s membership in the NCPA Joint Powers Agency, even where the City is neither a project nor a program participant, and to ensure that NCPA observes best practices in its energy risk management program as it relates to the Cityare observed. The ERM Policy does not address general CPAU business risks such as fire, accident, casualty, worker health and safety, and general liability. Neither does the policy cover the water fund, the electric and natural gas distribution business units, nor the telecommunications business unit. C. RISK MANAGEMENT ROLES, RESPONSIBILITES, AND ORGANIZATION This section defines the overall roles and responsibilities for the City’s implementation of the ERM Policy. Additionally, the ERM Guidelines and Procedures contain more specific information describing these roles and responsibilities within the energy risk management program structure at the City. 1. City Council The City Council reviews and adopts by resolution the ERM Policy as developed and recommended by the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) and delegates its implementation to the City Manager. The Council will, at a minimum, review the Policy bieannuially (every 2 years). Additionally, the City Council shall receive quarterly updates from the City Manager regarding energy risk management activities. 2. Utilities Advisory Commission The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) is responsible for advising the City Council on long-range planning and policy matters relating to the electric and gas utilities. While it has no formal responsibility in energy risk management, the UAC shall receive informational copies of the quarterly reports sent to the Council regarding energy risk management activities. 3. City Manager The City Manager has overall responsibility for executing and ensuring compliance with policy adopted by the City Council. The City Manager reports quarterly to the City Council regarding energy risk management activities. 4. Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) The Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) is an advisory board which governs by the UROCC Roles and Purpose document. UROCC consists of city Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Normal CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 4 management and staff. It is comprised of theconsists of the following four voting members: the Director of Utilities (designated as the Chairperson), the Director of Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer, the Director of Public Works, and a representative from the City Manager’s Office. The staff City Attorney assigned to Utilities and the City Auditor serve as non-voting advisors to the UROCC. In accordance with 2007 Government Auditing Standards, the City Auditor’s participation as an advisor to the UROCC is not considered an audit service and does not impair the City Auditor’s objective ability to audit CPAU. The Energy Risk Senior ManagementSr. Financial Analyst serves as the Secretary to the UROCC. A quorum, consisting of at least three (3) voting members of the UROCC, may take action on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the UROCC. The UROCC Roles and Purpose document was unanimously adopted by the UROCC on July 18, 2013. The UROCC is responsible for monitoring compliance with the ERM Policy. The UROCC is also the primary body responsible for approving and implementing the ERM Guidelines consistent with the City Council-approved ERM Policy. 5. CPAU/ASDManagement Oversight City Staff (CPAU, ASD) implements and oversees ERM Policy, the ERM Guidelines, and ERM ProceduresRisk management oversight at thean operational level in the City’s is accomplished through supervisory review and approval and appropriate separation of duties. The separate functions of the Front Office, Middle Office, and Back Office. are described in the ERM Guidelines. Risk management functions are separated, as follows: a. Utilities Resource Management Front Office – Planning and Procurement In reporting to the Director of Utilities, the Front Office representative is primarily responsible for resource planning and procuring energy supplies and services. The Front Office, by delegation of the City Manager, has a critical role in risk management through its transacting operations. The Front Office staff havehas the authority to commit the financial capital of the City to energy transactions with counterpartiescounterparties up to the limits designated in the ERM Guidelines.. As such, the Front Office is a central clearing point for risk assumption and risk mitigation. The Front Office’s roles in energy risk management include:  Developing and implementing the Utilities Director-approved Front Office procedures consistent with the Council-approved ERM Policy and the UROCC-approved ERM Guidelines;  Developing and implementing energy portfolio management plans, strategies and guidelines in support of CPAU’s objectives and in accordance with the City’s ERM Policy and legal and regulatory requirements; CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 5  Developing and recommending for annual approval retail rates and financial plans, including appropriate levels of gas and electric utility reserves in support of CPAU’s objectives;  Ensuring adherence to the ERM Policy, the ERM Guidelines and the ERM Procedures, including the proper recording of transactions, monitoring, and valuation of risk;  Reporting position, valuation and market conditions, and energy portfolio risk to the UROCC; and  Ensuring the proper reporting of contractual commitments in the City’s financial reporting system. The Front Office’s Procedures are developed by staff, approved by the Utilities Director, and provided to the UROCC for information. b. ASD Middle Office – Risk Management Controls and Reporting In reporting to the Director of Administrative Services, the Middle Office representative provides the primary independent oversight role. The Middle Office consists of the Energy Risk Senior Management AnalystManager, and heshe or shehe shall institute, supervise, and review all energy risk management activities, including portfolio exposure, credit exposure, transaction compliance, and ongoing approval of counterparties and transacting limits. In reporting to the Director of Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer, the Middle Office representative provides the primary independent oversight of the energy procurement role. The Middle Office’s energy risk management responsibilities include:  Monitoring CPAU’s risk exposures and ensuring compliance with the ERM Policy, the ERM Guidelines, and the ERM Procedures;  Reporting to the UROCC on risk management issues, and making recommendations which may relate to the temporary or permanent cessation of transactions with one or more counterparties, citing exceptions to rules and procedures, other operational exceptions, or any other topic the Risk Manager believes represents an unacceptable risk exposure; and  Recommending, as necessary, updates to the ERM Policy, the ERM Guidelines, and the ERM Procedures. The Middle Office’s Procedures are developed by staff, approved by the Director of Administrative Services, and provided to the UROCC for information. CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 6 c. Back Office – Settlement and Recording The Back Office is primarily responsible for settlement of bills, recording transactions, bookkeeping and accounting, and contract administration. Functions within the Back Office are performed by both the Administrative Services Department (ASD) and CPAU staff and are detailed in the ERM Guidelines. The Back Office roles in risk management oversight include:  Ensuring that bills reflect trade orders;  Independently monitoring and recording transactions into a tracking database; and  Verifying and reporting on compliance with procedures as reflected in the deal tracking documentation. Back Office Procedures are collectively developed by ASD and CPAU staff, jointly approved by the Director of Administrative Services and the Utilities Director, and provided to the UROCC for information. 6. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY (NCPA) The City is a member of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), which executes transactions on the City’s behalf. The NCPA Commission approves its own energy risk management policies and procedures for the acquisition of energy supply resources. The City’s energy risk management staff, however, will be actively involved in NCPA’s Risk Oversight Committee and meetings to monitor possible risk exposures resulting from the City’s membership in the NCPA Joint Powers Agency, even where the City is neither a project nor a program participant, to ensure that NCPA observes best practices in its energy risk management program as it relates to the City. D. TRANSACTIONSTRANSACTING POLICY TransactionsThe Transacting Policy ensures transactions executed under the Electric Master Agreements and the Gas Master Agreements (collectively, Master Agreements) must beare executed as described in this section in a manner consistent with the authority granted by the Council to the City Manager to transact under these contracts and the PAMC. SuchThe Transacting Policy also ensures such transactions should also beare carried out to manage risk inherent to the electric and gas supply portfolio without exposing the City to unnecessary risk. There are policy has three key elements: 1. Anti-speculation Speculative buying and selling of energy products isare prohibited. Speculation is defined as buying energy not needed for meeting forecasted load or selling energy that is not owned. Additionally, in no event shall transactions be entered into in order to CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 7 speculate on market conditions. The ERM Guidelines shall prescribe volume and sales dollar amount limits for forward purchases and sales. 2. Maximum Transaction Term The maximum term of any supply resource transaction (purchase or sale) is three years, as stated in PAMC Section 2.30.210(l), unless approved by the City Council. 3. Competitive Process CPAU will work with Purchasing to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP)endeavor to obtain three or more quotations from eligible electric and gas supply counterparties and select the best price. The ERM Guidelines include trade capture guidelines to ensure the proper execution of transactions. E. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT POLICY The Counterparty Credit Policy is designed to minimize the potential adverse financial impacts, and credit exposure to the City in the event of a defaulting counterparty. Specifically, the policy seeks to minimize credit exposure related to wholesale commodity transactions and potentially defaulting counterparties shall be minimized by:by: 1. Establishing a credit risk management governance and oversight structure within the existing ERM program; 2. Providing a framework to enable the City to qualify energy suppliers and transact with eligible counterparties; 3. Providing counterparty transacting parameters (limits) to control and measure the City’s exposure to any one supplier; 4. Implementing a mechanism to monitor and report on supply portfolio-related counterparty credit exposures; and 5. Managing counterparty credit requirements from the City. Furthermore, the PAMC Section 2.30.340 sets forth creditworthiness standards and certain contractual provisions applicable to contracts for wholesale utility commodities. As such, transactions carried out under the Master Agreements are limited to counterparties with a Standard and Poor’s issuer rating of BBB- or better, or a Moody’s Investor Services issuer rating of Baa3 or better. Only the Council can approve exemptions to this requirement. The ERM Guidelines shall set forth specific counterparty credit limits for volume, term and credit exposure, and counterparty reporting requirements. Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Tabafter: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5" CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 8 F. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING POLICY ReportingKey to ERM is the monitoring of criticalrisks and the accurate and timely information to relevantthat must be provided to all parties is a key componentinvolved in any aspects of energy risk management. to allow them to perform their functions appropriately. Quarterly reports will be distributed to the UROCC, the UAC, and the Council; those reports shall provide sufficient details on the City’s forward contract purchases, market exposure, credit exposure, counterparty credit ratings, transaction compliance, and other relevant data. The Front and Middle Offices’ staffs shall prepare performance reports containing an analysis of physical and financial positions of all electric and gas commodity contracts. The frequency and content of performance reports for each oversight body shall be prescribed in the ERM Guidelines. Should the risks associated with the portfolio or a specific transaction within the portfolio fall outside of the risk limits prescribed in the ERM Guidelines, the Risk Manager will work with the City Attorney’s Office to report this fact to the UROCC within one business day via email, and will evaluate the risk of holding any of the contracts in the portfolio to delivery and reportalong with reporting to the Council in the next quarterly energy risk management report. G. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS POLICY The Council has delegated to the City Manager the authority to transact under Council- approved Master Agreements. The purpose of the Authorized Physical Pproducts Policy is to ensure that products transacted under the Master Agreements (listed below) must beare consistent with the needs of CPAU and fall within the authority granted by the Council to the City Manager. The following products and/or transactions are approved to be executed under the Master Agreements: A. Purchase of physical fixed price, index-based price, call options, capped-price or collar-priced energy, natural gas, capacity, transportation, basis and transmission products to meet load requirements; B. Sale of physical fixed price or index-based price energy, natural gas, capacity, storage, and transmission incidental to load; C. Purchase of electric heat rate products to meet load; D. Purchase and Sale of Renewable renewable Energy energy Credits credits with or without bundled energy; E. Purchase of gas Gas storage; F. Purchase and Sale of Electric electric Ancillary ancillary Servicesservices; G. Purchase and sale of local and system capacity to meet the City’s resource adequacy requirement; Purchase of resource adequacy capacity products to meet the City’s Formatted: Strikethrough CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 9 resource adequacy requirement and the sale of resource adequacy capacity products to reduce cost associated with the City's resource adequacy obligation; H. Fixed price or index-priced purchases and sales to substitute the use of higher cost resources with lower cost market alternatives; I. Fixed price or index-priced forward purchases and sales of transmission and transmission rights to meet contractual obligations or to dispose of surplus capacity; and J. Purchase of physical call options and physical collars;. K. Purchase and sale of emission allowances from bilateral trades and from the California Air Resources Board administered Cap and Trade Program auctions and reserve auctions to satisfy actual and/or forecasted GHG emissions compliance obligations; and L. Purchases of carbon offsets to supply voluntary programs and/or to satisfy GHG emission compliance. H. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY POLICY In accordance with PAMC section 2.30.210(l270(a), the City Manager has the authority to purchase and sell wholesale energy commodities for terms of up to three years and for a price not to exceed $250,000 or more in any one year.under open purchase contracts. PAMC section 2.30.270(b) governs the City Manager’s delegation of authority. Delegation of authority for and on behalf of the City Manager shall be established in the ERM Guidelines. The City Clerk maintains the list of CPAU staffindividuals who are authorized to engage in wholesale utility commodity transactions. I. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY In accordance with Chapter 2.09 of the PAMC and applicable California law, Citythe City’s personnel who are involved in transacting and exercising oversight of CPAU’s supply resource acquisition, contract negotiation, risk management, and back office programs may not participate in decisions in which they have a conflict of interest. Should an employee become aware of a conflict of interest during the course of fulfilling his or her responsibilities, he or she shall report it, without delay, to the Director, or her or his designee, who shall resolve the conflict. Formatted: Font color: Red, Strikethrough Formatted: Font color: Red CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 10 J. DODD-FRANK APPLICABILITY AND COMPLIANCE Certain elements of the ERM Policy may be subject to compliance with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”, or “Dodd- Frank”).1 Since Congress adopted the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, its applicability to municipal utilities and the counterparties that engage in energy transactions with them has been in a state of flux. Certain types of transactions may or may not be subject to disclosure, recordkeeping and reporting requirements under Dodd-Frank, depending on the details of each individual transaction and the characteristics of the transacting parties. The City Attorney’s Office is currently conducting a review of Dodd-Frank applicability to City transactions, to determine the adequacy of the City’s compliance with any relevant Dodd-Frank provisions. When this review is complete, the City Attorney’s office will advise the UROCC and Utilities and ASD Management staff on whether updates to the ERM Policy are needed. 1 Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 11 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Back Office Back officeA set of business functions include a set of are performed by certain positions in thein Utilities and Administrative Services Departments. Their duties include including trade confirmation, accounting, and other processes that support the transaction of commodities. Call Options An option that allows the owner the right to purchase energy at the specified strike price. Cap Price A structured product that contains a strip of multiple call option contracts with identical, but staggered expirations. Carbon Offsets A way for a company or person to reduce the level of carbon dioxide for which they are responsible by paying money to an organization that works to reduce the total amount produced in the world. Collar A combination of a price with a maximum and minimum value. Congestion Revenue Rights (CRRs) A hedging tool or a financial instrument that entitles the holder to a CRR payment. This occurs when congestion (a characteristic of the transmission system produced when constraints on the system prevent the optimum economic dispatch of generation to meet demand) is in the direction of the CRR Source (a node or a trading hub where generation is scheduled into the electric grid) to the CRR Sink (a node or a trading hub specified as the point of withdrawal for consumption). Credit Risk The probable change in the value of a contract due to a counterparty defaulting. Electric Ancillary Services Electric Ancillary Services (e.g., scheduling and dispatch) are necessary Those services necessary to support the transmission of electric power from seller to purchaser given the obligations of control areas and transmitting utilities within those control areas to maintain reliable operations of the interconnected transmission system. For example, the ancillary service of increasing energy output if the grid needs additional energy and additional revenue for the City when excess power is available. Electric Heat Rate Product A contract based on how efficiently a generator uses heat energy in fuel (i.e., natural gas) to generate electricity. Front Office Front office functions include theThe sector of energy procurement operations in utilities associated with where trading (purchasing or selling of a commodity) occurs. Hydro Risk The risk that altered precipitation patterns result in less than normal hydro electric generation. Index-based Price A price that varies based on published index prices. Market Risk The probable change in value of (or sensitivity to) a contract, position, or portfolio due to general changes in market conditions. Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold, Underline Formatted: Font: 14 pt, Bold Formatted: Strikethrough CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 12 CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 13 Master Agreement A standardized agreement for the purchase and sale of energy. Middle Office Middle officeThe set of business functions include energy risk management activities carried out byin Administrative Services Department staff. that carries out energy risk management activities. Physical Fixed Price A contract for a fixed price which settles when one counterparty delivers the commodity to another counterparty and pays a cash settlement. Physical Position The volumetric sum of all physical transactions. Portfolio Exposure The monetary sum of all positions that are subject to change. Resource Adequacy Capacity Products Products that provide the City with Designated Resource Adequacy Capacity from a generation unit located in the CAISO control area, and that provide Resource Adequacy Requirement (RAR) attributes or Local Area Reliability (LAR) attributes will fully qualify as Resource Adequacy Qualifying Capacity. Risk Management The set of skills and processes for measuring, controlling, and hedging risk. Supply Portfolio The composition and amount of all purchased power. Transmission Product The sale or purchase of a non-energy asset to transport energy. Volume Risk The risk of the volume of a contract or position changing from current expectations. Weather Risk The risk of weather changing from current expectations and causing changes to expected load or generation. Formatted Table Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.59", First line: 0.59" Formatted Table Formatted: Right: 1.54", Tab stops: 6.93",Left City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 1 City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy Table of Contents A. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE.................................................................................................... 2 B. APPLICABILITY ................................................................................................................... 3 C. RISK MANAGEMENT ROLES, RESPONSIBILITES, AND ORGANIZATION ......... 4 1. CITY COUNCIL ....................................................................................................................... 4 2. UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION ........................................................................................ 4 3. CITY MANAGER ..................................................................................................................... 4 4. UTILITIES RISK OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATING COMMITTEE (UROCC) ............................... 4 5. CPAU/ASD OVERSIGHT ........................................................................................................... 5 a. Utilities Resource Management Front Office – Planning and Procurement ................. 5 b. ASD Middle Office – Risk Management Controls and Reporting .................................. 5 c. Back Office – Settlement and Recording ........................................................................ 5 6. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY (NCPA)……………………………......5 D. TRANSACTIONS ................................................................................................................... 6 1. ANTI-SPECULATION ........................................................................................................ 6 2. MAXIMUM TRANSACTION TERM ............................................................................................ 6 3. COMPETITIVE PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 6 E. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT................................................................................................. 6 F. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING ................................................................................. 7 G. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS ................................................................................................ 7 H. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY ........................................................................................... 8 I. CONFLICT OF INTEREST .................................................................................................. 8 J. DODD-FRANK APPLICABILITY AND COMPLIANCE………………………………..8 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................................................................... 10 CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 2 A. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE The City of Palo Alto’s (City) Department of Utilities (CPAU) purchases and sells electricity and gas to meet the needs of its customers. The City’s Energy Risk Management Policy (ERM Policy) describes the management organization, authority, and processes to monitor, measure, and control market risks, which include price risk, credit risk, and operational risk, to which the City is exposed in the normal course of managing its energy portfolio to meet the needs of the City’s electric and gas utility customers. The ERM Policy describes the key policies and control structures for prudent energy risk management processes, in accordance with the City’s municipal code, financial requirements set forth by the City Council and the Director of Administrative Services, and applicable law. The ERM Policy focuses on the following areas:  Segregation of duties and delegation of authority (Section C, pp. 4-5)  Organizational structure for risk management controls to include the front, middle, and back offices (Section C, pp. 4-5)  Transacting (Section D, p. 6)  Counterparty credit (Section E, pp. 6-7)  Reporting (Section F, p. 7)  Permitted transaction and product types (Section G, pp. 7-8)  Conflict of interest (Section I, p. 8) The ERM Policy sets forth the City’s objectives, policies and control structures for prudent energy risk management. This Policy is supported by policy/implementation- level and operations-level documents including: the Energy Risk Management Guidelines (ERM Guidelines); Energy Risk Management Procedures (ERM Procedures) for the Front, Middle, and Back Offices; and the Long-Term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP), Gas Utility Long-Term Plan (GULP), and the Utilities Strategic Plan. The ERM Policy does not address general CPAU business risks such as fire, accident, casualty, worker health and safety, and general liability. Neither does the Policy cover the water fund, the electric and gas distribution business units, nor the telecommunications business unit. CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 3 Energy Risk Management Policy, Guidelines, and Procedures Diagram Energy Risk Management Policy (Highest Level) Approved by: City Council Energy Risk Management Guidelines (Guiding Principles) Approved by: Utilities Risk Oversight Coordinating Committee (UROCC) Energy Risk Management Procedures-(Detailed instructions on how to perform the procedures.) Front Office (approved by Utilities Director) Middle Office (approved by Administrative Services Department (ASD) Director, Back Office (approved by Utilities and ASD Directors) B. APPLICABILITY The ERM Policy applies to all City employees engaged in transacting in the electric and gas markets. All members participating in the energy procurement process must have knowledge of the ERM Policy and adhere to it during such participation. The electric and gas supply business units are part of the electric and natural gas enterprise funds that deal with the acquisition and potential sale of energy supply resources. The relevant business units are required to follow the ERM Policy regarding these topics: management, organization, authority, processes, tools and systems to monitor, measure, and control risks to which CPAU is exposed. This is in relation to the acquisition and management of wholesale electric and gas commodity products and services to meet load. CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 4 C. RISK MANAGEMENT ROLES, RESPONSIBILITES, AND ORGANIZATION This section defines the overall roles and responsibilities for the City’s implementation of the ERM Policy. Additionally, the ERM Guidelines and Procedures contain more specific information describing these roles and responsibilities within the energy risk management program structure at the City. 1. City Council The City Council reviews and adopts by resolution the ERM Policy as developed and recommended by the Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) and delegates its implementation to the City Manager. The Council will, at a minimum, review the Policy biennially (every 2 years). Additionally, the City Council shall receive quarterly updates from the City Manager regarding energy risk management activities. 2. Utilities Advisory Commission The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) is responsible for advising the City Council on long-range planning and policy matters relating to the electric and gas utilities. While it has no formal responsibility in energy risk management, the UAC shall receive informational copies of the quarterly reports sent to the Council regarding energy risk management activities. 3. City Manager The City Manager has overall responsibility for executing and ensuring compliance with policy adopted by the City Council. The City Manager reports quarterly to the City Council regarding energy risk management activities. 4. Utilities Risk Oversight and Coordinating Committee (UROCC) The UROCC is an advisory board which governs by the UROCC Roles and Purpose document. UROCC consists of city management and staff. It is comprised of the Director of Utilities (designated as the Chairperson), the Director of Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer, the Director of Public Works, and a representative from the City Manager’s Office. The staff City Attorney assigned to Utilities and the City Auditor serve as non-voting advisors to the UROCC. The Energy Risk Senior Management Analyst serves as the Secretary to the UROCC. A quorum, consisting of at least three (3) voting members of the UROCC, may take action on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the UROCC. The UROCC Roles and Purpose document was unanimously adopted by the UROCC on July 18, 2013. CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 5 The UROCC is responsible for monitoring compliance with the ERM Policy. The UROCC is also responsible for approving and implementing the ERM Guidelines consistent with the City Council-approved ERM Policy. 5. CPAU/ASD Oversight City Staff (CPAU, ASD) implements and oversees ERM Policy, the ERM Guidelines, and ERM Procedures at the operational level in the City’s Front Office, Middle Office and Back Office. a. Utilities Resource Management Front Office – Planning and Procurement In reporting to the Director of Utilities, the Front Office representative is primarily responsible for resource planning and procuring energy supplies and services. The Front Office, by delegation of the City Manager, has a critical role in risk management through its transacting operations. Front Office staff have the authority to commit the financial capital of the City to energy transactions with counterparties up to the limits designated in the ERM Guidelines. b. ASD Middle Office – Risk Management Controls and Reporting The Middle Office consists of the Energy Risk Senior Management Analyst, and he or she shall institute, supervise, and review all energy risk management activities, including portfolio exposure, credit exposure, transaction compliance, and ongoing approval of counterparties and transacting limits. In reporting to the Director of Administrative Services/Chief Financial Officer, the Middle Office representative provides the primary independent oversight of the energy procurement role. c. Back Office – Settlement and Recording The Back Office is primarily responsible for settlement of bills, recording transactions, bookkeeping and accounting, and contract administration. Functions within the Back Office are performed by both the Administrative Services Department (ASD) and CPAU staff and are detailed in the ERM Guidelines. 6. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY (NCPA) NCPA balances the City of Palo Alto’s portfolio. The City is a member of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), which executes transactions on the City’s behalf. The NCPA Commission approves its own energy risk management policies and procedures for the acquisition of energy supply resources. The City’s energy risk management staff, however, will be actively involved in NCPA’s Risk Oversight Committee and meetings to monitor possible risk exposures resulting from the City’s membership in the NCPA Joint Powers Agency, even where the City is neither a project nor a program participant, to ensure that NCPA observes best practices in its energy risk management program as it relates to the City. CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 6 D. TRANSACTIONS Transactions executed under the Electric Master Agreements and the Gas Master Agreements (collectively, Master Agreements) must be executed as described in this section in a manner consistent with the authority granted by the Council to the City Manager to transact under these contracts and the PAMC. Such transactions should also be carried out to manage risk inherent to the electric and gas supply portfolio without exposing the City to unnecessary risk. There are three key elements: 1. Anti-speculation Speculative buying and selling of energy products is prohibited. Speculation is defined as buying energy not needed for meeting forecasted load or selling energy that is not owned. Additionally, in no event shall transactions be entered into in order to speculate on market conditions. The ERM Guidelines shall prescribe volume and sales dollar amount limits for forward purchases and sales. 2. Maximum Transaction Term The maximum term of any supply resource transaction (purchase or sale) is three years, as stated in PAMC Section 2.30.210(l), unless approved by the City Council. 3. Competitive Process CPAU will work with Purchasing to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to obtain three or more quotations from eligible electric and gas supply counterparties and select the best price. The ERM Guidelines include the trade capture process to ensure the proper execution of transactions. E. COUNTERPARTY CREDIT Credit exposure related to wholesale commodity transactions and potentially defaulting counterparties shall be minimized by: 1. Establishing a credit risk management governance and oversight structure within the existing ERM program; 2. Providing a framework to enable the City to qualify energy suppliers and transact with eligible counterparties; 3. Providing counterparty transacting parameters (limits) to control and measure the City’s exposure to any one supplier; 4. Implementing a mechanism to monitor and report on supply portfolio-related counterparty credit exposures; and CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 7 5. Managing counterparty credit requirements. Furthermore, PAMC Section 2.30.340 sets forth creditworthiness standards and certain contractual provisions applicable to contracts for wholesale utility commodities. As such, transactions carried out under the Master Agreements are limited to counterparties with a Standard and Poor’s issuer rating of BBB- or better, or a Moody’s Investor Services issuer rating of Baa3 or better. Only the Council can approve exemptions to this requirement. The ERM Guidelines shall set forth specific counterparty credit limits for volume, term, credit exposure, and counterparty reporting requirements. F. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORTING Reporting of critical information to relevant parties is a key component of energy risk management. Quarterly reports will be distributed to the UROCC, the UAC, and the Council; those reports shall provide sufficient details on the City’s forward contract purchases, market exposure, credit exposure, counterparty credit ratings, transaction compliance, and other relevant data. The Front and Middle Offices’ staff shall prepare performance reports containing an analysis of physical and financial positions of all electric and gas commodity contracts. The frequency and content of performance reports for each oversight body shall be prescribed in the ERM Guidelines. Should the risks associated with the portfolio or a specific transaction within the portfolio fall outside of the risk limits prescribed in the ERM Guidelines, the Energy Risk Senior Management Analyst will work with the City Attorney’s Office to report this fact to the UROCC within one business day via email, and will evaluate the risk of holding any of the contracts in the portfolio to delivery and report to the Council in the next quarterly energy risk management report. G. AUTHORIZED PRODUCTS The Council has delegated to the City Manager the authority to transact under Council- approved Master Agreements. Physical products transacted under the Master Agreements (listed below) must be consistent with the needs of CPAU and fall within the authority granted by the Council to the City Manager. The following products and/or transactions are approved to be executed under the Master Agreements: A. Purchase of physical fixed price, index-based price, call options, capped-price or collar-priced energy, gas, capacity, transportation, basis and transmission products to meet load requirements; CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 8 B. Sale of physical fixed price or index-based price energy, gas, capacity, storage, and transmission incidental to load; C. Purchase of electric heat rate products to meet load; D. Purchase and sale of renewable energy credits with or without bundled energy; E. Purchase of gas storage; F. Purchase and sale of electric ancillary services; G. Purchase of resource adequacy capacity products to meet the City’s resource adequacy requirement and the sale of resource adequacy capacity products to reduce cost associated with the City's resource adequacy obligation; H. Fixed price or index-priced purchases and sales to substitute the use of higher cost resources with lower cost market alternatives; I. Fixed price or index-priced forward purchases and sales of transmission and transmission rights to meet contractual obligations or to dispose of surplus capacity; J. Purchase of physical call options and physical collars; K. Purchase and sale of emission allowances from bilateral trades and from the California Air Resources Board administered Cap and Trade Program auctions and reserve auctions to satisfy actual and/or forecasted GHG emissions compliance obligations; and L. Purchases of carbon offsets to supply voluntary programs and/or to satisfy GHG emission compliance. H. TRANSACTING AUTHORITY In accordance with PAMC section 2.30.210(l), the City Manager has the authority to purchase and sell wholesale energy commodities for terms of up to three years and for a price not to exceed $250,000 or more in any one year. PAMC section 2.30.270(b) governs the City Manager’s delegation of authority. Delegation of authority for and on behalf of the City Manager shall be established in the ERM Guidelines. The City Clerk maintains the list of CPAU staff authorized to engage in wholesale utility commodity transactions. I. CONFLICT OF INTEREST In accordance with Chapter 2.09 of the PAMC and applicable California law, City personnel who are involved in transacting and exercising oversight of CPAU’s supply resource acquisition, contract negotiation, risk management, and back office programs may not participate in decisions in which they have a conflict of interest. J. DODD-FRANK APPLICABILITY AND COMPLIANCE Certain elements of the ERM Policy may be subject to compliance with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act,” or “Dodd- CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 9 Frank”).1 Since Congress adopted the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, its applicability to municipal utilities and the counterparties that engage in energy transactions with them has been in a state of flux. Certain types of transactions may or may not be subject to disclosure, recordkeeping and reporting requirements under Dodd-Frank, depending on the details of each individual transaction and the characteristics of the transacting parties. The City Attorney’s Office is currently conducting a review of Dodd-Frank applicability to City transactions, to determine the adequacy of the City’s compliance with any relevant Dodd-Frank provisions. When this review is complete, the City Attorney’s office will advise the UROCC, Utilities, and ASD Management staff on whether updates to the ERM Policy are needed. 1 Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 10 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Back Office Back office functions include a set of positions in the Utilities and Administrative Services Departments. Their duties include trade confirmation, accounting, and other processes that support the transaction of commodities. Call Options An option that allows the owner the right to purchase energy at the specified strike price. Cap Price A structured product that contains a strip of multiple call option contracts with identical, but staggered expirations. Carbon Offsets A way for a company or person to reduce the level of carbon dioxide for which they are responsible by paying money to an organization that works to reduce the total amount produced in the world. Credit Risk The probable change in the value of a contract due to a counterparty defaulting. Electric Ancillary Services Electric Ancillary Services (e.g., scheduling and dispatch) are necessary to support the transmission of electric power from seller to purchaser given the obligations of control areas and transmitting utilities within those control areas to maintain reliable operations of the interconnected transmission system. For example, the ancillary service of increasing energy output if the grid needs additional energy and additional revenue for the City when excess power is available. Electric Heat Rate Product A contract based on how efficiently a generator uses heat energy in fuel (i.e., natural gas) to generate electricity. Front Office Front office functions include the sector of energy procurement operations in utilities associated with purchasing or selling of a commodity. Index-based Price A price that varies based on published index prices. Market Risk The probable change in value of (or sensitivity to) a contract, position, or portfolio due to general changes in market conditions. CPA Energy Risk Management Policy August 2014 11 Master Agreement A standardized agreement for the purchase and sale of energy. Middle Office Middle office functions include energy risk management activities carried out by Administrative Services Department staff. Physical Fixed Price A contract for a fixed price which settles when one counterparty delivers the commodity to another counterparty and pays a cash settlement. Resource Adequacy Capacity Products Products that provide the City with designated resource adequacy capacity from a generation unit located in the CAISO control area, and that provide resource adequacy requirement (RAR) attributes or local area reliability (LAR) attributes will fully qualify as resource adequacy qualifying capacity. Products that provide the City with designated resource adequacy capacity from a generation unit located in the CAISO control area, that provides resource adequacy requirement (RAR) attributes or local area reliability (LAR) attributes will fully qualify as resource adequacy qualifying capacity. RAR and LAR are acronyms defined by the City’s Resource Adequacy Program. Risk Management The set of skills and processes for measuring, controlling, and hedging risk. Supply Portfolio The composition and amount of all purchased power. Transmission Product The sale or purchase of a non-energy asset to transport energy. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 1 of 2 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2014 ITEM 2: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that City Council Adopt an Updated Energy Risk Management Policy Mary Figone, Senior Management Analyst, presented the changes to the July 9, 2012 Energy Risk Management Policy (ERMP). A consultant, ACES Power Management (ACES), had reviewed the existing policy in 2013 and provided additional recommendations for updates. The new policy included cleanup and clarification of various sections. The substantive changes included the addition of two new authorized products: purchases and sales of emissions allowances and carbon offsets. The policy was clarified to be clear that resource adequacy capacity product purchases were authorized. Conflict of Interest policy was modified to refer back to the City’s Conflict of Interest Code. A section on Dodd-Frank issues was added, but will need to be updated by future Dodd-Frank legal cases. The glossary was updated. Vice Chair Foster noted that the policy said it was to be updated annually, but had not been updated in 2013. Figone noted that the City had been working with ACES in 2013 on their ERMP recommendations, and did not want to interrupt the process. Commissioner Melton suggested that the policy should not have a required annual review. He thought it should be reviewed biennially (every two years) or as needed. Commissioner Waldfogel asked how the policy was used. He wanted to know whether it was regularly referred to or whether it was merely a theoretical document. Fong said that it was used regularly in the course of business, both for staff and the UROCC. Other procedures followed from this policy as well. Mullan noted that NCPA also has a high level policy and lower level procedures, similar to the structure the City uses. Fong noted that there were other strategic documents that guided lower level operational decisions. DRAFT Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 2 of 2 Waldfogel noted that occasionally there were documents like this one that were very high level and it was difficult to understand the operational consequences when reviewing it. He also noted that the way the document was written it did not appear that the UAC had advisory responsibility. In the policy, the UAC’s role was limited to providing reports. He wanted to understand the UAC’s role in recommending these policy updates to the Council. The policy said that the UAC had no formal responsibility in energy risk management. He asked why they were being asked to provide a recommendation on the policy. Fong said that staff had brought it in an abundance of caution, but the UAC could decline to make a recommendation. Commissioner Melton said the UAC’s responsibility was to advise the Council and they should advise on this policy. Fong said they provided quarterly reports to the UAC to keep them informed, even if they did not have a role in energy risk management. Hall asked if Waldfogel had any edits to recommend regarding the section of the energy risk management policy that discussed the UAC’s role. Waldfogel declined, but requested that the minutes reflect his comments. If the Council wanted to clarify the UAC’s role, they could do so. Commissioner Hall asked a question about page 8, product (g), resource adequacy capacity products to do with the impact of reserves from the sale of resource adequacy capacity. Abendschein commented that in the long-run the sale would not have any impact on the specific reserves. Commissioner Hall asked that a description of the product be included in the glossary. He also asked whether the buying and selling requirements were too limiting. Could the City sell capacity just to make money rather than reduce cost? Fong clarified that the utility only sold reserves when they were long in their portfolio. Hall was concerned that the description was so restrictive that it would not allow the utility to sell surplus capacity. Fong said it was not restrictive, but they would review the language. ACTION: Commissioner Melton made a motion to support the staff recommendation with two changes: that in paragraph (c)(1) the required annual review of the policy be changed to a biennial (every two years) review, and that resource adequacy capacity products be defined in the glossary. Commissioner Eglash seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (5-0 with Chair Cook and Commissioner Chang absent). NOT YET APPROVED 1 140916 mf 0180065 Resolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Revisions to the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy A. The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) adopted a policy governing the management, monitoring and hedging of risks associated with electric and natural gas commodity transactions effected by the Department of Utilities. That policy is memorialized in the document entitled “Energy Risk Management Policy” (the “Policy”), which the City has previously updated on an annual basis. B. Staff has carefully reviewed the Policy, including with the help of a consultant, to identify opportunities to update, clarify, and streamline the language of the Policy. C. In addition to changes throughout the Policy that would accomplish that objective, Staff specifically recommends that the Policy be updated to: (1) Identify two new authorized products (purchase and sale of emission allowances and purchases of carbon offsets) and modify one existing product (purchases of resource capacity products); (2) Cross-reference the City’s Conflict of Interest Code in the Conflict of Interest section of the Policy; (3) Add a new section concerning compliance with Dodd-Frank legislation and regulation; and (4) Enhance the Policy’s Glossary with definitions for relevant term used in the Policy. D. At its August 6, 2014 meeting, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommended that the City Council approve the amendments to the Policy proposed by staff, with two additional changes: (1) The requirement that Council review the Policy be changed from an annual to biennial (every two years) review; and (2) The term “resource adequacy capacity products” be added to the Policy’s glossary. E. The Council has reviewed staff’s analysis, the resulting staff report, and the UAC’s recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby RESOLVES, as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the City of Palo Alto Energy Risk Management Policy, as amended, which is attached to this Resolution. // NOT YET APPROVED 2 140916 mf 0180065 SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and no environmental assessment is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ City Manager _____________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney _____________________________ Director of Utilities _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 5052) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Water Master Study Title: Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Professional Services Contract with G&E Engineering Systems, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of $268,400 for the Performance of a Water System Condition Assessment Master Study and a Seismic Master Study (WS-11003) From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached professional services agreement with G&E Engineering Systems (Attachment A) in the amount of $244,000 for professional engineering services to conduct a Water System Condition Master Study for the City’s water transmission and distribution system and a Seismic Master Study for transmission mains in the Foothills. Due to the project complexity, staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute changes to the contract with G&E Engineering Systems for additional unforeseen services that may be required during the course of the project (additional services), the total value of which shall not exceed $24,400 or 10% of the proposal cost (RFP #153996). Background The City of Palo Alto maintains a water system consisting of five receiving stations from the SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy aqueduct system, seven reservoirs, five booster pumping stations, eight wells and approximately 234 miles of water transmission and distribution mains. The City’s existing water transmission piping ranges in diameter from 10” to 27” and includes several different pipe materials with a range of ages dating back to the early 1900’s. There are approximately 20 miles of transmission mains running throughout the City. The majority of these mains are located in the Palo Alto foothills. The City’s existing distribution piping ranges in diameter from 4” to 10” and also includes several different pipe materials that were installed over a number of years. There are approximately 214 miles of distribution mains running throughout the City, the majority of which are located in the area east of Interstate 280. City of Palo Alto Page 2 A large percentage of the City’s water system was installed between the 1920’s and 1950’s when the Town of Mayfield, Stanford University and the City of Palo Alto were being developed. The majority of the pipe that was first installed during the 1920’s and 1930’s was cast iron pipe (CIP) and the majority of the next pipe material that was installed during the 1940’s and 1950’s was asbestos cement pipe (ACP). Although there are many factors that can determine when a pipe should be replaced, there is sufficient industry data on pipe aging to determine that a study to evaluate the expected remaining life span of CIP and ACP is warranted. An additional factor in the recommendation to perform a study on the system is that the foothills reservoirs are connected to the city via transmission mains that are near earthquake faults. These pipes may need to be reinforced to withstand potential earthquakes. In order to mitigate the effects of age on the City’s water system and ensure reliability to its customers, the Utilities Department implemented a Water Main Replacement (WMR) program starting in 1986 to replace the oldest water mains in the system. To date, approximately 50 miles of the original cast iron and asbestos cement pipe has been replaced as part of the WMR program. The proposed new study will reprioritize the rehabilitation and/or replacement of the remaining cast iron and asbestos cement pipe in the system based on current conditions. Discussion Consultant’s Scope of Services A Request for Proposals (RFP #153996) was issued on July 3, 2014 seeking consultant services for the preparation of a Water System Condition Assessment Master Study. The scope of work requires the consultant to provide a seismic evaluation and master study for the 20 miles of transmission main located in the Palo Alto foothills and to provide a condition assessment study for the entire distribution system. These studies will include:  results of the seismic evaluation and the system assessment  results of soil and/or pipe testing done to confirm actual condition of existing mains.  the strategy implemented to develop a ranking system for determining future capital improvement projects  recommendations on retrofit and/or replacement of existing mains  recommendations on future capital improvement projects and an economic analysis showing costs associated with retrofit and/or replacement programs. In addition to the seismic and condition assessment studies, the consultants scope of work includes providing guidance and assisting the City in the preparation of FEMA grant applications for utility project funding. The deliverables will include: 1. Seismic Master Study for Transmission Mains 2. Water System Condition Assessment Master Study City of Palo Alto Page 3 3. Completed FEMA Grant Applications Attachment A, the Agreement, contains a complete description of the scope of services. Due to the specialized nature of the services and special equipment, services of an expert consultant are required. Solicitation Process Summary of Solicitation Process Proposal Title Water System Condition Assessment Master Study Proposal Number 153996 Proposed Length of Project 8 months Number of RFPs Mailed/Emailed 13 Total Days to Respond to Proposal 21 Pre-Proposal Teleconference July 14, 2014 Number of Company Attendees at Pre-proposal Meeting 4 Number of Proposals Received: 5 Company Name Location (City, State) Amount* G&E Engineering Systems Oakland, CA $244,000 *Based on scope of work. See Cost of Services below. Proposal costs ranged from $244,000 to $1,092,240. Cost of Services An evaluation committee reviewed the proposals, proposer qualifications and responses to the criteria identified in the RFP. After meeting with all five proposing consultants, staff determined that the G&E Engineering Systems team has the expertise and experience necessary to perform the work. The following criteria were used during the evaluation process to identify the most qualified firms, considering qualitative factors before viewing price proposals:  Quality and completeness of Proposal.  Quality, performance and effectiveness of the work plan, demonstrated ability in project thoroughness.  Proposer’s experience and qualifications of key staff to be assigned to the project.  Proposer’s ability to enforce schedules.  Proposal’s clarity.  Proposer’s understanding of the project scope and schedule.  Cost to the City. Additional services that are not included within the scope of services in the contract, but that are determined by the City to be necessary for its proper completion, will be paid on a time and material basis up to a maximum amount of $24,400, using the consultant’s Charge Rates schedule shown in Exhibit C-1 to the Agreement. The consultant shall not commence with additional services before the City approves of them in advance and in writing. The City may City of Palo Alto Page 4 require the consultant to submit a written proposal detailing the proposed maximum compensation for any additional services. The total not to exceed budget amount proposed for this project is $268,400, comprising $244,000 for the basic consultant services and $24,400 for additional services, as needed. The consultant’s final proposal cost was based on certain modifications to the scope of services provided in the City’s original proposal. The RFP process allowed the City to negotiate the price of the work, and the scope of work, upon selection of the successful firm. Resource Impact The funds for this project are from CIP WS-11003, Water Distribution System Improvements. Current staffing levels and the level of expertise needed to see this project through to completion prevent City staff from being able to perform this work. Policy Implications The approval of this Enterprise Fund professional services contract is consistent with the existing City policies. This recommendation is consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan (Staff Report 1880), especially Key Strategy No. 1, “Ensure a high level of system reliability in a cost effective and timely manner.” Environmental Review Council’s award of this contract does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s definition of a “project”, under Public Resources Code Section 21065, therefore, environmental review is not required. . Attachments:  Attachment A: Agreement (PDF)  Attachment B: Consultant Agreement Justification (PDF) CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15153996 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND G & E ENGINEERING SYSTEMS INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 6th day of October, 2014, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and G&E ENGINEERING SYSTEMS INC., a California corporation, located at 6315 Swainland Road, Oakland, CA 94611 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to conduct a water system condition assessment master study (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide the master study plan in conjunction with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through June 15, 2015, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D ATTACHMENT A not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Two Hundred Forty Four Thousand Dollars ($244,000.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Two Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($268,400.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C- 1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign John Eidinger as the project supervisor to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City’s project manager is Romel Antonio, Utilities Department, Engineering Division, 1007 Elwell Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650)566-4518. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 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. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney G&E ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC. By:___________________________ Name:________________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 9 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D President John Eidinger EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES The City of Palo Alto (CITY) wishes to provide high quality water to service the needs of its customers, and contribute to the economic viability of Palo Alto. Earthquakes can damage water systems, especially older cast iron underground water pipelines and similar fragile infrastructure. The City of Palo Alto is faced with a credible and looming earthquake from the nearby San Andreas Fault, possibly magnitude 8, sometime in the planning horizon. In addition to the San Andreas fault, there are a number of crustal faults that can seriously damage the City of Palo Alto water system, including events on the Hayward, Calaveras, Monte Vista – Shannon, Zayante Vergeles, San Gregorio faults (all active to varying levels), and other splay faults of the San Andreas System (Stanford, Palo Alto, Berrocal, Serra and others). While the annual chance of some of these events is relatively low, the close proximity of these faults to Palo Alto (some traverse the City) make them a substantial contributor to overall risk. Coupled with these seismic issues is the ongoing problem of aging infrastructure. Some of Palo Alto's buried pipelines are cast iron, asbestos cement, galvanized steel, with ages approaching 50 to 75+ years. Pipe replacement is an important aspect of the City's future capital improvement needs. Considering these two issues, earthquakes and aging infrastructure, we have developed a work plan that shall provide the City with the following: • A ranked benefit cost model, for every single existing pipe, providing the cost effectiveness of replacing that pipe with new pipe, to address earthquake risks. For example, a 40-year old transmission concrete cylinder pipe in a firm soil zone, serving a high density commercial area, might have a benefit cost ratio of 0.3, meaning that it is not cost effective to replace the pipe at this time, just for seismic reasons. For example, a 50-year old distribution cast iron pipe in a high liquefaction zone, serving a high density commercial area, might have a benefit cost ratio of 2, meaning that it is cost effective to replace the pipe at this time, just for seismic reasons. • A ranked benefit cost model, for every single existing pipe, providing the cost effectiveness of replacing existing pipe with new pipe, to address ongoing pipe aging risks. For example, 75-year old cast iron pipe in a low corrosive environment, serving a residential area, might have a benefit cost ratio of 0.15, meaning that at this time it is not cost effective to replace the pipe for pipe aging reasons. • All of the above information is developed using the SERA (System Earthquake Risk Assessment) GIS software. SERA shall be provided to the City at a no-cost perpetual license, as part of the deliverables for this project. SERA is the industry leading software tool for examining the effects of natural hazards (earthquake) and aging processes for water system infrastructure. The author of SERA, Mr. John Eidinger, shall be the City’s project manager for this project. Mr. Eidinger also wrote the US-wide HAZUS software program for lifelines and infrastructure. The technical approach we outline in this proposal to achieve the stated goals of the City of Palo Alto has the following major highlights: • The SERA program shall use the latest in liquefaction, settlement, landslide, lateral spread and ground shaking hazard models for the City of Palo Alto. SERA includes industry-leading liquefaction models (potential, probability of occurrence, settlement and lateral spread and differential movements, given the occurrence of liquefaction), as for example, along the San Francisco Bay, where soils are underlain by soft bay muds. • The SERA model, used by PG&E, has the latest information for power outages (potential and duration) for every location in Santa Clara County and surrounding areas, including the impact on municipal power systems. This information shall be directly available to the City, for purposes of planning for possible power outages, as well as developing strategies for emergency generators and fuel supplies. • The SERA model has detailed pipeline aging fragility models, which includes: pipe-specific leak history; water flow rates; soil corrosivity; water quality chemistry and pH; fire flows; economic value of lost water; non-destructive examination results; etc. • The SERA model is intended to be a living model. In other words, the City shall maintain the databases (like ongoing pipe leak history), and then re-run SERA to re-compute the need for pipe replacement. G&E shall provide training to the City staff to maintain the database. The intent is for SERA to provide a 5-year Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D going-forward pipeline replacement program, with all eligible pipes that should be replaced. Each year, the model is re-run with updated information, so that the City can make rational forecasts of the following year's CIP and pipeline replacement program. • Using the results from SERA, the City can readily make decisions as to a suitable 5 (or 10) year CIP, factoring in other issues like available funds; street moratoria; fire flows; tuberculation; system build-out needs; etc. • Once the SERA model is populated with inventory data for the Palo Alto system, it is very easy to analyze the performance of the entire Palo Alto system for any earthquake fault, using single scenario events (deterministic and upper bound); or Monte Carlo simulations. SERA can be run in typically 5 minutes (or so) per earthquake simulation. In this way, SERA can provide the City with the complete range of possible earthquake outcomes, including events on the San Andreas or any other active or potentially active fault in the Palo Alto area. The same SERA model provides risk ranking for every individual water pipe in the Palo Alto for seismic and aging; hydraulic service level results by pressure zone, and for the system as a whole; fire following earthquake (ignition, fire spread). • G&E has performed similar risk modeling work for more than 50 other water agencies, including most of the water systems neighboring to Palo Alto. We have detailed knowledge of every pipe serving Palo Alto, including BDPL 3 and 4 pipelines; Mr. Eidinger, your project manager, is the designer of nearly all the seismic improvements to the SFPUC BDPL pipeline system over the past decade, and had intimate knowledge of the ability of these pipelines (and SFPUC's Palo Alto pipeline) to deliver water to Palo Alto, after any type earthquake. Mr. Eidinger has done similar work for SCVWD's pipelines (and water treatment plants) serving Santa Clara County; while these pipes do not presently serve Palo Alto directly, they do serve Palo Alto's neighbors, and thus have indirect influence on Palo Alto from a post-earthquake performance point-of-view, especially if reliance of emergency interconnections is to be relied upon. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 12 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D A. Work Plan Task 1. Data Collection and Review of Operational Criteria G&E shall attend a project kickoff meeting with the City. At this meeting, the project goals, schedule, deliverables and technical approaches shall be outlined. G&E shall also request a substantial amount of data from the City, including: • GIS of water system (in shapefile format). • Specifications for procurement and installation of water pipelines. • Plans and profiles of every major (12 inch and larger) transmission pipe, concentrating especially on bar- wrapped concrete cylinder pipe. • Existing soil borings, and soil resistivity tests throughout the city. • Historical vintage versions of all of the above. • All prior seismic and pipe aging reports. • Current and past Water Department water supply reports. • Complete pipe repair records over the past 20-50 years. • Complete record of pipe damage (if any) in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. • Current water and sewer pipe design approach in soils near the San Francisco Bay (high corrosive environment, weak soft clays); and along creeks (areas most prone to seismic damage). • City-available reports on secondary faults that traverse the city, such as the Stanford fault, Palo Alto fault, etc. Any reports prepared for City of Palo Alto schools, on fault offsets. • Hydraulic models and operational criteria for the system (pressures, pump operating times and flows; reservoir overflow and operational levels with alarms, etc.) • Current and past water wells in Palo Alto, including flow rates, and well logs. G&E shall review all this data, and summarize the pertinent portions in Technical Memorandum 1 (TM-1). TM-1 shall make recommendations as to the need and type of soil / pipe testing and corrosion assessments. Task 2. Seismic Evaluation and Master Study. 2.1 Develop Seismic Hazard / Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading / Landslide and Faulting Risks at Every Pipe In this task G&E shall characterize the seismic hazards and geologic / geotechnical conditions that exist within Palo Alto's sphere of influence that may adversely affect existing or future facilities in Palo Alto's water system. Deterministic ground motion parameters shall be developed using the latest Ground Motion Prediction Equations (GMPE’s) to best represent the deterministic San Andreas event or other hazard level event selected. Simplified, code based procedures shall be used to estimate the site amplification and convert the USGS bedrock parameters to ground surface accelerations necessary for liquefaction calculations. G&E shall factor in depth to groundwater in Palo Alto, for use in liquefaction models. Geotechnical data such as shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance blow counts, fines contents shall be used from selected boring logs to estimate the liquefaction resistance of these materials. These results shall be used to generalize the seismic hazards for every pipe, and every pressure zone. Several hillsides and slopes and embankments may be subject to the hazard of seismically-induced landsliding. For critical hillside facilities (especially pipelines that go up into the hills) all available existing data shall be compiled to evaluate the potential mode of failure, based on geotechnical considerations, if subjected to the design seismic event. G&E shall drive / walk (for readily accessible locations) / and use aerial photos for the pipeline alignments (12" and larger) between Quarry and Montebello to establish local presence of slope instability that might affect the pipes. Deliverables • Map(s) of the Palo Alto service area showing the areas susceptible to liquefaction and liquefaction-related phenomenon, and landsliding. For larger diameter pipes (12" and above), provide refined maps along these corridors. The hazard maps shall have suitable sub-zones that are useful for seismic evaluation of pipelines and all pressure zones. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 13 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D • PGA, PGV, PGD values (median and 84th percentiles) at all pipe locations for Maximum Credible and Probable Earthquakes, including all major potentially active faults in the Palo Alto area. Using the G&E SERA model, it is very straightforward and inexpensive to run many earthquake scenarios of the Palo Alto system, and this is important to obtain a complete understanding for benefit-cost analyses as to whether it is worthwhile to upgrade / modify parts of the Palo Alto distribution system. Each earthquake scenario shall be selected in terms of fault, magnitude, epicenter, propagation direction and recurrence interval. • The GMPE (attenuation) relationships shall be appropriate for the subsurface conditions (rock, firm soils, soft soils). G&E shall summarize the important findings of the preliminary geological / seismic hazard assessment including: • Probability of liquefaction at each microzoned area • Given liquefaction, a preliminary estimate of the magnitude of permanent ground deformation • Probability of landsliding at microzoned area • Given a large coherent landslide, an estimate of the magnitude and extent of permanent ground deformation Deliverables: All data shall be included in Technical Memorandum 2 (TM-2), including: Selection of scenario earthquakes, along with risk of occurrence of these earthquakes. Geologic hazard maps showing areas of potential liquefaction, landsliding or surface faulting. Surface level ground shaking (PGA, PGV, spectral accelerations, PGD) data in a form suitable for processing hazards at pipe locations throughout the Palo Alto service area. Assumptions. The City shall provide copies of all reports requested by G&E for review. The City shall provide a comprehensive list of all relevant contract drawings, specifications and record drawings. The City shall then provide copies of, or access to, all relevant contract drawings and specifications, and record drawings, all geologic/geotechnical reports and accompanying maps and data (i.e., test pits and boring logs), all hydraulic models as requested by G&E. All data provided by the City to G&E shall be under a City-approved confidentiality agreement. Data Gathering. G&E shall collect as much of the following information as is practical within the schedule and resources available for this effort (some of this is also included in Task 1): • Overall system design, including operating schematics, layout of pressure zones, normal and maximum day demands, current digital version of the transmission system hydraulic models, etc. Also, plans for near- term and long range demands (build-out). Include any recent Master Plans. • Reservoirs (tanks): Geotechnical reports. G&E shall assume that the reservoirs / tanks will have suitable seismic performance. It is understood that several of the tanks are currently being assessed and plans have been / are being developed (by others) for upgraded seismic performance. Some of these upgrades may be eligible for FEMA co-funding (see Task 4). • The hydraulic models that have been used to establish parts of the most recent master plan. Include complete models, reports, etc. as needed to extract data as needed. • Base map (hard copy and electronic version, GIS version as available) of the water distribution system. • Transmission system plans and profiles. Distribution system standard details. Standard pipeline specifications. (Electronic files). The following pipe attributes are desired: location; diameter; material; lining; joint type; age; repair experience; hydrant, air valve and blow off designs; leak experience; soil backfill types; special crossing designs; locations with corrosive soil. • Drawings showing connections to third party water systems (such as BDPL turnouts and interconnections with neighboring water systems) showing Palo-Also-owned vaults, up to the connection point. • Pumping plants, wells and treatment facilities: construction type; capacity; type (if any) of permanent backup power supply; presence of quick connect couplings; availability of portable generators or portable pumps; presence of bypass pumping tees; water quality issues for wells. • A list of high priority water customers. This might include: large industrial users; key commercial users; hospitals. Except where noted, it is preferred that all data be provided in electronic format only. In addition to the above data from City of Palo Alto files, G&E shall collect and review data from several outside sources. The outside data sources shall provide mainly data regarding characterizing seismic and geological hazards, already described in Task 1. Facilities Inspection / Site Reconnaissance. G&E shall inspect all the pipelines identified as critical and accessible. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 14 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D This shall include all pipelines 12" and larger. While the City has been specific that the seismic vulnerability assessment excludes detailed assessments of distribution pipes, wells, pump stations and all reservoirs / tanks, G&E shall still visit these locations to assess how existing pipelines are attached to these facilities, consider local geologic hazards, consider work arounds (bypass pumping opportunities, installing emergency generators), as well as any observed equipment weaknesses (PG&E transformers, etc.) The inspection includes a rapid visual assessment of each component's integrity and likely performance under earthquake conditions, and provides a suitable understanding of the potential for access and cost for mitigation at each site. This data shall be used in subsequent evaluation of the system performance under earthquake conditions. The inspection of the facilities (exterior) will take about 6 full days of structural engineer inspection time. Digital photographs of facilities and key features shall be taken for use in subsequent Technical Memos and reports. It is expected that one engineer or maintenance person from the City shall accompany G&E at all inspections (support from the City is needed for site access). It is planned that this inspection be performed in a 3 to 4 week span by a team consisting of a structural engineer. All engineering inspections shall be led by Mr. Eidinger, to ensure that all inspections are implemented in a uniform manner. The inspections shall be performed in the first six to nine weeks of the project. It is planned to avoid interior inspections of facilities having confined space restrictions. If after subsequent reviews it is clear that a confined space inspection is warranted, this will be scheduled at a later date. The results and findings from the inspections shall be summarized in two stages: • Included in Tech Memo 2 (November 14, 2014). Seismic Vulnerability Assessment. G&E shall perform an assessment of the City's existing water transmission and distribution system performance including the entire pipeline infrastructure, for each earthquake scenario. G&E shall consider the likely seismic performance of all components. G&E shall estimate the extent of damage to each pipeline and to the entire water system, use SERA-internal hydraulic models for serviceability, use fire ignition and spread models, and then evaluate whether the system can meet the Performance Goals. G&E shall assign fragility models for all critical water system components. A fragility model relates the damage potential of a type of pipeline versus known damage for similar types of components from past earthquakes. Key system hardware includes: • Water transmission pipelines, with an emphasis on larger diameter transmission and sub-transmission (especially the 12" and larger CCP), but also including every distribution pipe. Factors shall include damage due to severe shaking (PGV-based, often 50% of total damage in smaller earthquakes, but usually less than 25% of all damage in larger earthquakes) and liquefaction / landslide (PGD-based, often 50% of total damage in smaller earthquakes, 75% or more in larger earthquakes). The fragility curves shall be based on material / joint specific data, for: asbestos cement pipes with rubber gasket or cement joints; cast iron pipe with mechanical, rubber gasket, lead or cement joints; PVC pipe; HDPE pipe; arc-welded steel pipe with lap weld or rubber gasket joints; ductile iron pipe with rubber gasket or mechanical joints; concrete pipe with welded steel or cemented joints, new ER-DIP (if used); ongoing effects of corrosion; etc. G&E shall use our library of historical pipeline damage data, including all U.S. earthquakes through 2013, as well as detailed information pipe performance in the 1995 Kobe, 1999 Izmit , 2001 Bhuj, 2001 Nisqually, 2002 Denali, 2010, 2011 Christchurch, 2011 Great Tohoku Japan. The models shall include every Palo Alto pipe, with more detailed evaluations for the pipes 12" and larger (backbone pipes). • Facilities. The base scope as requested by the City specifically states to exclude from structural analysis all components at booster pump stations, reservoirs, wells. Most (if not all) of these facilities have previously (or ongoing) been evaluated / seismically strengthened / seismically designed by the City. Accordingly, G&E shall assign suitable rugged seismic fragilities to all these components, subject to any field observations, reflecting the planned (future) upgraded conditions. G&E shall evaluate all the pipelines on a pressure zone / hazard basis. This is done at two levels: backbone pipes (one to one correspondence with City pipes), and for all medium to small diameter distribution pipes, including service laterals. 2.2 Transmission Pipeline Seismic Assessment Fragility models relate the likelihood of pipeline damage to the various seismic hazards. G&E have already prepared fragility models for most commonly encountered water system hardware components. Using these models, G&E shall perform a pipeline- and component-based vulnerability assessment under each scenario earthquake. The assessment shall include the following hazards: • Ground shaking (PGA, PGV, Spectral acceleration, TGD) Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 15 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D • Soil liquefaction / lateral spreads / lurching / settlement (PGD) • Landslides (PGD) • Surface faulting (as applicable) Tabulated seismic hazards shall be included with each assessment. Hard copy maps with overlays of the water system infrastructure versus the seismic hazards shall be provided. Note: it is not the intent of this project to develop new GIS information for the City, but to use available GIS-information. If the SERA model is used, a no-cost license for the software shall be provided to City at the conclusion of the project, along with all software, datasets and user manual. Based on the vulnerability assessment, G&E shall estimate system-wide (by pressure zone) hydraulic performance using reservoir damage and pipe break vs. connectivity and break vs. serviceability indices. At the completion of this task, G&E shall present to the City the damage assessments for all pipelines. At this stage, the City shall have sufficient information that will help finalize existing critical and non-redundant items that will affect post-earthquake performance. Based on the findings in this task G&E expect to identify the critical pipelines and other items that are most vulnerable to earthquake damage. These assessments shall be in sufficient detail to identify the following: • Location(s) of the pipelines that are subject to failure. • Identify the failure mode (breaks, leaks) and its possible functional and life safety impacts. • Identify preliminary schemes to mitigate unacceptable failures. Ongoing maintenance issues (pipe replacement) shall be addressed with regards to possible mitigations. • Develop preliminary cost estimates for implementing the alternate mitigations. • Describe the seismic performance level for the pipeline / component if the mitigation is adopted. G&E shall develop upgrade (rehabilitation or replacement) alternatives. These shall incorporate the latest in seismic requirements, meeting all current codes, factoring in the City's pipe replacement program strategies, corrosion issues, water quality issues (if any), pressure, and flows. Where suitable G&E shall provide allowance for shutdown of one basin / reservoir / tank in multiple basin / reservoir / tank pressure zone systems, to allow for ongoing maintenance in either winter time or summer time demand situations; isolation / throttling valves to maintain storage for fire flows under emergency conditions; and full life cycle costs. System aspects of the entire water system shall be considered when making recommendations, such as: relative redundancy to water storage for that zone; relative fire ignition and fire spread threat for that zone; and key customers (hospitals, etc.). Other mitigations that might be needed include: improvement to well casings; localized soil remediation; addition of isolation valves at key pipeline crossings at liquefaction/landslide/fault crossing zones; addition of pipe flexibility at vault sites or other sites prone to differential settlements. If G&E observes any of the following, G&E shall make recommendations for anchorage of chemical tanks; restraint of equipment on vibration isolators; restraint for batteries; etc. Emergency Recovery Capability. G&E shall recommend system-wide post-earthquake emergency response mitigation alternatives, in order to reduce adverse consequences to the extent practical. It is often more cost effective to be able to rapidly respond and repair damage leading to customer outages than to mitigate to prevent the damage altogether. G&E shall develop alternatives that include: additional repair crew capability (usually very cost effective); portable hose (considering length, diameter, couplings and storage requirements); emergency generators; portable pumps; quick connects; additional spare parts; etc. Deliverables. The deliverables include the following. Seismic evaluation of the Critical Transmission Pipeline System (all CCP pipes, most other pipes 12" diameter and larger) for major earthquakes on the San Andreas (M 7 to M 8), and as suitable, lesser damage from smaller earthquakes on nearby crustal faults that are deemed to play an important risk to the Palo Alto system as a whole. Provide service restoration curves (time after earthquake vs. percentage of customers served) by pressure zone and for the system as a whole, assuming the City's current emergency response capability. Provide all findings and methodologies in Tech Memo 2 (November 14 2014) and updated with complete models in Tech Memo 3 (May 15, 2015). TM-2 shall address primary weaknesses for the transmission system at critical seismic hazard locations (fault crossings, liquefaction zones, landslide zones). Meet with the City to go over all findings. 2.3 Distribution Pipeline Seismic Assessment The work described in Section 2.2 evaluates the performance of the backbone transmission system. The work in Section 2.3 evaluates the performance of the smaller pipes (distribution) part of the system. The work shall follow the same outline as described in Section 2.2, with an emphasis on pipeline reliability. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 16 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D The evaluation shall cover the following issues: • Damage caused by Permanent Ground Deformation (PGD) • Damage caused by ground shaking (PGV) The result of the work shall be an evaluation of post-earthquake service levels, and restoration times. Deliverables. The deliverables from Section 2.3 include the following: • Seismic evaluation of the Distribution System for major earthquakes on the San Andreas (M 7 to M 8), and as suitable, lesser damage from smaller earthquakes on nearby crustal faults that are deemed to play an important risk to the Palo Alto system as a whole. • Service restoration curves (time after earthquake vs. percentage of customers served) by pressure zone and for the system as a whole, assuming the City's current emergency response capability. • All findings, validated conclusions and methodologies shall be documented in Tech Memo 3. Task 3. Condition Assessment and Master Study 3.1 Outline Along with the seismic evaluations of backbone and distribution pipes (Task 2), G&E shall conduct a parallel pipeline aging evaluation. This is critical in developing a cost effective long term pipe replacement program. G&E shall perform a pipeline aging analysis. This analysis shall be performed using many of the same data as used for the pipeline seismic vulnerability analyses, including age, material, lining and coating, soil R (ohm-cm), historical leak rates, etc. G&E shall customize the data and models for the City that factor in the Palo Alto-specific styles of construction and soil environments. G&E shall collect and review the available leak history from the City. Ideally, the leak history should cover at least a 20-year period. G&E shall collect and assess available information from other water agencies. This may include the City Redwood City, City of Burbank, LADWP, EBMUD. These water systems have many years of leak data available for their pipelines, covering a wide range of pipe materials and installation practices. G&E shall assess the leak histories and case histories to examine the following concern: will the leak rate increase as the pipes become older? For example, will the leak rate of cast iron pipe substantially increase once the pipe hits 75- years to 100-years of age? There have been a number of technical studies of this sort in the industry, and to date, the data does not indicate such a rapid change in leak rates. Using the data from historical leak rates, and factoring in other economic issues, a pipe abandonment model for each kind of pipe shall be established for the City. For each pipeline, G&E shall examine the cost-effectiveness of pipeline replacement (excluding seismic). This shall be done using a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) model. Factors that go into this model include: age of existing pipe; projected lifetime of existing pipe; economic activity along each pipe (this will prioritize upgrades of pipes for critical customers); costs for repairing leaking pipes (by diameter); costs for claims (inundation) due to leaking pipes); lost revenues due to the inability to sell water during an outage; distance between gate (isolation) valves; time value of money (discount rates from 3% to 7%); cost to install new pipe (dollars per inch-foot, diameter dependent). Parameters shall be provided that address pipe tuberculation; current fire flow capability (meets or exceeds fire flow rates, similar; below; or well below target fire flow rates); historical water quality complaints; these parameters shall be converted to economic values using economic models approved by FEMA; these models have been accepted by FEMA to fund mitigation grants, in prior work by G&E for several other water utilities. The analyses shall be prepared in a database that will be provided to the City so that the City can use the software for its own purposes. The model shall include the following factors: • Cost to make repairs • Cost to replace pipelines • Locations of isolation valves (distances between) and number of customers affected by outages due to leak • Implied costs to residents due to leak repair (road closures, detours, etc.) • Implied costs to customers due to water outages during the time needed to make the leak repair • Loss of revenue due to lost water Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 17 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D • Concurrence with BMPs (best management practices) • Cost of capital • Lifetime of existing or replacement pipes (which these may be long, they must be considered for a complete lifetime analysis) In conjunction with the findings from the backbone distribution system assessment and the distribution system assessment, G&E shall develop tables that show the following type of information: GIS Pipe ID, Length Existing pipe type Replacement Pipe type BCR – Seismic BCR - Aging BCR - Total xxx, 800 feet 8" CIP 1936 (no leaks in past 8 years) 8" DIP 2012 0.24 0.35 0.59 yyy, 200, feet 2" GIP 1925 (with recent leaks) 6" PVC 2012 1.25 2.40 3.65 zzz, 600 feet 12" DIP 1985 12" HDPE 2012 0.04 0.02 0.06 This table highlights the key points in the ranking system: • All pipes are listed by their GIS-ID, so that they can be plotted into maps • All pipes are considered both in their as-is and potentially upgraded conditions. • All pipes are ranked with BCRs separately for seismic issues as well as aging / replacement issues. • Validate conclusions • Provide electronic validated results that can be exported into the City’s existing asset management database platform By summing up the lengths by BCR ratios, G&E shall establish the total mileage of pipes within the Palo Alto water system that are currently "cost effective" for pipeline replacement. By using the BCR ratios, G&E shall show an "extended" length of pipe that can be cost-effectively replaced. Given the findings, G&E shall provide long term horizon (50 to 200 year) pipe replacements such as shown in the following chart, as well as pipe-by-pipe prioritized results for the short term planning horizon. 3.2 Specifics Includes: evaluation of every pipe segment in the Palo Alto water system, as available in the current Palo Alto GIS. The City shall provide this GIS in ArcGIS format (Shapefiles, within included geometry (.shp) and attribute (.dbf) files, along with projection system. G&E shall provide all results to the City using the same pipeID numbering system to ensure that all data can be easily linked to the City's Topobase software. Includes: steps the City can take now (2014) to lengthen the useful life of existing pipes, and in selecting materials and methods of construction for future pipe installations. This shall cover corrosion protection (passive systems and impressed current systems, see Task 5), interior inspection methods (including costs and expected results), water chemistry, leak detection systems, pipe lining, etc. Includes, for every pipe, the current optimal replacement cycle (next 5 years, and then in yearly increments for the next 200 years). Software to be used to update the model on an annual basis, so that the next 5 year CIP can be established. How to factor in street moratoria and other factors in selecting actual pipeline segments for replacement. The software shall be Windows-PC based, and can easily be coordinated with other City software tools (Excel, Access, SQL, Oracle, ArcGIS, Topobase, etc.) Include capital costs for replacement of every pipe segment in the water system. Includes: Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) of pipe replacement for every pipe segment. This shall factor in pipe criticality, potential for leak and inundation, pipe history, soil corrosivity, water chemistry, time value of money, capital costs to construct new pipes (including preferred pipe material and diameter). A corresponding BCA for every pipe for seismic issues shall also be provided. The total BCA for each pipe will therefore include the issues of Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 18 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D pipe aging and seismic effects, in order to develop a suitable overall capital improvement plan. 3.3 Define Mitigation Measures Given the findings from the tasks described in Sections 2.2 (seismic) and 2.3 (pipe aging), G&E shall define and categorize possible mitigation actions. The mitigation actions shall be categorized as part of a suitable multi-stage Pipe Replacement / Seismic Improvement Program (PR/SIP) as part of the City's overall CIP. An essential part in preparing each PR/SIP is way to rank all the possible mitigation projects. The goal in ranking the projects is to provide the City with justification for: • How much money should the City devote to Seismic Mitigation? • How much money / how many miles of pipelines should be replaced each year (for the next 200 years)? • What does the City gain for spending more (or less) pipeline replacement? How much of this gain is due to improved seismic performance? How much of this gain is due to reduced water leakage / pipe repairs / system impacts due to pipe replacement? For each PR/SIP mitigation plan scenario, G&E shall perform a benefit cost analysis (BCA). The BCA shall evaluate the "payback" of incorporating the mitigation scenario, in terms of what the citizens served by the City will be getting. The BCA shall include potential reduction in future losses from: direct damage, life safety, inundation, loss of water service, fire and indirect economic impacts. The BCA shall specifically include the findings from the losses due to a major earthquake on the San Andreas fault, as well as earthquakes that can occur on other faults, factoring in their annual likelihoods. The BCA shall also examine the long term issues for the City should various pipe long term pipe replacement strategies be adopted (ranging from "do nothing", to "replace x miles of pipe per year" to "replace x+y miles of pipe per year", prioritized by pipe diameter / criticality, etc.). G&E shall use the Benefit Cost model that we have previously developed for FEMA (this is the same model that FEMA uses to evaluate the cost effectiveness of paying for mitigation). G&E shall validate conclusions and recommend priorities for each of the mitigation alternatives based on those conclusions. This prioritization shall consider both the impact of unmitigated damage, cost of mitigation, source of funds, and benefit cost analysis of each mitigation action. Aspects include the following: • Cost to perform the mitigation action. • If no mitigation action taken, likely costs to repair damage given the future pipe leaks / breaks, as well as manpower needed to perform such repairs. Repairs shall be subdivided into two categories: those needed for emergency bypass actions or rapid repairs (short term repairs), and those needed to restore the damaged item to pre-damage status (long term repairs). • If no mitigation action taken, impact to customer service given the pipe leak / break. This shall be in terms of duration of water outages; water quality degradation; impact of fire flows. • If mitigation action taken, priority relative to other mitigation actions. G&E shall also recommend changes to the City's emergency response plans as needed. Specific areas that shall be addressed include the Emergency Operations Center (including backup power, redundancies); operating procedures; collection and dissemination of damage information; mobilization of mutual aid forces; availability and location of spare parts and materials; and other relevant issues. G&E shall meet with the City to go over the findings and draft recommendations that shall be included in Tech Memo 4. There will be questions, and "what if" type scenarios. G&E shall include one round of revisions to address these questions, like: • What if Palo Alto spends $1 million per year on a long term basis for pipe replacement? • What if Palo Alto spends $3 million per year on a long term basis for pipe replacement? • What if Palo Alto spends $10 million per year on a long term basis for pipe replacement? • For each of these scenarios, G&E shall show the optimized pipe replacement strategy and validate conclusions; the annual "benefits" due to reduced seismic damage and reduced day-to-day leak damage, etc. • Based on the best scenario, provide an operation and maintenance work process decision matrix and future main rehabilitation or replacement criterion that can be easily integrated into the City’s existing asset management platform • A validated water main capital improvement program and rehabilitation and replacement rate for the various existing Palo Alto water system materials. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D Task 4. FEMA Grant The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Competitive (PDM-C) grant program. Under this program, the City of Palo Alto can request up to $3,000,000 on a cost-share basis (FEMA 75%, City 25%). In order to apply for this type of grant, City must develop an eGrant and provide a benefit cost analysis. A similar program is called HMGP, also funded by FEMA, and administered by CA Office of Emergency Services. G&E shall develop one FEMA eGrant proposal (and corresponding CA OES notice of intent) to obtain co-funding from FEMA. G&E has done this in the past for several public water agencies to obtain funding for seismic upgrades of water tanks, wastewater treatment plants, EOC centers, communication centers, etc. G&E shall work with Palo Alto to identify what element(s) of the water system are suitable for possible co-funding by FEMA. This might include buried pipes, above ground water tanks (flexible pipe connections), etc. A requirement of a FEMA grant funding is that the sub-applicant (Palo Alto) also have a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Should Palo Alto not already have such a plan (or be covered under the ABAG regional LHMP), then the first FEMA grant request should likely be to requested co-funding to developed the LHMP. Deliverables: one FEMA grant proposal, and associated CA OES Notice of Intent. G&E shall provide the technical information needed. Sub-applicant information (such as suitable contact names and information, etc.) shall be provided by the City of Palo Alto. Task 5. Soil / Pipe Testing After Task 1, G&E shall issue to the City recommendations for non-destructive examinations. This shall include a series of Wenner 4 point tests for soil resistivity; and possible other types of non-destructive tests and corrosion assessments. The bulk of this work is intended to be performed by MJ Schiff, including Wenner 4 point tests, any laboratory work and corrosion assessments / consulting. Assuming that the ultimately adopted test program includes 100 Wenner 4 point field tests, the cost is $55,000. Schedule. By November 1, 2014, agree upon the testing needs and requirements. The tests shall then be conducted in the December – January 2015 time frame, with results available to G&E by February 15, 2015. These results shall be factored into the draft TM-3 report. This scope shall be finalized at the completion of Task 1, and the City's review and comments. Should, during the course of the work, it be clear that other types of non-destructive tests or corrosion consulting be suitable, G&E shall develop a suitable work plan, schedule and cost. Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 20 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Days/Weeks From NTP 1. Task 1: Data Gathering 1 week 2. Task 2: Seismic Master Study 8 weeks 3. Task 3: Condition Assessment 26 weeks 4. Task 4: Fema Grant 34 weeks 5. Task 5: Soil/Pipe Testing 36 weeks Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 21 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $244,000. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation for all Basic Services, reimbursable expenses, and Additional Services shall not exceed $268,400. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $244,000 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $24,400. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 - (Data Gathering TM-1) $15,000 Task 2 - (Draft Report TM-2) $80,000 Task 3 - (Condition Assessment) $70,000 Task 4 - (FEMA Grant) $24,000 Task 5 - (Soil / Pipe Testing) $55,000 Sub-total Basic Services $244,000 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $244,000 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $24,400 Maximum Total Compensation $268,400 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 14 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 15 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Engineering Rate Schedule (Regular and Overtime Hours) Principal $230.00 Senior Technical Specialist $210.00 Technical Specialist $192.00 Senior Engineer $169.00 Engineer $145.00 Drafter $113.00 Administrative $67.00 Labor costs include salary, fringes, overhead, general and administrative, and profit. Labor costs are valid through December 31, 2014, and increase by 3% for the twelve months following. Rates for subsequent calendar years are subject to annual changes. Rate for expert testimony or deposition is $500 per hour, and shall not be charged without prior approval. Reimbursable Expenses a. Mileage standard IRS rate per mile within the San Francisco Bay Area b. Expenses of travel, subsistence and communications outside of the San Francisco Bay Area, in connection with the Project. c. Expense of the reproduction and messenger delivery of project work and other documents. d. Expense of outside services including sub-consultants, mock-ups, models, special drafting, display renderings, graphic art work, and photographic work at cost plus 10%. e. Expense of special supplies and materials. Color print media shall be charged at $0.75 per sheet (A size) or $1.50 per sheet (B size) or $1.50 per square foot for large format sizes (D or E size). Large format (D or E size) black and white drawings shall be charged at $1.00 per square foot. f. Expense of computers. No charge for computers used for word-processing or other overhead activities. Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 18 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 19 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 20 DocuSign Envelope ID: B9579C10-11A0-40FC-A783-9243C541C83D This project supports the ongoing efforts to improve the City’s water transmission and distribution systems to be able to supply water during emergency periods. A large percentage of the City’s water system was installed between the 1920’s and 1950’s when the Town of Mayfield, Stanford University and the City of Palo Alto were being developed. The majority of the pipe installed during the 1920’s and 1930’s was cast iron pipe (CIP) and the majority of the pipe installed during the 1940’s and 1950’s was asbestos cement pipe (ACP). Although there are many factors that can determine when a pipe should be replaced, there is sufficient industry data on pipe aging to determine that a study to evaluate the expected remaining life span of CIP and ACP is warranted. In addition to this, the City maintains approximately 20 miles of transmission mains, most of which are located in the Palo Alto foothills and transmit water between the City’s five reservoirs located in this area. Due to the fact that a portion of these transmission mains are located in both the Monte Vista – Shannon and San Andreas fault zones, a seismic study is needed to determine whether or not the existing transmission system can withstand a large earthquake or if the system should be reinforced to ensure reliability to its customers. G&E Engineering Systems will provide all services needed to assist the City in reprioritizing the rehabilitation and/or replacement of the remaining CIP and ACP based on current conditions of the pipes. The total proposed not to exceed cost for this project is $268,400. City staff anticipates work on this project to begin in late October 2014 and will run approximately 8 months. The consultant will provide a seismic evaluation and master study for the 20 miles of transmission main located in the Palo Alto foothills and to provide a condition assessment master study for the entire distribution system. These studies will include results of the seismic evaluation and system assessment, the strategy implemented to develop a ranking system for determining future capital improvement projects, recommendations on retrofit and/or replacement of existing mains, recommendations on future capital improvement projects and economic analysis showing costs associated with retrofit and/or replacement programs. Once the master studies have been completed, the consultant will work with City staff to prepare and submit FEMA grant applications for future funding on emergency water supply projects. Consultant services for this project were planned. Current staffing levels and the level of expertise needed for seismic analysis’ and pipe condition assessments prevent City staff from being able to perform this work themselves. A Request for Proposal (RFP #153996) was issued by the Purchasing Department for this work on July 3, 2014. The RFP was out for bid for approximately three weeks. The City received five proposals from various consulting firms throughout California. An evaluation committee reviewed the proposals and ranked each firm based on quality of proposal, quality and effectiveness of work plan, experience, qualifications, understanding of the project scope and schedule, and cost to the City. After meeting with all five proposing consultants, staff determined that, because of their experience and working ATTACHMENT B knowledge of seismic hazards in the bay area and the effect age has on various pipe materials, G&E Engineering Systems was selected as the consultant for this work. G&E Engineering Systems has been awarded multiple contracts for similar work at other agencies over the past two years. This includes seismic and pipe aging evaluations for the City of Redwood City and City of Burbank and various other seismic evaluations for the City of San Diego Water Department and East Bay Municipal Services District (EBMUD). The City of Palo Alto’s Utility Department has never worked with G&E Engineering Systems in past. However, Staff reviewed their qualifications and contacted three of their references (includes City of Burbank, City of Redwood City and EBMUD) of whom they did similar work. All three municipalities were positive about the consultant and were extremely pleased with the project outcome. The term of this agreement is approximately 8 months. The Utilities Department is anticipating this project to be completed by June 15, 2015. Costs were determined based on hours needed to complete all data gathering and research, seismic analysis’, condition assessments, and soils and material testing needed in order to complete the Seismic Master Study and Condition Assessment Master Study. In addition, hours needed for the consultant to work with Staff to prepare and submit FEMA grant applications for future emergency water supply construction projects are included in the total cost. Staff does not anticipate the need for any amendments to the agreement at this time. None. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5108) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Amendment To Lease With R&T Restaurant at Palo Alto Golf Course Title: Approval of Amendment to the Lease with R &T Restaurant Corporation for Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Restaurant, 1875 Embarcadero Road and Adoption of Related Budget Amendment Ordinance in the General Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve: 1. The attached Amendment to the Lease between the City of Palo Alto and R&T Restaurant Corporation (R&T) for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Restaurant. The amendment provides for: (1) a reduction in the minimum monthly rent from the beginning of July 2014 from $4,150 to $2,200 or 7% of the gross revenues, whichever is greater, and the reduction of the monthly payment of utilities services from $2,160 to $1,500 up to the closure date of the Palo Alto Golf Course Reconfiguration Project; and (2) Sets the rent to seven percent (7%) of the monthly gross sales during the period that the Palo Alto Golf Course is closed for construction of new improvements. 2. The related Budget Amendment Ordinance in the General Fund to reduce the annual rental income by $23,400 offset with a reduction in the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 1, 1998, a twenty (20) year lease between the City and R&T commenced. Presently the terms of the lease define the rent payment as the greater of monthly rent of $4,154 or seven percent (7%) of sum of food, bar, snack and room rental plus $2,160 monthly payment toward the utility charges. The existing Lease will expire on April 30, 2018. In July of 2012, the Finance Committee recommended to Council that staff be directed to pursue Golf Course redesign Option G, which adds space for up to three full-size athletic fields and re-configures the entire Golf Course (Attachment A) for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course (Golf Course) to mitigate impacts from the San Francisquito Creek realignment project. The City of Palo Alto Page 2 goal is to create Golf Course reconfiguration alternatives to support the flood control project while also taking advantage of the opportunity to design a more interesting, inviting and playable Golf Course that has the Potential to make the Golf Course more financially viable in the future. In the past two and half years, the City has been working with local, state and federal agencies to obtain the necessary approvals to start the redesign project of the golf course. The project was scheduled to start in April of 2013, was postponed further to April of 2014, but due to additional difficulties in the permitting process, the projected start date has been moved to April of 2015. The R&T restaurant relies on foot traffic, activities, and golf tournaments as a major part of its revenue. In the past 2 years, since the announcement of the project, there has been a decline in the revenue of the Palo Alto Golf Course and the R&T Restaurant due to cancelation of tournaments and the shortening of the golf course. R&T has requested a temporary reduction and adjustment in rent and utilities charges due to the impact of the Golf Course Project on its restaurant business. The new agreement will reduce the minimum monthly rent from $4,150 to $2,200 or 7% of the gross revenues, whichever is greater, and the utilities payment from $2,160 to $1,500 starting in July of 2014 up to the closure of the golf course. R&T’s rent payment will be the greater of seven percent (7%) of total gross revenue or $2,200. During the construction period, the rent will be based on a percentage system that would require the tenant to pay seven percent (7%) of the gross sale to City. BACKGROUND The Golf Course was constructed in the mid-1950's on 184 acres of flat former salt-marsh and bay fill. The course was designed by noted golf course architect William R. Bell of Pasadena, California. The Golf Course was designed as an 18-hole facility with a par of 72. The facility includes a large practice putting green, a three-building Eichler-designed clubhouse golf shop complex, a restaurant and parking lot. In 2013, City modified the lease and the Management Agreement for the Brad Lozares, the operator of golf course, in anticipation of the upcoming golf course project. There is also a separate lease agreement with R&T Restaurant Corporation (R&T) for food and beverage services at the Golf Course. The R&T lease agreement for food and beverage operations expires on April 20, 2018. On October 15, 2012, Council awarded a contract to Golf Group, Ltd. (aka Forrest Richardson & Associates) to design a reconfigured Municipal Golf Course, prepare final bid documents (plans, specifications, and cost estimate) for the proposed Golf Course modifications based on a conceptual layout plan City of Palo Alto Page approved by Council in July 2012. In accordance with the adopted renovation plan, Forrest Richardson prepared construction documents based on a design concept that will reconfigure the Golf Course to conform to its Baylands setting and rebrand the facility as the Baylands Golf Links at Palo Alto. The Golf Course Reconfiguration Project will modify all 18 holes of the Golf Course, a portion of the driving range and practice facility, and replace an outlying restroom facility, while retaining a regulation golf course with a par of 71. The reconfigured Golf Course will incorporate or modify City of Palo Alto Page 3 existing low-lying areas into the Golf Course, reduce the area of managed irrigated turf, and introduce areas of native grassland and wetland habitat. The project was scheduled to start in April of 2013 for a duration of between 12 to 16 months. The golf course consultants also noted that that there would be a substantial disruption in business, during the construction period. The permitting process with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) has been particularly challenging. The City completed an environmental Impact Report (EIR) and requested permits from the Regional Water Board. The Water Board took the perspective that the Golf Project should be examined in concert with the San Franciquito Flood Control Project and thus far has still not approved permits. Presently, it is projected that the project will start by April of 2015. DISCUSSION On April 21, 2014, R&T Restaurant contacted the City (Attachment B) requesting a modification in the existing lease which is set to expire in April of 2018. R&T requested the following modifications: 1. Reduction of rent to 7% of gross sales after sales tax with no minimum rent. 2. Reduction of utilities to 50% of the current rate. 3. Modify minimum hours from 6:30 AM - 3:00 PM to 7:00 AM – 3:00 PM. 4. If the revenue falls below $45,000 a month for 60 days, Bay Café shall be allowed to suspend operation until 30 days before the golf course reopens. 5. The R&T lease to be extended for 10 years. Proposed adjustment: Staff has held several meetings with the R&T owner and his legal representative to discuss requests regarding the lease adjustments. As the result of several meetings and negotiations with the restaurant operator, a new proposed agreement has emerged. Retroactive to July 1, 2014, the minimum monthly rent will be reduced from $4150 to $2,200 or 7% of the gross revenues, whichever is greater, resulting in a reduction of $1,950 per month and reduction of utilities charges from $2,150 to $1,500 and continuing until the golf course is closed for the planned reconfiguration project. Beginning with the closure date of the golf course and throughout the construction period, the rent will be charged at the rate of seven percent (7% ) of the gross sales. The utility payment will stay at $1,500 per month. When the project is completed and the course becomes fully operational, the payments for rent and utilities will revert to the present agreement per the terms and conditions in the Lease. Staff did not accept recommendation’s 3, 4 and 5 by the restaurant. Reason for Modifications: Delay of the Golf Course Project & Decrease in foot traffic on the golf course The delay of the golf course project has caused a significant decline in the number of rounds played on the golf course. In turn, this resulted in loss of revenues for the restaurant. The City of Palo Alto Page 4 cancelation of the tournaments plus the public perception of a closed golf course have contributed to the decline in the number of rounds played resulting in the loss in revenues. The adverse impacts of these circumstances have and will continue to affect the restaurant’s food and beverage sales. The following table shows a comparison of the number of rounds played from fiscal year 2008 to 2014. The decline substantiates the assertion that there has been a significant drop in play in the past two years. The Staff had projected a decline in rounds in the pre-construction planning, but the actual decline in the number of rounds of golf has exceeded the projected decline numbers. The golf course may be closed for as long as 12 to 18 months to complete the Option G design work. Fiscal Year Round of Golf Annual Decrease 2008 77,989 2009 75,511 2,478 2010 69,791 5,720 2011 67,381 2,410 2013 51,794 15,587 2014 46,527 5,267 *Source of table -Community Service Department Decrease in Revenue of the R&T The decline in restaurant income for the fiscal 2013/14 and 2014/15 from 2012/13 averages 17 percent (see Attachment C). The restaurant has been having difficulties in meeting its fixed cost obligations such as rent, utilities and partially food and labor. R&T has tried to decrease its loss in revenues by offering a number of promotions including increased advertising and an afternoon happy hour. These efforts to reduce the decline in revenues are reflected in the fact that the percentage drop in restaurant revenue does not duplicate the percentage drop in the number of rounds played; however, R&T has reported that it is extremely difficult to sustain business with this significant loss of customers Decline in usage of Utilities The restaurant has its own electricity meter that measures its direct usage. Water and gas are shared by other users. An analysis of usage (see Attachment D) indicates a decline in use of electricity and gas since 2011. History of R&T Utilities Rate Adjustments (1978-2005 written in June of 2005), shows that between the years of 1980 and 2005 R&T Restaurant’s gas consumption increased almost three (3) times, water consumption six (6) times, electricity – four and a half (4.5) times, refuse – increased twice. Since the beginning of 2009, for the last five years, gas consumption for R&T Restaurant dropped by 35%, electrical energy consumption dropped by 48%. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Conclusion The requested rent reduction from $49,800 to $26,400 amounts to an annual reduction in greater of the minimum rent of $23,400 or seven percent (7%) of gross revenues. Based on the figures above, it is staff’s opinion that this reduction is appropriate given the decrease in golf rounds and resulting revenue loss due to the preparation for the reconfiguration, reduction of the length of the golf course, and finally the perception that the golf course was closed. The proposed reduction will assist the tenant in continuing its operation and meeting its fixed cost obligations during this difficult period and will settle this issue in a cooperative manner by mutual agreement of the parties. It remains unclear when the golf course construction will start, best case scenario is late spring of 2015 and to be completed by September 2016. Amendment to Lease The attached Amendment (see exhibit E) provides for a minimum monthly rent from July 1, 2014 to date of closure of the golf course of $2,200 per month. The monthly rent during the closure of the golf course will be solely based on 7% of gross sales. At the opening date of the golf course, the rent and utilities rates will revert to the levels prior to the Second Amendment changes according to the lease. The amendment also clarifies the provision requiring the tenant to pay for utilities in the amount of $1,500 per month, to be adjusted every other year based on utility rate changes. RESOURCE IMPACT The reduction of rent and utilities charges starting at July 1, 2014 up to the closure of the golf course will reduce the annual revenue to the City of Palo Alto General Fund by $23,400 assuming a monthly rent reduction of $1,950 for FY 2015 and to the Utilities Fund by $7,800. With the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment F), the reduction in General Fund revenue is offset with a reduction in the Budget Stabilization Reserve in the amount of $23,400. After the closure of the golf course and during the construction period, the revenue to the City will be based on seven percent (7%) of the total gross revenues. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Amending the Lease Agreement is consistent with policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan promoting economic development and business retention by cooperation and the effective provision of growth strategies. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Extension or re-negotiation of an existing lease and agreement does not constitute a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:  Attachment: Attachment A: Plan G Golf Course (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment B: R&T Requests (PPTX)  Attachment: Attachment C: Revenue Table (XLSX)  Attachment: Attachment D: Utilities Use Table (DOCX)  Attachment: Attachment E: Amendment Number Two (2) to the Lease (DOC) City of Palo Alto Page 6  Attachment: Attachment F - BAO XXXX - Golf Course Restaurant Rent Reduction (DOC) Attachment A R & T Restaurant III Bay Café Restaurant and Banquets Attachment B1 Relationship —R &T Restaurant has shared a relationship with the City of Palo Alto at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course for 16 years. —R &T has shared the operations with the City and with the Brad Lozares Golf Shop to provide a quality experience for golfers and members of the public Attachment B2 Our Mutual Problem —The City of Palo Alto is committed to substantial improvement of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course. —R &T Restaurant,as a business partner of the Municipal Golf Course,is equally committed to the improvement of the public experience. Attachment B3 February 6th 2014 Conference Attachment B4 The Burden —Improvement of the golf course requires completely closing the course for a period of up to 18 months,commencing in April 2014.The City has accepted that its revenue from use of the golf course will cease for this period. —R &T faces a parallel interruption of its revenues. Attachment B5 Loss of Golfers also means loss of available marketing for our banquets Attachment B6 The Context —The understanding that the City and R &T are partners in developing,increasing and benefitting from the golf course revenues is part of the foundation of the parties’ relationship. —R &T has supported these mutual goals by investing over $200,000 in improvements in the Bay Café Restaurant in the past 6 years,alone. Attachment B7 The Reality —We all recognize the reality of the next 24 months: —The City will receive no golf revenues. —Likewise,R &T will receive no food or beverage business from golfers or tournaments because there will be no golfers and no tournaments. —Since the Bay Cafe is centered on serving golfers,it will be facing substantially reduced income. Attachment B8 Revenues come from Golfers Attachment B9 Let€s arrive at an agreed Solution —Mr.Ta lai has consulted with his accounting personnel and other industry experts seeking a reasonable resolution. —R &T and To m Ta lai want to emphasize their commitment to the partnership with the City. —R &T is hiring a marketing consultant at its own expense to assist in increasing outside business during the suspension of golf course operations —R &T and To m Ta lai want to emphasize their desire to provide the quality service to help to bring golfers back in 2015. Attachment B10 Proposals —R &T proposes these modifications of the existing lease to allow the flexibility necessary for Bay Café to survive: —Reduction of the rent to 7%of gross sales after sales tax,with no minimum rent. —Reduction of utilities to 50%of the current rate. —Modify minimum hours to 7AM –3 PM. —If revenue falls below $45,000 a month for 60 days,Bay Café shall be allowed to suspend operations until 30 days before the golf course reopens.Rent and utilities will be cancelled for the period operations are suspended. —The R &T lease shall be extended for 10 years. Attachment B11 Year Annual Total Sale Average Monthly Direction Change Amount Change 2010 $ 589,639.05 $ 49,136.59 2011 $ 645,509.55 $ 53,792.76 9% increase $ 4,656.17 2012 $ 619,836.41 $ 51,653.03 4% Decrease $ 2,139.73 2013 $ 610,705.75 $ 50,892.15 0.2% Decrease $ 760.88 *2014 $ 321,536.44 $ 45,933.25 9% Decrease $ 4,958.90 * Revenues reflect the period from January -July of 2014. Attachment C - R&T Revenue 2010-2014 1 Attachment D Utility Use for R&T Restaurant – Palo Alto Golf Course The Bay Café Restaurant on the Palo Alto Golf course has been in business since the early ‘80s. It is a place for golfers to rest after a day on the course, to snack or to have lunch amongst friends. It is also a place for conferences, weddings and other large gatherings. R&T Restaurant Corporation has been the tenant of the restaurant building since 1996, and the restaurant is now commonly called ‘The R&T Restaurant’.  As per the current lease terms, the R&T pays a flat utilities charge of $2,160.00 per month Utilities Use Public Works reports three (3) water meters, two (2) gas meters, three (3) electrical meters. Two (2) of the electric meters are on the building and one (1) is located in the parking lot; and However, the only designated meter for R&T is the electrical meter. Water meters measure the use for Palo Alto Golf Course - lawn, Golf Pro – Shop, and the R&T Restaurant. R&T Restaurant does not pay separate bills per meter. The City has been charging Utilities for R&T Restaurant as one whole monthly amount. Currently, as mentioned above, the amount of $2,160.00 per month is paid to the city together with the monthly lease. Since the announcement of the Golf Course Reconstruction Project in 2011, the numbers of golf classes, tournaments, golf events, banquettes and other, have been steadily decreasing. Beginning 2009, the average Gas and Water consumption on the Golf Course, respectively for the R&T Restaurant was reported as follows: As shown in the graph below, since 2009 Gas consumption has decreased by 35 percent. YEAR GAS - Thermos WATER – In CCFs 2009 13,107.00 69.73 2010 24,579.00 59.26 2011 9,347.00 88.19 2012 10,127.00 137.93 2013 9,607.00 157.58 2014 8,507.00 172.5 2 As shown in the graph above, since 2009 Gas consumption dropped 35 percent. For the same time period, Water usage has increased 2.3 times. *(CCF stands for 100 Cubic Feet) The table below indicates average Electrical energy use for R&T Restaurant. The Electrical energy use for R&T Restaurant, measured since 2009, has dropped by 48 percent. Average KWH Value $$$ % Change 2009 13,107.00 1,432.00 2010 10,380.00 1,082.00 -35% 2011 9,347.00 979.00 -10% 2012 10,127.00 1,058.00 10% 2013 9,607.00 1,008.00 -1% 2014 8,506.00 832.00 -18% 0.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 15,000.00 20,000.00 25,000.00 30,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 GAS GAS -Therms 0 50 100 150 200 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 WATER WATER in CCF 3 Additional historical data: In comparison, ‘History of R&T Utilities Rate Adjustments 1978-2005’ written in June of 2005, shows that between the years of 1980 and 2005 gas usage increased almost three (3) times, water consumption six (6) times, electricity – four and a half (4.5) times, refuse – increased twice. 0.00 2,000.00 4,000.00 6,000.00 8,000.00 10,000.00 12,000.00 14,000.00 16,000.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 value $$$ average KWH Electricity Usage Attachment E 1 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO LEASE BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND R & T RESTAURANT CORPORATION FOR THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE RESTAURANT This Amendment No. 2 to the Lease Between the City of Palo Alto and R & T Restaurant Corporation, dated May 1, 1998 (“Lease), is made and entered into this ____ day of_______, 2014, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California municipal corporation of the State of California (“CITY”), and R & T Restaurant Corporation, a California corporation (“TENANT”); RECITALS WHEREAS, the Lease provides for TENANT to operate and maintain the property located at 1875 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto (“PREMISES”) as a restaurant serving primarily the public and customers using the Municipal Golf Course; and WHEREAS, Section VI of the Lease requires the greater of the minimum annual rent of $48,000 or seven (7) percent of gross sale; and WHEREAS, Section XXI of the Lease requires Tenant to Pay $1,500 for utilities except for telephone and refuse services; and WHEREAS, currently the Tenant pays to the City the greater of $4,150 or 7% of the gross revenues for rent and $2,160 for utilities except for telephone and refuse services; and WHEREAS, on October 15, 2012, City Council approved the Palo Alto Golf Course Reconfiguration project to improve the golf course and to create several playing fields; and WHEREAS, delays in obtaining the permits has postpone the starting planned time for the project and has led to decrease in foot traffic, cancelation of golf tournaments and loss of revenues in the Tenant’s business; and WHEREAS, City and Tenant agree that a temporary reduction in the required minimum rental and utility charges is appropriate to offset the reduction in Tenant’s revenues resulting from decrease in the golf course business caused by delays in securing the necessary permits, cancelation of golf tournaments and decrease in foot traffic; and WHEREAS, TENANT and City desire to amend the Lease to provide for temporary reduction in rent and utility charges in order to provide relief to tenant during the preconstruction and construction period. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows: Item 1. Section VI (CONSIDERATION/RENT), paragraph A.1 is amended to read as follows: Minimum Annual Rent. The minimum annual rent starting on July 1, 2014 shall be the greater of $2,200 or 7% of the gross revenues up to the date of the closure of the golf course. The rent during the closure period of the golf course for the reconfiguration project will be set at 7% of the gross revenues. The rent payment after the reopening of the golf course will be the greater of $4,150 or 7% of the gross revenues. Item 2 . Section XXI (UTILITIES) is amended to read as follows: XXI. Utilities. Tenant shall pay the City $1,500 per month for gas, water and electric supplied to the Premises starting on July 1, 2014 up to the date of reopening of the golf course. Utilities payment will reset to the preconstruction amount of $2160 after the reopening of the golf course date. City shall retain the right to adjust the monthly utility payment for any rate increase. Adjustment to the utility payment will be made in the even numbered years following the execution of this Amendment. City’s Real Property will notify Tenant in writing of any adjustments. Should City install separate meters for all utilities to the premises, Tenant shall be responsible for and shall pay, prior to delinquency, all charges for utilities based on actual consumption. Item 3. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of and exhibits to the Lease shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment the day and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO R & T RESTAURANT CORPORATION _________________________ By:_____________________________ City Manager Its:_____________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney Attachment F ORDINANCE NO. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 IN THE GENERAL FUND DUE TO APPROVAL OF A RENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH R&T RESTAURANT CORPORATION AS A RESULT OF REDUCED GOLF COURSE ACTIVITIES. IN THE GENERAL FUND, THE ESTIMATE FOR RENTAL INCOME REVENUE WILL BE REDUCED BY $23,400, OFFSET BY A REDUCTION TO THE BUDGET STABILIZATION RESERVE. 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 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2015; and B. The Fiscal Year 2015 Adopted Operating Budget assumed the closure of the Golf Course effective July 1, 2014 to reconfigure the Golf Course; and D. In anticipation of the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project, the City applied for permits from the State Water Board; and E. Due to continued delays in receiving permit approval, staff has engaged with R&T Restaurant Corporation, a concessionaire located at the City’s Golf Course to renegotiate rent payments due to the delay of the Golf Course reconfiguration project and resulting reduction in number of golf rounds played and customers frequenting the golf course and the restaurant; and F. Therefore, staff recommends an amendment to the contract with R&T Restaurant Corporation in order to reduce the monthly rent payment from the beginning of July 2014 from $4,150 to $2,200 or 7% of the gross revenues, whichever is greater, and the reduction of the monthly payment of utilities services from $2,160 to $1,500 up to the closure date of the Palo Alto Golf Course Reconfiguration Project; and sets the rent to seven percent (7%) of the monthly gross sales during the period that the Palo Alto Golf Course is closed for construction of new improvements; and SECTION 2. In the General Fund, the revenue estimate for rental income is hereby reduced by Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred Dollars, offset by a corresponding decrease to the Budget Stabilization Reserve. 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 Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager City Attorney Director of Public Works Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 5097) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Emergency Preparedness Summary Title: Approval of Agreement with SFCJPA for Levee Feasibility Study Title: Approval of a Contract with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority in the Amount of $500,000 for the Baylands Levee Improvements Feasibility Study, Capital Improvement Program Project PE-15028 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (Attachment A) in the amount of $500,000 for the Baylands Levee improvements Feasibility Study, Capital Improvement Program Project PE- 15028. Background The existing Bayfront levee network between San Francisquito Creek and the Mountain View border does not meet current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards for height or construction quality standard. As a result, there are approximately 2,700 Palo Alto properties in a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area that are potentially subject to tidal flooding from a 1% (100- year) high tide event in San Francisco Bay. Critical City facilities, including the Municipal Service Center, Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and the Palo Alto Airport, as well as Highway 101 are within the designated tidal floodplain. Although the existing levees do provide some level of protection, they are not officially recognized by FEMA due to their substandard height and construction quality, and FEMA maps the tidal floodplain as if the levees do not exist. Owners City of Palo Alto Page 2 of property in the floodplain are subject to mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements and restrictions on construction of new or remodeled buildings. The risk of tidal flooding will increase with expected sea level rise in future years (up to 17 inches by Year 2050 and 69 inches by Year 2100). The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is currently conducting a levee improvement feasibility study and design project for the Bayfront levees between San Francisquito Creek and Redwood City. This project, which the JPA has designated as the “Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems and Recreation” or “SAFER Bay” Project,is being jointly funded through a grant from the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and financial contributions from the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. This is a separate project from the JPA’s San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection Project.The scope of the SAFER Bay project includes a feasibility study to identify the preferred alternative for improving the existing Bayfront levee system to provide 1% (100- year) protection from tidal flooding (including consideration of future sea level rise), followed by preparation of an environmental impact report and final construction bid documents. The JPA has a long-term goal of placing a ballot measure before local voters seeking approval of a special tax or assessment to fund construction of the recommended levee improvements. The JPA has included optional tasks in the scope of work of the contract with its professional design consultant to address the levees between San Francisquito Creek and the Palo Alto/Mountain View border and has offered to implement these optional tasks pending a commitment from the City to fund the cost of the work. Funding for the City’s participation in the JPA’s SAFER Bay Project was appropriated to the Baylands Levee Improvements Feasibility Study, CIP PE-15028, by Council in the FY 2015 Capital Budget. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is also examining options for future Bayfront levee improvements in the area. The District is using its own funds, supplemented with DWR grant funds, to prepare a pre-feasibility study for the tidal reach between Alviso and San Francisquito Creek. It is the District’s intent to continue to address the issue of tidal flooding in the South Bay through their participation in the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study (Shoreline Study) process. The District’s pre- City of Palo Alto Page 3 feasibility study will calculate the benefit-cost ratios for a set of individual levee improvement projects in the study area and determine on a reach-by-reach basis whether the calculated benefit-cost ratio will justify federal (Corps) financial participation in future studies, design, and construction of levee improvements. In the near term, the District’s pre-feasibility study will inform a future feasibility study of potential Bayfront levee improvements to be conducted by the Corps. The District is relying primarily on Corps funding for future phases of work and has not identifed local match funding beyond the feasibility stage. The District has not requested any financial contribution from the City for their pre-feasibility study, which includes the Bayfront levees within the City. Discussion After a review of the ongoing efforts by the JPA and the District to pursue future flood protection improvements to the local Bayfront levees, staff recommends that the City provide funding to the JPA to expand the scope of its SAFER Bay feasibility study to include the Bayfront levees between San Francisquito Creek and the Palo Alto/Mountain View border. By leveraging the JPA’s existing contract and momentum, this approach will optimize the City’s ability to make progress in addressing the tidal flooding threat to the community. Staff will continue to follow and provide input to the District’s pre-feasibility study process. However, since it is likely that the District/Corps project development process will take many years to complete and that federal funding for construction of levee improvements will be difficult to secure, staff believes that it is prudent to embark upon a parallel process though the JPA’s SAFER Bay Project. The attached contract with the JPA provides that the City will pay the JPA $500,000 to fund the expansion of the scope of its SAFER Bay feasibility study to include the Bayfront levees between San Francisquito Creek and the Palo Alto/Mountain View border. The JPA will utilize this new funding from the City to amend its existing agreement with professional design consultant HDR, Inc.to include the feasibility study tasks outlined in Exhibit A of the attached contract. Although the scope of the JPA’s SAFER Bay Project extends beyond the feasibility study stage into preparation of an environmental impact report and full construction documents, the attached contract only includes funding for the feasibility study tasks for the Palo Alto levee segments at this time. The feasibility study will identify potential alternative methods and alignments for levee City of Palo Alto Page 4 improvements, estimated project costs, and preliminary environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and permitting requirements. Specific tasks to be completed include land surveying, geotechnical evaluation and investigation, hydraulic analysis, assessment of existing environmental conditions, opportunities, and constraints, and project cost estimating. The scope also includes early coordination with state and federal resource agencies that will ultimately need to issue permits for the proposed levee improvements. During the feasibility study, City staff will continue to coordinate with staff at the District, City of Mountain View, and other local agencies with respect to the identified levee improvement alternatives. There will also be opportunities for public input and comment at multiple points during the feasibility study process. Once the feasibility study has been completed, staff will assess options for amending the contract with the JPA to include preparation of the environmental clearance document, completion of project design, and preparation of construction bid documents. The feasibility study will generate practical,useful information regarding options for future Bayfront levee improvements that will enable staff and Council to assess whether or not to proceed further with project implementation and does not obligate the City to any future actions or expenditures. The cost for preparation of an environmental impact report and construction bid documents for Bayfront levee improvements in Palo Alto is estimated to be approximately $1 million, which is not included in the City’s current 5-year Capital Improvement Program. Timeline The Baylands Levee improvements Feasibility Study is currently scheduled to be completed by December 2015. Resource Impact Funding for the Baylands Levee Improvements Feasibility Study is available from FY 2015 General Fund Capital Improvement Program Project PE-15028. Policy Implications The recommendation does not represent any changes to existing City policies. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15306 of the CEQA Guidelines City of Palo Alto Page 5 and no further environmental review is necessary. An assessment of environmental impacts will be made during the design stage of any projects that may be recommended in the Baylands Levee Improvements Feasibility Study. Attachments: ·A -Contract with San Francisquito Creek JPA(PDF) Agreement between the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority and the City of Palo Alto To Fund a Feasibility Study for the SAFER Bay Project between San Francisquito Creek and the City of Mountain View Border This Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of _________, 2014, by and between the SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, a California joint powers authority ("Authority"), and the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), collectively referred to as Parties, or individually as Party. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide funding for a feasibility study of new or improved facilities within the City that are part of, and tie into, the Authority's Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along the Bay ("SAFER Bay Project"). R E C I T A L S A. San Francisquito Creek (“Creek”) has a history of flooding the communities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Palo Alto. The latest flooding occurred in East Palo Alto in December of 2012, with the most damaging flood occurring in 1998. Following the flood of 1998, the cities of East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Palo Alto along with the San Mateo County Flood Control District and the Santa Clara Valley Water District formed the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority on May 18, 1999. The Authority and its partners are engaged in a series of projects to reduce the likelihood that floodwaters will exit the Creek. B. Almost 40% of properties in the Creek's 100-year (1%) floodplain also lie within the 100-year tidal floodplain of San Francisco Bay ("Bay"). The levees separating East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto from the Bay do not meet Federal government standards for design and stability, and thus are not certified to protect properties from extreme tides or relieve property owners from the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program ("NFIP") administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"). Consequently, a significant residual risk exists where the Creek and tidal floodplains overlap. C. To reduce this risk to people and property, and to reduce the annual cost of NFIP flood insurance premiums, the Authority recently secured local, state, and federal funds to conduct evaluation, geotechnical investigations, feasibility analysis, design, and environmental documentation of new flood protection facilities along the Bay in southern San Mateo County (the "Project"). The Project's primary objective is to remove properties from the 100- year tidal floodplain, including projected sea level rise over a 50-year period, in a manner that conforms to the requirements of NFIP. The Authority's primary partners in the Project to-date are the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. D. The Authority also intends for the Project to expand opportunities for recreation and community connectivity provided by regional and local trails, and to enable the enhancement of historic marshlands, including those that are part of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. E. A significant number of properties within the eastern portion of the City lie within the Bay's tidal 100-year floodplain and are subject to flooding during extreme tide events, which are projected to increase with continued Sea Level Rise. F. The City desires that a feasibility study of an improved network of levees between the Creek and the City’s border with the City of Mountain View (the "Palo Alto Levees") be performed as part of the SAFER Bay Project. The Parties intend, among other things, for the improved Palo Alto Levees to remove the flood-prone properties within the City from the 100-year tidal floodplain, including projected sea level rise over a 50-year period in a manner that complies with NFIP. G. The Authority desires that the City contribute funds towards the Project as set forth in the following Provisions. \\SFC   2 P R O V I S I O N S 1. Project Activities and Objectives The Authority agrees to include a feasibility study of the Palo Alto Levees as part of the Project. The initial (feasibility) phase of the Project includes an alternatives analysis, topographic site survey, geotechnical investigations, hydraulic and drainage analysis, and feasibility report. The objectives of the Project include: 1) protecting properties and infrastructure in the tidal floodplain within East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and the City between San Francisquito Creek and the City of Mountain View border resulting from a 100-year tide, including projected sea level rise; 2) enhancing habitat along the Project reach, particularly habitat for threatened and endangered species; 3) enhancing recreational uses; and 4) minimizing operational and maintenance requirements. The scope of work and specific tasks to be performed by the Authority’s consultant for the Palo Alto Levees element of the Project are described in Exhibit A, which is hereby incorporated into this Agreement. The Authority agrees to complete the Project. 2. Obligations of the Parties Funding Amount: The City will contribute a total of $500,000 to help fund the Project. This funding amount includes $20,000 to pay for costs incurred by the Authority for administration and project management of the work associated with the Palo Alto Levees element of the Project. The City has no obligation to contribute any additional funds to the Project. Project Administration: The Authority will administer funding from the City and other sources to complete the Project. City staff will be part of the SAFER Bay Project Team, and regularly review and provide input on Project progress and written products. Representations by Authority: Authority represents and warrants that it has secured sufficient funding to perform the Project activities described in Provision 1 of this Agreement. However, Authority may suspend the work described in Provision 1 if the costs for such work exceed $500,000 (including Authority administration and management costs), unless the City provides additional funds to pay for the extra costs. 3. Method of and Timing of Transaction Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement, City will pay the Authority the amount of $58,500 to cover Task 2 (Identify Potential Flood Control Feature Alignments) as described in the attached scope of work and related project management costs incurred by the Authority. Within 30 (30) days following notification that the Authority’s consultant has completed Task 2 as described in the attached scope of work, City will pay the Authority the amount of $284,000 to cover Task 3 (Preliminary Engineering Evaluations) as described in the attached scope of work and related project management costs incurred by the Authority. Within 30 (30) days following notification that the Authority’s consultant has completed Task 3 as described in the attached scope of work, City will pay the Authority the amount of $157,500 to cover Task 4 (Feasibility Study) as described in the attached scope of work and related project management costs incurred by the Authority. In the event this Agreement is terminated before the Project is completed pursuant to Section 6, the Authority will refund to the City any unspent monies paid by the City to the Authority. 4. Meetings The Authority will meet with City representatives on at least a monthly basis to discuss the status of the Project and any related activities or inquiries. 5. Retention of Records, Right to Monitor and Audit Unless a longer period of time is required by law or any agreement funding the Project, the Authority will maintain all records related to the transaction that is the subject of this Agreement and/or the Project for five (5) years after this Agreement is terminated. The records shall remain available, for the duration of the retention period, for examination by the City. \\SFC   3 6. Agreement Term A. This Agreement shall automatically terminate one hundred and eighty (180) days after the completion of the Project. This Agreement does not provide for design, construction, ongoing maintenance or operational needs of the Project. B. If any Party fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the other Party may terminate this Agreement but only after giving written notice of the failure of performance to the Party committing the failure. Such notice shall explain the alleged failure of performance and provide a reasonable opportunity for the failure to be cured which in no case will be less than thirty (30) days. If the failure of performance is not satisfactorily cured within the cure period, the Agreement may be terminated by the non-defaulting party upon the delivery of a written notice of termination to the defaulting Party. C. The City Manager of the City and the Executive Director of the Authority are empowered to terminate this Agreement on behalf of their respective companies/agencies in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 7. Notices Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall not be effective unless it is given in writing and shall be delivered (a) in person, (b) by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or (c) by a commercial overnight courier that guarantees next day delivery and provides a receipt, and addressed to the Parties at the addresses stated below, or at such other address as either Party may hereafter notify the other Party in writing: Authority: San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 615-B Menlo Avenue Menlo Park, California 94025 Attention: Executive Director City: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attention: Director of Public Works Service of any such notice or other communications so made shall be deemed effective on the day of actual delivery (whether accepted or refused) as evidenced by: a) confirmed in-person delivery by the addressee or other representative of the Party authorized to accept delivery on behalf of the addressee, b) as shown by the addressee's return receipt if by certified mail, or c) as confirmed by the courier service if by courier; provided, however, that if such actual delivery occurs after 5:00 p.m. (local time where received) or on a non-business day, then such notice or demand so made .shall be deemed effective on the first business day immediately following the day of actual delivery. No communications via electronic mail shall be effective to give any notice, request, direction, demand, consent, waiver, approval or other communications hereunder. 8. Severability In the event any portion of this Agreement is declared by any court of competent jurisdiction-to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such portion shall be severed from this Agreement and the remaining parts hereof shall remain in full force and effect as fully as though such invalid, illegal or unenforceable portion had never been part of this Agreement. 9. Governing Law and Compliance with Laws The Parties agree that California law governs this Agreement. In the performance of this Agreement each Party will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and applicable local government. \\SFC   4 10. Venue In the event that suit shall be brought by any Party to this contract, the Parties agree that venue shall be exclusively vested in the state courts of either the County of Santa Clara or where otherwise appropriate, exclusively in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. 11. Assignability and Subcontracting Neither Party shall assign this Agreement or any portion thereof to a third party or subcontract with a third party to provide services required under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other Party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Authority may contract with an accounting firm, financial institution, or escrow company in order to fulfill its financial obligations under Section 2 and 3. 12. Ownership of Materials All reports, documents, or other materials prepared by/for or received by the Authority or any other person engaged directly or indirectly by the Authority in connection with the Project (the "Deliverables") shall be and remain the property of the Authority. The Authority will deliver copies to the City of any and all of the Deliverables related to the Palo Alto Levees upon the City’s request; provided, however, that the Authority will not be obligated to provide the City with any Deliverables that (a) the Authority's counsel creates for the Authority and (b) are subject to the attorney-client privilege. The City will have the right to use, incorporate, modify, supplement, and reproduce any and all Deliverables related to the Palo Alto Levees or that the Authority otherwise delivers to the City; provided, however, that the Authority shall not be responsible or liable for the manner in which the City may use or modify the Deliverables it receives from the Authority. 13. Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Authority and the City with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior offers and negotiations, oral and written. This Agreement may not be amended or modified in any respect whatsoever except by an instrument in writing signed by authorized representatives of the Authority and the City. 14. Further Actions The Authority and the City agree to execute all instruments and documents, and to take all actions, as may be reasonably required to consummate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. 15. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which, taken together, shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument. 16. Non Waiver A Party's waiver of any term, condition, or covenant, or breach of any term, condition or covenant will not be construed as a waiver of any other term, condition or covenant. 17. Third Parties This Agreement is entered into only for the benefit of the Parties executing this Agreement and not for the benefit of any other individual, entity, or person. \\SFC   5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the City have executed this Funding Agreement as of the date and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: SAN FRANCISQU ITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, a California joint powers authority ________________ Greg Stepanicich General Counsel By:____________________________ Len Materman Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF PALO ALTO __________________ By: ___________________________ Grant Kolling James Keene Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager   SAFER  Bay  Task  Order  #2  Page  1  August  25,  2014   EXHIBIT  A   SAFER  Bay  -­‐  Task  Order  2   San  Francisquito  Creek  to  Palo  Alto/Mountain  View  Border   Task  1:  Project  Management   HDR  will  manage  the  project  and  its  team  members  to  ensure  adherence  to  the  scope,  budget,  and   schedule,  as  well  as  conformance  with  appropriate  engineering  standards  and  practices.    HDR  will  hold   regular  coordination  and  progress  meetings  with  our  Team  members  and  SFCJPA  and  City  of  Palo  Alto   (City)  staff  to  ensure  all  are  apprised  of  project  status,  upcoming  deliverables  and  activities.    We  will   maintain  communication  by  phone,  email,  and  in-­‐person  meetings.    This  task  includes  the  development   of  a  document  control  system,  project  guide,  and  quality  control  plan.    Through  our  project   management  process,  the  HDR  Team  will  provide  SFCJPA  and  City  with  written  monthly  status  updates,   notification  of  any  changes  in  scope  or  budget,  and  necessary  corrective  actions.    Written  quarterly   status  reports  will  be  prepared  in  a  manner  consistent  with  California  Department  of  Water  Resources   (DWR)  grant  reimbursement  requirements.   Deliverables:  Monthly  and  Quarterly  status  reports,  Quality  Control  Plan,  Project  Guide,  Meeting  notes   and  agendas     Assumptions:  Monthly  status  meetings  with  SFCJPA  and  City  staff  will  be  held  at  SFCJPA  offices.  Regular   team  meetings  will  be  via  conference  call.   Task  2:  Identify  Potential  Flood  Control  Feature  Alignments   The  HDR  Team  will  work  collaboratively  with  SFCJPA,  its  member  agencies  including  the  City,  and   stakeholders  to  identify,  evaluate,  and  screen  viable  alternative  flood  control  feature  alignments  in  the   project  area  south  of  San  Francisquito  Creek,  extending  to  a  point  along  the  Palo  Alto/Mountain  View   border  that  will  provide  effective  tidal  flood  protection  for  the  City.    The  evaluation  of  alignment   alternatives  will  include  consideration  of  the  potential  impact  of  site  and  project  features  such  as   geologic  and  subsurface  conditions,  constructability  including  levee  subgrade  preparation  requirements,   condition  of  existing  levees  that  are  to  be  built  upon,  locations  of  existing  utilities  and  other  structures,   real  estate  and  encroachments  constraints,  opportunities  for  restoration,  mitigation,  recreation,  and   construction  cost.    Determination  of  termination  points  for  the  proposed  flood  control  features  shall   consider  alternate  scenarios  under  which  1)  the  City  of  Mountain  View  constructs  complementary   features,  and  2)  the  City  of  Mountain  View  does  not  pursue  complementary  features.    The  preliminary   evaluation  will  be  based  on  SFCJPA  objectives,  and  will  be  compliant  with  United  States  Army  Corps  of   Engineers  (USACE),  Federal  Emergency  Management  Agency  (FEMA),  and  DWR  requirements.    The   evaluation  will  result  in  a  preliminary  array  of  alignments  to  be  carried  forward  to  the  Feasibility  Study   phase  of  the  project.    A  Preliminary  Alternatives  Report  will  be  provided  that  summarizes  identification   and  evaluation  of  a  viable  set  of  preliminary  alternatives  to  carry  forward  into  the  Feasibility  Study   phase.      This  report  will  include  an  initial  assessment  of  utilities,  lands,  encroachments  and  other   potential  conflicts  and  challenges  to  the  project.    In  addition  to  the  Preliminary  Alternatives  Report,  a   Data  Needs  Memorandum,  based  on  identification  of  the  preliminary  alignments,  will  be  provided  to   support  Task  3.       Deliverables:  Preliminary  Alternatives  Report,  Data  Needs  Memorandum   SAFER  Bay  Task  Order  #2  Page  2  August  25,  2014   Assumptions:     • Up  to  4  different  alignments  will  be  considered  for  each  project  reach,  for  up  to  12  total   alignments.    The  Preliminary  Alternatives  Report  will  identify  up  to  4  overall  viable  alternative   alignments.   • The  HDR  Team  shall  attend  one  half-­‐day  meeting  (or  equivalent  effort)  with  the  SFCJPA,  City,   and  stakeholders  for  discussion  of  potential  alignments  and  restoration  features.       Task  3:  Preliminary  Engineering  Evaluations   Subtask  3.1:    Surveying   The  HDR  Team  will  review  existing  LiDAR  and  topographic  survey  information  in  the  project  area  for   quality  and  coverage,  and  will  attempt  to  develop  conversions  for  each  data  set  so  that  all  data  are   reasonably  co-­‐registered  within  the  project’s  horizontal  and  vertical  reference  systems,  sufficient  for   planning  level  use.    Record  assessor’s  parcel  map  Geographic  Information  System  (GIS)  data  and  City  GIS   data  will  be  procured  and  imported  into  AutoCAD  to  serve  as  a  backdrop  for  the  project  Landnet.     Research  will  be  performed  to  gather  public  record  maps  for  existing  levees,  roads,  highways,  state   lands,  and  major  residential  subdivisions.    This  information  will  be  analyzed  to  develop  a  preliminary   location,  and  added  to  the  Landnet.    We  will  also  perform  research  with  the  City  and  local  utility   agencies  to  obtain  record  map  information  for  utilities,  and  their  approximate  location  shown  within  the   Landnet.   Minimal  field  surveys  will  be  performed,  as  needed,  in  order  to  perform  QC  checks  of  existing  data,   establish  survey  boundary  monumentation,  and  identify  specific  utilities  and  structures  of  specific   interest.    This  information  will  be  combined  with  other  collected  data  into  an  AutoCAD  drawing.   Deliverables:  Survey  Report,  Planning  Level  Topographic  Mapping  in  CAD  format,  Utility  and   Encroachment  Survey  Report   Assumptions:     • 5  days  of  field  surveys  are  budgeted  to  perform  the  above  and  work  will  be  coordinated  with   City  and  SFCJPA.    Note  that  access  may  be  required  to  some  private  lands,  and  assistance  will  be   needed  to  obtain  access  permission.       • Further  research  and  field  surveys  will  be  required  to  determine  boundary  and  utility  locations   for  design  work  to  be  performed  in  later  stages  of  the  project.     • Planning  level  topography  will  rely  on  existing  survey  and  data  coverages.    No  new  aerial  or  field   mapping  will  be  provided.   Subtask  3.2:    Geotechnical  Evaluation  and  Investigations   During  this  phase  of  work,  the  HDR  Team  will  conduct  a  geotechnical  investigation  to  a  level  sufficient  to   develop  preliminary  geotechnical  recommendations  to  support  the  Feasibility  Study.    After  the   Feasibility  Study  is  completed  and  a  preferred  flood  control  feature  alignment  is  selected,  the  HDR  Team   would  need  to  undertake  a  supplemental  geotechnical  study  in  order  to  attain  adequate  detail  to   support  the  Design  phase  of  the  work.    This    next  phase  of  geotechnical    work  would  include  additional   field  explorations,  laboratory  testing,  and  analysis,  and  the  preparation  of  a  Final  Geotechnical  Report.     The  focus  of  the  subsequent  investigation  would  be  to  gather  information  and  perform  additional   analyses  for  areas  where  there  are  data  gaps.         SAFER  Bay  Task  Order  #2  Page  3  August  25,  2014   Review  of  Information  and  Site  Reconnaissance  -­‐  HDR  will  review  available  published  information  and   information  provided  to  us  by  City  and  SFCJPA  on  geologic  and  geotechnical  information  in  the  site  area,   including  geotechnical  reports  and  logs  of  subsurface  explorations.    We  will  perform  a  site   reconnaissance,  and  note  physical  site  features  that  could  impact  the  project  from  a  geotechnical   perspective.       Field  Investigation  –  The  HDR  Team  will  undertake  a  subsurface  exploration  program  along  the   identified  potential  project  alignments.    Prior  to  conducting  the  field  work,  we  will  prepare  a  Field  Work   Plan  and  Health  and  Safety  Plan,  obtain  the  applicable  encroachment  and  drilling  permits,  check  site   access,  and  check  for  the  presence  of  underground  utilities  by  contacting  Underground  Service  Alert   (USA).    HDR  will  retain  and  coordinate  with  appropriate  exploration  subcontractors  to  select  suitable   exploration  equipment  to  access  the  desired  exploration  locations,  to  the  extent  that  is  reasonable  and   practical.       Our  scope  and  fee  do  not  include  extraordinary  measures  such  as  mobilizing  barges  or  rafts,  or   preparing  temporary  pads  to  explore  hard-­‐to-­‐access  and  potentially  sensitive  areas  such  as  marshes  or   ponds.    Drill  cuttings  and  fluids  will  be  generated  from  the  borings.    The  drilling  subcontractor  will   contain  drill  cuttings  and  fluids  in  drums,  and  transport  them  to  a  nearby  temporary  storage  area   provided  by  City.    Following  chemical  testing  of  samples  of  the  drummed  materials,  the  drilling   subcontracgtor  would  arrange  to  have  the  materials  transported  to  a  suitable  disposal  facility.    The   scope  and  fee  assume  that  the  subsurface  materials  encountered  are  free  of  contaminants.    If  that  is  not   the  case,  additional  scope  and  fee  would  be  needed  for  soil  handling  and  disposal.     Laboratory  Testing  -­‐  A  laboratory  testing  subcontractor  will  be  retained  to  perform  geotechnical   laboratory  tests  on  selected  samples  obtained  from  the  borings.    Testing  will  include  moisture  content,   density,  Atterberg  limits,  gradation,  consolidation,  and  shear  strength,  as  appropriate.       Geotechnical  Engineering  Analyses  and  Evaluations  -­‐  Engineering  analyses  to  develop  geotechnical   conclusions  and  recommendations  for  the  proposed  project  will  be  performed.    The  HDR  Team  will   perform  stability  and  seepage  analyses  for  up  to  seven  cross-­‐sections.    For  each  cross-­‐section  location,   stability,  and  seepage  analyses  will  be  performed  for  one  levee  geometry  and  one  design  water  surface   elevation  for  the  following  conditions,  which  we  judge  are  potentially  the  most  critical  loading   conditions  that  may  occur  during  the  design  life  of  the  levees:  1)  Stability  at  the  end  of  levee   construction,  2)  Stability  under  rapid  flood  loading  conditions,  3)  Stability  under  rapid  drawdown  loading   conditions  (when  floodwaters  recede),  4)  Seepage  (both  levee  through  seepage  and  underseepage),  and   5)  Stability  under  seismic  loading,  including  estimated  magnitudes  of  liquefaction-­‐induced  levee   settlement  and  lateral  deformation.    The  HDR  Team  will  also  perform  analyses  to  estimate  magnitudes   of  levee  settlement  over  time.  Our  scope  and  fee  do  not  include  the  development  and  implementation   of  liquefaction  mitigation  measures,  such  as  soil  improvement.    Should  such  conditions  be  encountered,   the  SFCJPA  and  City  would  need  to  weigh  the  cost  and  benefit  of  liquefaction  mitigation  measures   versus  the  risks.    This  issue  would  need  to  be  addressed  as  a  separate  topic,  if  it  arises,  and  we  have  not   included  a  scope  for  it  herein.   Deliverables:  Feasibility  Level  Geotechnical  Report   Assumptions:   • Level  of  effort  assumes  useful  existing  geotechnical  data  are  available  and  will  be  provided  by   City  and  SFCJPA.       SAFER  Bay  Task  Order  #2  Page  4  August  25,  2014   • The  HDR  Team  will  conduct  a  field  exploration  program  based  on  performing  up  to  14  borings  or   CPTs  to  a  depth  of  40  to  50  feet.       • It  is  assumed  that  the  new  and  existing  data  together  would  provide  on  average,  an  exploration   every  2,000  feet  along  potential  levee  crest  alignments,  plus  some  explorations  beyond  the   levee  alignment.       • Also  assumes  geotechnical  analysis  for  up  to  7  cross-­‐sections,  for  Feasibility  Level  Geotechnical   Report.   Subtask  3.3:    Coastal  Hydraulics   The  HDR  Team  will  prepare  a  Design  Conditions  Memorandum  to  support  the  feasibility  level  analyses  of   the  alternative  flood  control  feature  alignments  developed  under  Task  2.    Design  conditions  will  be   based  on  prior  studies  including  USACE  Shoreline  and  FEMA  Regional  Bay  Modeling.    The  evaluation  will   document  the  expected  variations  in  the  design  elevation  over  the  projected  50-­‐year  project  lifespan,   with  a  sensitivity  test  for  anticipated  geomorphic  changes  to  the  shoreline.    Specific  activities  under  Task   3.3  will  include:   • Prepare  a  proposed  coastal  hydraulics  analysis  methodology  document  for  review  and  approval   by  City,  SFCJPA,  FEMA,  and  USACE.   • Identify  climate  change  Relative  Sea  Level  Rise  (SLR)  scenarios  for  study  using  latest  guidance   from  the  National  Academy  of  Science,  USACE,  National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric   Administration,  and  United  States  Geological  Survey.    The  scenarios  will  consider  vertical  land   motions  based  on  benchmark  re-­‐leveling  and  more  recent  IPSAR.   • Establish  water  levels,  winds  and  waves  for  the  study  area  starting  with  the  FEMA  Regional  Bay   model  and  recent  USACE  evaluations.  Develop  50-­‐year  time  series  of  water  levels,  winds  and   waves  at  several  selected  offshore  locations  incident  to  flood  protection  levee  reaches.     • Compare  water  levels  time  series  and  Extreme  Value  Analysis  (EVA)  extrapolations  based  on   transfer  of  Presidio  water  levels  versus  FEMA  Regional  Bay  model  (by  Danish  Hydraulics   Institute).  Convert  near  shore  waves  to  offshore  values  without  bottom  friction  for  comparison.   Compare  wave  time  series  for  offshore  locations  and  EVA  extrapolations  for  extreme  values.   Numerical  wave  models  or  parametric  equations  will  be  utilized.   • For  each  levee  reach  within  the  project  area,  the  HDR  Team  will  run  simple  wave  run-­‐up  time   series  with  wind  setup  and  friction  for  one  location  in  each  reach.    We  will  identify  approximate   “no-­‐overtopping  crest  elevation”  for  range  of  SLRs.  Apply  two  to  four  selected  “events”  (still   water  level,  wind  setup,  wind  waves)  with  WHAFIS  profile  model  to  ascertain  design  crest   elevations  (total  water  level  +  freeboard  with  SLR  allowance)  for  each  reach,  for  suite  of  sub-­‐ reach  variations  /  options  /  scenarios.   • Assess  erosion  potential  and  identify  recommended  approach  to  reduce  erosion..   Deliverables:  Coastal  Hydraulics  Design  Conditions  Memorandum  which  documents  the  analyses  and   findings.   Assumptions:  Technical  studies  from  partnering  agencies  (FEMA,  USGS,  USACE)  will  be  available  for   review.   SAFER  Bay  Task  Order  #2  Page  5  August  25,  2014   Subtask  3.4:    Interior  Drainage   The  HDR  Team  will  review  the  interior  landside  drainage  system  to  assess  how  the  potential  levee   alignments  will  impact  current  drainage  patterns  and  whether  the  existing  drainage  system  is  likely  to   have  sufficient  capacity  to  provide  flood  protection  at  levels  that  will  meet  FEMA  certification,  once  the   new  flood  control  levees  are  in  place.    We  will  review  available  record  drawings  and  perform  site  visits   to  observe  and  confirm  specific  drainage-­‐related  features.    We  may  conclude  from  our  evaluation  there   is  insufficient  information  to  readily  characterize  the  existing  layout,  capacity,  and  function  of  the   interior  drainage  system,  and  alternatively  identify  appropriate  design  stormwater  flow  rates  that  would   need  to  be  achieved  to  provide  adequate  interior  drainage.       Deliverables:  Interior  Drainage  Design  Conditions  Memorandum  describing  existing  drainage  conditions,   gaps  in  drainage  hydrology  assessments,  and  potential  coastal  levee  impacts  to  those  conditions.   Assumptions:     • Sufficient  information  will  be  available  to  readily  characterize  the  existing  layout,  capacity  and   function  of  the  interior  drainage  system  and  identify  appropriate  design  stormwater  flow  rates.   • It  is  assumed  that  hydraulic  modeling  of  the  drainage  system  is  not  required.     • City,  SFCJPA,  and  member  agencies  will  provide  relevant  record  drawings  of  existing  interior   drainage  system.   Subtask  3.5:    Interior  Drainage  (Optional  Task)   Once  protection  is  provided  against  coastal  and  fluvial  flood  sources,  the  appropriate  flood  map  for   FEMA  will  be  determined  the  local  drainage.  At  this  time,  it  is  not  known  if  the  existing  drainage  can   meet  FEMA  certification  standards.  If  the  existing  conditions  assessment  of  interior  drainage  capacity   suggests  that  drainage  issues  may  preclude  certification,  than  the  City  and  SFCJPA  may  consider  some  or   all  of  the  following  optional  tasks:   • Develop  new  or  revise  existing  hydrology  and  hydraulic  models  of  the  interior  drainage   system(s)  to  estimate  design  drainage  flow  rates     • Develop  new  or  revise  existing  hydrology  and  hydraulic  models  to  quantify  interior  drainage   capacity  relative  to  FEMA  certification  standards  and,  if  necessary,  to  design  drainage  system   improvements     • Consider  potential  drainage  system  vulnerability  to  projected  future  climate  change  conditions   for  SLR,  watershed  hydrology,  and/or  groundwater  levels     • Conduct  interior  flood  mapping  of  existing  or  proposed  conditions         Task  4:  Feasibility  Study   Subtask  4.1:    Project  Alignments     Based  on  evaluations  conducted  in  Task  3,  the  HDR  Team  will  conduct  a  feasibility  assessment  of  the   potential  flood  control  feature  alignments  established  during  Task  2.      As  noted  above,  these  assesments   will  take  into  account  the  existing  conditions,  opportunities,  and  constraints  associated  with  the   ecosystem  habitat  of  adjacent  lands,  recreation,  and  connectivity  associated  with  the  Bay  Trail  and  other   facilities,  and  utility  and  transportation  corridors.    Evaluations  of  the  potential  alignments  will  be  based   on  criteria,  constraints,  and  objectives  developed  and  confirmed  with  City,  SFCJPA,  and  its  member   agencies.        To  assess  opportunities  and  constraints  to  adjacent  habitat  areas,  the  HDR  Team  will  also   prepare  a  Biotic  Opportunities  and  Constraints  Report.  The  Biotic  Opportunities  and  Constraints  Report   SAFER  Bay  Task  Order  #2  Page  6  August  25,  2014   will  identify  and  analyze  preliminary  biotic  resource  impacts  associated  with  up  to  four  potential  project   alignments,  and  will  contain  descriptions  of  existing  habitat  conditions  (including  a  reconnaissance-­‐level   habitat  map)  and  other  information  that  will  be  incorporated  into  California  Environmental  Quality  Act   (CEQA)  environmental  assessment  and  permitting  documentation  in  the  subsequent  design  and   Environmental  Impact  Report  (EIR)  tasks.       For  each  of  the  potential  project  alignments,  the  Feasibility  Study  will  include  documentation  of  design   considerations,  flood  control,  restoration  and  recreation  features,  utility  and  real  estate  impacts,   preliminary  assessment  of  environmental  impacts,  and  potential  construction  phasing.    The  Feasibility   Study  will  include  feasibility  level  designs  (plans  and  typical  sections)  for  each  of  the  alternative   alignments  identified  in  Task  2.    The  Feasibility  Study  will  include  economic,  quantitative,  and  qualitative   evaluations  of  each  of  the  (up  to  4)  alternative  alignments  required  to  identify  the  recommended   project/alignment  to  carry  forward  into  design.    The  Feasibility  Study  will  document  the  basis  for   selection  of  the  preferred  alternative  and  identify  preliminary  design  criteria.   Subtask  4.2:    Mitigation  and  Permitting     For  each  of  the  potential  flood  control  feature  alignments  determined  in  Task  2,  the  HDR  Team  will   provide  input  on  possible  environmental  resource  area  opportunities  and  constraints;  identify  possible   permits  required  for  project  implementation;  identify  additional  technical  studies  needed  to  support  the   environmental  and  permitting  documentation;  and  recommend  the  appropriate  level  of  environmental   clearance  documentation,  including  an  assessment  of  potential  federal  involvement  and  associated   National  Environmental  Policy  Act  (NEPA)  requirements.    The  HDR  Team  will  review  available   documentation,  run  database  searches  for  documented  biological  and  cultural  resources,  and  use  the   Initial  Study  (IS)  Environmental  Checklist  as  a  guide  to  qualitatively  review  other  resource  topics.    The   results  will  be  incorporated  into  the  Feasibility  Study  to  inform  the  decision  on  the  preferred  alignment.   During  this  process,  the  HDR  Team  will  collaborate  with  City  and  SFCJPA  to  analyze  trade-­‐offs  between   impacts,  costs,  and  other  design  objectives  and  criteria.    We  will  compare  the  opportunities  and   constraints  associated  with  various  biotic  and  regulatory  compliance  issues  associated  with  each   alignment.     Early  regulatory  agency  coordination  is  an  important  component  of  streamlined  environmental   compliance;  therefore  the  HDR  Team  will  assist  the  City  and  SFCJPA  to  communicate  with  agency  staff   during  the  feasibility  study  phase  of  the  project  to  ensure  that  agency  input  is  integrated  into   alternatives  development  and  mitigation  strategy.    Prior  to  initiating  regulatory  agency  meetings,  HDR   ecologists  will  assist  the  City  and  SFCJPA  in  communications  with  key  managers  at  the  United  States  Fish   and  Wildlife  Service  (USFWS)  Don  Edwards  National  Wildlife  Refuge  to  establish  the  tidal  marsh  habitat   mitigation  concept(s)  that  will  best  compensate  for  project  impacts.  We  will  utilize  the  preliminary   wetland  impact/mitigation  quantities  developed  in  our  Biotic  Constraints  and  Opportunities  Report  to   inform  this  discussion.    We  (with  the  City  and  SFCJPA)  will  then  bring  the  mitigation  concept  developed   from  these  discussions  along  with  on-­‐site  T-­‐zone  habitat  enhancements  on  the  outboard  levee  slope  to   the  regulatory  agencies  for  their  early  review  and  input.    HDR  will  also  convene    meetings  for  the  City   and  SFCJPA  with  staff  from  the  Santa  Clara  Valley  Water  District  (SCVWD),  State  Coastal  Conservancy   (SCC),  and  City  of  Mountain  View  to  discuss  potential  synergy  between  potential  tidal  flood  protection   measures  identified  in  the  Feasibility  Study  and  related  planning  and  design  of  similar  measures  by  these   agencies,  including  coordination  with  the  South  Bay  Salt  Pond  Restoration  Project  and  the  South  San   Francisco  Bay  Shoreline  Study.    HDR  will  assist  City  staff  to  conduct  one  general  public  meeting  to   present  preliminary  findings  from  the  draft  Feasibility  Study  and  solicit  public  comment.     SAFER  Bay  Task  Order  #2  Page  7  August  25,  2014       The  HDR  team’s  ecologists  will  assist  the  City  and  SFCJPA  in  communications  with  the  regulatory  agencies   to  facilitate  assignment  of  agency  staff  to  this  specific  project  prior  to  conducting  project-­‐related   meetings,  such  that  we  communicate  with  the  agency  staff  that  will  ultimately  issue  permits  for  the   project.  We  will  attend  meetings  with  the  City,  SFCJPA,  USFWS,  USACE,  California  Department  of  Fish  and   Wildlife  (CDFW),  Regional  Water  Quality  Control  Board  (RWQCB),  and  the  Bay  Conservation  and   Development  Commission  (BCDC)  on  project  design  and  potential  mitigation  strategies.    Because  agency   feedback  will  be  incorporated  into  the  project’s  design  and  mitigation  package,  attendance  at  multiple   inter-­‐agency  meetings  may  be  necessary.    Such  meetings  will  be  designed  to  best  facilitate  various  parts  of   the  overall  regulatory  process,  for  example  USACE,  USFWS,  and  CDFW  meetings  for  Federal  Endangered   Species  Act/California  Endangered  Species  Act    regulated  species  (e.g.,  California  clapper  rail,  salt  marsh   harvest  mouse,  western  snowy  plover)  or  USACE,  RWQCB,  and  BCDC  meetings  for  tidal  wetlands  impacts   and  mitigation  considerations  under  Sections  404  and  401  of  the  Clean  Water  Act  (CWA).         Subtask  4.3:    Cost  Estimate   The  HDR  Team  will  prepare  an  initial  opinion  of  probable  construction  quantities  and  costs  for  each   alignment  alternative.    This  will  include  a  description  of  cost  assumptions,  and  will  be  broken  out  into   soft  costs  and  construction  costs.    Cost  estimates  will  be  American  Association  of  Cost  Engineering   (AACE)  Class  4.   Deliverables:  Draft  and  Final  Feasibility  Study,  including  preliminary  plans,  cost  estimates,   implementation  schedule.   Assumptions:     • Up  to  four  alternative  flood  control  feature  alignments  will  be  evaluated.       • Geomorphic  change  will  be  based  on  analysis  of  nearby  reference  restoration  sites.   • Attendance  at  one  meeting  with  the  City  and  SFCJPA  to  review  Mitigation  and  Permitting   options.   • One  round  of  revisions  to  the  Draft  Feasibility  Study  based  upon  one  set  of  consolidated   City/SFCJPA  comments.   • HDR  attendance  at  up  to  2  meetings  with  SCVWD/SCC/City  of  Mountain  View  managers  and  up   to  3  regulatory  agency  meetings.   • HDR  attendance  at  one  general  public  meeting  to  present  Draft  Feasibility  Study     City of Palo Alto (ID # 5096) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Purchase of two vacuum/flush trucks for the Utilities Department Title: Approval of a Purchase Order with Owen Equipment in a Not to Exceed Amount of $785,469 for the Purchase of Two Vacuum/Flush Trucks (Scheduled Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Capital Improvement Program VR-13000) From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order with Owen Equipment in the amount of $785,469 for the purchase of two vacuum/flush trucks for the Utilities Department. Background Audit of Vehicle Utilization and Replacement This purchase is being conducted with full consideration for the Audit of Vehicle Utilization and Replacement. The vehicles being replaced through this purchase order have, on average, greatly exceeded the minimum mileage accumulation of 2,500 miles or 50 usage hours annually. The Fleet Review Committee has reviewed this request and has authorized the purchase of these vehicles. The approval was based on:  An examination of each vehicle’s current usage;  An analysis of each vehicle’s operating and replacement costs;  A comparison of the age, mileage, operating cost and performance of each vehicle with others in the class; and  An analysis of alternatives to ownership, such as mileage reimbursement; pooling/sharing; the reassignment of another City of Palo Alto Page 2 underutilized vehicle, or renting; and  An assessment if a more cost effective type/style of vehicle can be utilized. Discussion The Operations Division of Utilities Water, Gas, Wastewater is seeking approval to replace two existing vacuum/flush trucks. These trucks use high pressure water and a vacuum system to clean sanitary sewers and avoid sewer backups. The trucks are used on a 24-hour emergency basis to clear sewer blockages and can also be used as back-up support to Public Works to clear Storm Drains during winter storms. Multiple moving parts within these flushing trucks combined with their constant use results in significant wear. Due to the nature of operation, the wear and tear put on these trucks can equate to three or four times the wear on an average vehicle. These trucks operate over manholes located throughout town and can be in the same location running for hours with no mileage accumulation. There are a total of three flush/vacuum trucks in the City’s fleet, Utilities Department utilizes two and the Public Works Department utilizes one. All three trucks operate daily to clean sanitary sewers and/or storm drain lines. The Fleet Management section of Public Works has seen measurable increases in maintenance costs and the amount of “down time” due to wear and tear for the existing trucks that are now both 10 years old. Approval for the purchase of these new trucks will provide the Utilities Department with improved availability and productivity compared to what they have been experiencing with the existing units. Replacing the older units will also address guidelines from the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) and Air Resources Board (CARB) to replace older, more polluting diesel vehicles with newer cleaner-burning models. Additionally, Palo Alto is monitored by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for sanitary sewer overflows. Palo Alto has reported to the Regional Board that it is committed to help improve Bay Area water quality by attaining a 15% reduction in sanitary sewer overflows. These trucks are the primary tool used to achieve that goal. Bidding and Selection Process The City’s Municipal code, PAMC section 2.30.360 (j) identifies the process that allows the use of Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing agreements. Bids for this purchase were obtained from Owen Equipment through the National Joint City of Palo Alto Page 3 Purchasing Alliance (NJPA), Attachment A, which is an approved cooperative group. (As an alternative to using the NJPA cooperative pricing, staff worked to obtain comparable State (GSA) pricing for these vehicles but found that there are no state contracts available for these types of trucks. Staff has reviewed the bids, and recommends that the bid(s) submitted by Owen Equipment in the amount of $785,469 should permit Owen Equipment to be declared the lowest responsible bidder. Staff has checked references supplied by Owen Equipment for previous contracts and has found no significant complaints. Resource Impact Funds for these vehicles are available in the Vehicle Replacement Fund, Capital Improvement Program project VR-13000, Vehicle Replacement. Policy Implications Authorization of the contract does not represent any change to the existing policy. Purchase of these vehicles supports Comprehensive Plan by removing older, more polluting vehicles from the roadways and replacing them with newer more efficient ones. Environmental Review The vehicles being supplied are in conformance with all applicable emissions laws and regulations. This purchase is not considered a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA guidelines (Section 15378). Attachments:  NJPA Agreement (PDF) Page 1 of 47 National Joint Powers Alliance® (herein NJPA) REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (herein RFP) for the procurement of PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES RFP Opening October 28, 2011 8:00 AM Central TIME At the offices of the National Joint Powers Alliance® 200 First Street Northeast, Staples, MN 56479 RFP #102811 The National Joint Powers Alliance® (NJPA) issues this request for proposal (RFP) to provide PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, Specifications and details of this RFP are available beginning September 6, 2011and continuing until October 4, 2011. Details and specifications may be obtained by letter of request to Gregg Meierhofer, NJPA, 200 First Street Northeast, Staples, MN 56479, or by e-mail at RFP@njpacoop.org. Proposals will be received until October 27, 2011 at 4:30 p.m. Central Time at the above address and opened October 28, 2011at 8:00AM Central Time. The text above is the Public Notice to Proposers to be used by NJPA. RFP Timeline September 6, 2011 and September 13, 2011 October 4, 2011 October 7, 2011 AM Central October 27, 2011 4:30 PM. Central October 28, 20118:00AM Central • Publication of RFP in the print and online Minneapolis Star Tribune, the NJPA website, and on the website of noticetobidders.com  Deadline for RFP requests  Pre-Proposal Conference (webcast – conference call)  Deadline for Submission of Proposals  Public Opening of Proposals Direct questions regarding this RFP to: Gregg Meierhofer at gregg.meierhofer@njpacoop.org or (218)894-1930 RFP Procedures offers the methods for submitting questions. RFP 081411 2 of 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION A. About NJPA B. Joint Exercise of Powers Laws C. Why Propose a National Cooperative Procurement Contract D. The Intent of this RFP E. Scope of this RFP F. Expectations for Products/Services being Proposed G. Certification – Firm offer to contract H. Pre-Proposal Conference 2. DEFINITIONS A. Proposer – Vendor B. Contract C. Time D. Proposer’s Response E. Currency F. FOB 3. INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARING YOUR PROPOSAL A. Pre-Proposal Conference B. Identification of key personnel C. Proposer’s exceptions to terms and conditions D. Formal instructions to Proposers E. Questions and answers about this RFP F. Modification or withdrawal of a submitted Proposal G. Value added attributes, products/services H. Certificate of Insurance I. Order Process and/or Funds Flow J. Administrative Fees 4. PRICING STRATEGIES A. Line-Item Pricing B. Mass Produced Production Vehicles C. All other Vehicles and accessories D. Hot List Pricing E. Ceiling Price F. Volume Price Discounts G. Sourced Goods H. Cost Plus a Percentage of Cost I. Total Cost of Acquisition J. Requesting Product and Service additions/deletions K. Requesting Pricing Changes L. Pricing and Products Changes Format M. Single Statement of Pricing – Historical Record of Pricing N. Payment Terms O. Sales Tax P. Shipping and Shipping Program Q. Normal Working Hours 5. MARKETING PLAN 6. PROPOSAL OPENING PROCEDURE 7. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS A. Proposal evaluation process B. Proposer Responsiveness C. Proposal evaluation criteria D. Cost Scoring Evaluation E. Product Testing F. Past performance information G. Waiver of formalities 8. POST AWARD OPERATING ISSUES A. Subsequent Agreements B. NJPA Member sign-up procedure C. Reporting of sale activity D. Audits E. Hub Partner F. Trade-Ins G. Out of Stock Notification H. Termination of a Contract resulting from this RFP 9. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDIITONS A. Advertisement of RFP B. Advertising a Contract Resulting From this RFP C. Applicable law D. Assignment of Contract E. Proposers List F. Captions, Headings, and Illustrations G. Confidential Information H. Data Privacy I. Entire Agreement J. Force Majeure K. Gratuities L. Hazardous Substances M. Legal Remedies N. Licenses O. Material Suppliers and Sub-Contractors P. Non-Wavier of Rights Q. Protests of Awards Made R. Provisions Required by Law S. Public Record T. Right to Assurance U. Suspension or Disbarment Status V. Human Rights Certificate W. Severability X. Relationship of Parties 10. FORMS A,B,C,D,E,G,H,I 11. PRE-SUBMISSION CHECKLSIT 12. ATTACHMENT 1 (I&M Price Sheet) RFP 081411 3 of 47 INTRODUCTION A. ABOUT NJPA 1.1 The National Joint Powers Alliance®- (NJPA)- is a public agency serving as a national municipal contracting agency established under the Service Cooperative statute by Minnesota Legislative Statute §123A.21 with the authority to develop and offer, among other services, cooperative procurement services to its membership. Eligible membership includes states, cities, counties, governmental agencies, both public and non-public educational agencies, colleges, universities and non-profit organizations. This Minnesota Statute also allows for service to NJPA Member agencies in Minnesota and all other states. 1.2 To this end, NJPA has established a series of procurement contracts with various Vendors of products/services which NJPA Members desire to procure. These procurement contracts are created in compliance with applicable Minnesota Municipal Contracting Laws. A complete listing of NJPA cooperative procurement contracts can be found at www.njpacoop.org. 1.3 NJPA’s publicly elected Board of Directors calls for all proposals, awards all Contracts, and hosts those resulting Contracts and offers them for the benefit of its Membership. 1.3.1 Subject to Approval of the Board: Any award of Contract made by an authorized NJPA Employee will be subject to such action by the NJPA Board of Directors. 1.4 NJPA currently serves over 30,000 member agencies. Both membership and utilization of NJPA Contracts continues to expand at exponential rates. The value of our Contracts driven to our Members is reflected in our growth. B. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS LAWS 1.5 NJPA cooperatively shares those contracts with its Members nationwide through various “Joint Exercise of Powers Laws” established in Minnesota and most other States. The Minnesota “Joint Exercise of Powers Law” is Minnesota Statute §471.59 which states “Two or more governmental units…may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties…” Similar Joint Exercise of Powers Laws for each State of the United States can be found on our website at http://www.njpacoop.org/LEARN/About/Legal.html and clicking on that state at the bottom of the web- page. C. WHY RESPOND TO A NATIONAL COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT CONTRACT 1.6 National Cooperative Procurement Contracts create value for both Municipal buyers and their Vendors of products/services in two ways: 1.6.1 We save the time and effort of many municipal buyers bringing individual procurement proposals AND the time and effort of the Vendors in responding individually to those invitations. A single invitation for a cooperatively held contract can replace potentially thousands of invitations for the same items from individual NJPA Members. 1.6.2 We earn volume purchasing discounts which are passed on to our Members. A single awarded Proposal is likewise exposed to thousands of potential Municipal purchasing units nationwide creating efficiency and savings to the business community as they sell products and services to government and education agencies. 1.7 State laws that permit or encourage cooperative purchasing contracts do so with the belief that lower prices, better overall value and time savings will be the result. RFP 081411 4 of 47 1.8 The collective purchasing power of thousands of NJPA Members nationwide offers the opportunity for volume pricing discounts. Although no volume is guaranteed by a Contract resulting from this RFP, substantial volume is anticipated and volume pricing is requested and justified. 1.9 NJPA and its Members desire the best value for their procurement dollar as well as a competitive price. Pre-competed procurement contracts offer NJPA and its Members the ability to more directly compare non-price factors in their procurement analysis and it offers Vendors the opportunity to display those attributes without the timing and interpretation constraints of a typical individual proposal process. D. THE INTENT OF THIS RFP 1.10 The intent of this RFP is to award an Exclusive Single Award Contract to a qualifying manufacturer or distributor Proposer demonstrating a solution which meets and/or exceeds the requirements of NJPA and its Members within the scope of PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES. Qualifying Proposers must be able to demonstrate the knowledge of any and all applicable industry standards, laws and regulations; and the ability to both market to and service NJPA Members in all 50 states. All proposals received will be evaluated based on (among several other factors) their ability to provide the greatest utility to NJPA and NJPA Members and across the widest spectrum of products and services. 1.11 NJPA desires a relationship with a vendor providing a broad array of equipment, products, supplies, accessories and services anticipated and generally requested and desired by NJPA members from the PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES industry. Those products and services must include those most commonly used and desired by NJPA and its Members. NJPA is seeking a Prime and Exclusive Vendor relationship to best serve the overall needs of NJPA and NJPA Members nationally. 1.12 Non-Manufacturer Awards: NJPA reserves the right to make an award related to this invitation to a non-manufacturer such as a dealer/distributor if such action is in the best interests of NJPA and its Members. 1.13 Multiple Awards: Although it is NJPA’s intent to award a contract to a single Vendor, NJPA reserves the right to award a Contract to multiple Proposers where the responding Proposers are deemed to lack the ability to appropriately service a national contract or such action is deemed to be in the best interests of NJPA and its Members 1.14 Award by Board of Directors: An Award of Contract may be made by the NJPA Board of Directors based on the recommendation of the NJPA Proposal Review Committee and on the best interests of NJPA and its Members. NJPA is seeking a Prime, Exclusive Vendor relationship(s) to meet this need. The goal and intent of this RFP is to follow through with a proposal award and contract to be marketed nationally through a cooperative effort between the awarded vendor(s) and NJPA to its participating members. 1.15 Best Responsive – Responsible Proposer: It is the intent of NJPA to award a Contract to the best responsible and responsive Proposer(s) offering the best overall quality and selection of products/services and services meeting the commonly requested specifications of the NJPA and NJPA Members, provided the Proposer’s Response has been submitted in accordance with the requirements of this RFP. 1.16 Sealed Proposals: NJPA will receive sealed proposal responses to this RFP in accordance with accepted standards set forth in the Minnesota Procurement Code and Uniform Municipal Contracting Law. Awards may be made to responsible and responsive Proposers whose proposals are determined in writing to be the most advantageous to NJPA and its current or qualifying future NJPA Members. 1.17 Use of Contract: Any Contract resulting from this solicitation shall be awarded with the understanding that it is for the sole convenience of NJPA and its Members. NJPA and/or its members RFP 081411 5 of 47 reserve the right to obtain like goods and services solely from this Contract or from another contract source of their choice. 1.18 NJPA’s interest in a contract resulting from this RFP: Not withstanding its own use, to the extent NJPA issues this RFP and any resulting contract for the use of its Members, NJPA’s interests and liability for said use shall be limited to the competitive proposal process performed and terms and conditions relating to said contract and shall not extend to the products, services, or warranties of the Awarded Vendor or the intended or unintended effects of the goods and services procured there from. 1.19 Sole Source of Responsibility- NJPA desires a “Sole Source of Responsibility” Vendor meaning the Vendor will take sole responsibility for the performance of delivered products/services. NJPA also desires sole responsibility with regard to: 1.19.1 Scope of Products/Services: NJPA desires a single provider for the broadest possible scope of the goods and services being proposed over the largest possible geographic area and to the largest possible cross-section of NJPA Members. 1.19.2 Vendor use of sub-contractors in sourcing or delivering goods and services: NJPA desires a single source of responsibility for products/services proposed. Proposer’s are assumed to have sub-contractor relationships with all organizations and individuals whom are external to the Proposer and are involved in providing or delivering the goods and services being proposed. Vendor assumes all responsibility for the products/services and actions of any such Sub- Contractor. E. SCOPE OF THIS RFP 1.20 Additional Definition for the scope of this solicitation. 1.20.1 In addition to PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, this solicitation should be read to include: 1.20.1.1 OEM Production vehicles from the Manufacturer (OEM) 1.20.1.2 Alt Fuel Vehicles and Vehicles utilizing leading edge technologies. 1.20.1.3 Cab and Chassis Trucks 1.20.1.2 Dump Trucks, Service Bodies, Flat Beds. 1.20.1 NJPA reserves the right to limit the scope of this solicitation for market segments already being serviced by existing NJPA procurement contracts. 1.21 Solutions Based Invitation: 1.21.1 All potential Proposers are assumed to be professionals in their respective fields. As professionals you are deemed to be intimately familiar with the spectrum of NJPA and NJPA Member’s needs and requirements with respect to the scope of this RFP. 1.20.2 With this intimate knowledge of NJPA and NJPA Member’s needs, Proposers are instructed to provide their proposal response in a format describing their solutions to those current and future needs and requirements. Proposers should take care to be economical in their response to this RFP. RFP 081411 6 of 47 1.21.3 Multiple solutions to the needs of NJPA and NJPA Member’s are possible. Examples could include: 1.21.3.1 Materials Only Solution: A Materials Only Solution may be appropriate for situations where NJPA or NJPA Members possess the ability, either in-house or through local third party contractors, to properly install and bring to operation those materials being proposed. 1.21.3.2 Turn-Key Solutions: A Turn-Key Solution is combination of materials and services which provides a single price for materials, delivery, and installation to a properly operating status. Generally this is the most desirable solution as NJPA and NJPA Members may not possess, or desire to engage, personnel with the necessary expertise to complete these tasks internally or through other independent contractors 1.20.3.3 Good, Better, Best: Where appropriate and properly identified, Proposers are invited to offer the CHOICE of good – better – best multiple grade solutions to NJPA and NJPA Member’s needs. 1.21.3.4 Proven – Accepted – Leading Edge Technology: Where appropriate and properly identified, Proposers are invited to provide the CHOICE of an appropriately identified spectrum of technology solutions to NJPA and NJPA Member’s needs both now and into the future. 1.22 Geographic Area to be Proposed: This RFP invites proposals to provide PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES to NJPA and NJPA Members throughout the entire United States and possibly internationally. Proposers will be expected to express willingness to explore service to NJPA Members located abroad; however the lack of ability to serve Members outside of the United States will not be cause for non-award. The ability to serve Canada, for instance, will be viewed as a value-added attribute. 1.23 Manufacturer as a Proposer: If the Proposer is a Manufacturer or wholesale distributor, the response received will be evaluated on the basis of a response made in conjunction with that Manufacturer’s Dealer Network. Unless stated otherwise, a Manufacturer or wholesale distributor Proposer is assumed to have a documented relationship with their Dealer Network where that Dealer Network is informed of, and authorized to accept, purchase orders pursuant to any Contract resulting from this RFP on behalf of the Manufacturer or wholesale distributor Proposer. Any such dealer will be considered a sub-contractor of the Proposer/Vendor. The relationship between the Manufacturer and wholesale distributor Proposer and its Dealer Network may be proposed at the time of the proposed submission if that fact is properly identified. 1.24 Dealer/Re-seller as a Proposer: If the Proposer is a dealer or re-seller of the products and/or services being proposed, the response will be evaluated based on the Proposer’s authorization to provide those products and services from their manufacturer. Where appropriate, Proposers must document their authority to offer those products and/or services. 1.25 Contract Term: A contract resulting from this RFP will become effective the date established in the “Offering and Award” (Form D). NJPA is seeking a Contract base term of four years subject to annual renewals as allowed by Minnesota Contracting Law. Full term is expected, however will only occur through successful annual renewals. One additional one-year renewal-extension may be offered by NJPA to Vendor beyond the original four year term if NJPA deems such action to be in the best interests of NJPA and its Members. 1.26 Minimum Contract Value: NJPA anticipates considerable activity resulting from this RFP and subsequent award; however no commitment of any kind is made concerning actual quantities to be acquired. NJPA does not guarantee usage. Usage will depend on the actual needs of the NJPA Members RFP 081411 7 of 47 and the value of the awarded contract. 1.27 Estimated Contract Volume: Estimated quantities and sales volume are based on potential usage by NJPA and NJPA Members. 1.28 Largest Possible Solution: If applicable, Contracts will be awarded to Proposer(s) able to deliver a proposal meeting the entire needs of NJPA and its Members within the scope of this RFP. NJPA prefers Proposers submit their complete product line of products and services described in the scope of this RFP. NJPA reserves the right to reject individual, or groupings of specific products/services proposals as a part of the award. 1.29 Contract Availability: This Contract must be available to all current and potential NJPA Members who choose to utilize this NJPA Contract to include all governmental agencies, public and private primary and secondary education agencies, and all non-profit organizations nationally. 1.30 Proposer’s Commitment Period: In order to allow NJPA the opportunity to evaluate each proposal thoroughly, NJPA requires any response to this solicitation be valid and irrevocable for ninety (90) days after the date proposals were opened regarding this RFP. F. EXPECTATIONS FOR PRODUCTS/SERVICES BEING PROPOSED 1.31 Industry Standards: Except as contained herein, the specifications or solutions for this RFP shall be those accepted guidelines set forth by the PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES industry, as they are generally understood and accepted within that industry across the nation. Submitted products/services, related services, and their warranties and assurances are required to meet and/or exceed all current, traditional and anticipated needs and requirements of NJPA and its Members. 1.31.1 Deviations from industry standards must be identified by the Proposer and explained how, in their opinion, the products/services they propose will render equivalent functionality, coverage, performance, and/or service. Failure to detail all such deviations may comprise sufficient grounds for rejection of the entire proposal. 1.31.2 Technical Descriptions/Specifications. Bidder’s must supply sufficient information to:  Demonstrate the Bidder’s knowledge of industry standards, and  identify the products and services being bid, and  differentiate those products and services from others. Excessive technical descriptions and specifications which, in the opinion of NJPA, unduly enlarges the bid response may reduce evaluation points awarded on Form G. 1.32 Important note: NJPA does not typically offer specific product and service specifications; rather NJPA is requesting an industry standard or accepted specification for the requested products and services. Where specific line items are specified, those line items should be considered the minimum which can be expanded by the Proposer to deliver the Proposer’s “Solution” to NJPA and NJPA Member’s needs. 1.33 Commonly used Goods and Services: It is important that the products/services submitted are the products/services commonly used by public sector entities. 1.34 New Current Model Goods: Proposals submitted shall be for new, current model products and services with the exception of certain close-out products allowed to be offered on the Proposer’s “Hot List” described herein. RFP 081411 8 of 47 1.35 Compliance with laws and standards: All items supplied on this Contract shall comply with any current applicable safety or regulatory standards or codes. 1.36 Delivered and operational; Products offered herein are to be proposed based upon being delivered and operational at the NJPA Member’s site. Exceptions to “delivered and operational” must be explicitly disclosed in the “Total Cost of Acquisition” section of your proposal response. 1.37 Warranty: The Proposer/Vendor warrants that all products, equipment, supplies, and services delivered under this Contract shall be covered by the industry standard or better warranty. All products and equipment should carry a minimum industry standard manufacturer’s warranty that includes materials and labor. The Proposer has the primary responsibility to submit, as a part of Tab 7, product specific warranty as required and accepted by industry standards. Dealer/Distributors agree to assist the purchaser in reaching a solution in a dispute over warranty’s terms with the manufacturer. Any manufacturer’s warranty which is effective past the expiration of the warranty will be passed on to the NJPA member. Failure to submit a minimum warranty may result in the non-award. 1.38 Proposer’s Warrants: The Proposer warrants all goods and services furnished hereunder will be free from liens and encumbrances; and defects in design, materials, and workmanship; and will conform in all respects to the terms of this RFP including any specifications or standards. In addition, Proposer/Vendor warrants the goods and services are suitable for and will perform in accordance with the purposes for which they were intended. G. CERTIFICATION – FIRM OFFER TO CONTRACT 1.39 By execution and delivery of a proposal, Proposer certifies: 1. The submission of the offer did not involve collusion or any other anti- competitive practices; 2. The Proposer/Vendor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment in violation of Federal and State Laws (see Federal Executive Order 11246); 3. The Proposer has not given, offered to give, nor intends to give at any time hereafter any economic opportunity, future employment, gift, loan, gratuity, special discount, trip, favor or service to a public servant in connection with the submitted offer (see Gratuities); and, 4. The Proposer agrees to promote and offer to Members only those products/services and/or services as previously stated, allowed, and deemed a resultant of the contract(s) as NJPA contract items or services. This clause shall include any future product or service additions as allowed through Contract additions. 1.40 A response to this RFP is a firm offer to Contract with the NJPA based upon the goals, intent, terms, and conditions and scope of products/services contained in and referenced to in this invitation. 1.41 All stated terms and conditions, expectations to include the goals, intent and scope of this RFP as described as a part of this RFP, are to be considered binding under the signatures of authorized parties and are part of the Contract. H. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE 1.42 A Pre-Proposal Conference (Webcast – Conference Call) will be held at the date and time identified on the title page for this proposal. 1.43 An invitation with access instructions will be sent via e-mail to all inquirer’s the morning following the deadline for proposal inquiries (the day before the conference). 1.44 The purpose for the conference is to allow for questions from the Potential Bidders AND to allow for input from the Potential Bidders regarding perceived improvements to this RFP. 1. DEFINITIONS RFP 081411 9 of 47 A. PROPOSER - VENDOR 2.1 Exclusive Vendor- A sole Vendor awarded in a product category. NJPA reserves the right to award to an Exclusive Vendor in the event that such an award is in the best interests of NJPA Members. Such a Proposer must exhibit the ability to offer an outstanding overall program and demonstrate the ability and willingness to serve NJPA Members in all 50 states, and comply with all other requirements of this RFP. 2.2 Potential Proposer- A person or entity requesting a copy of this RFP. 2.3 Proposer- A company, person, or entity delivering a timely response to this RFP. 2.4 Vendor- One of a number of Proposers whose proposal has been awarded a contract pursuant to this RFP. 2.5 Request for Proposal- Herein referred to as RFP B. CONTRACT 2.6 “Contract” as used herein shall mean cumulative documentation consisting of this RFP, an entire Proposer’s response, and a fully executed “Acceptance and Award” pursuant to this RFP. C. TIME 2.7 Periods of time, stated as number of days, shall be in calendar days. D. PROPOSER’S RESPONSE 2.8 A Proposer’s Response is the entire collection of documents as they are received by NJPA from a Potential Proposer in response to this RFP. E. CURRENCY 2.9 All transactions are payable in U.S. dollars on U.S. sales. All administrative fees are to be paid in U.S. dollars. F. FOB 2.10 FOB stands for “Freight On Board” and defines the point at which responsibility for loss and damage of goods purchased are transferred from Seller to Buyer. “FOB Destination” defines the transfer of responsibility for loss are transferred from Seller to Buyer at the Buyer’s designated delivery point. 2.11 FOB does not identify whom is responsible for the costs of shipping. The responsibility for the costs of shipping is addressed elsewhere in this document. 2. INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARING YOUR PROPOSAL A. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE 3.1 A non-mandatory pre-proposal conference will be held at the date and time specified in the time line on page one of this RFP. Conference call and web connection information will be sent to all Potential Proposers through the same means employed in their inquiry. The purpose of this conference call is to allow Potential Proposers to ask questions regarding this RFP. Only answers issued in writing by NJPA RFP 081411 10 of 47 to questions asked before or during the Pre-proposal Conference shall be considered binding. B. IDENTIFICATION OF KEY PERSONNEL 3.2 Vendor will designate one senior staff individual who will represent the awarded Vendor to NJPA. This contact person will correspond with members for technical assistance, questions or problems that may arise including instructions regarding different contacts for different geographical areas as needed. 3.3 Individuals should also be identified (if applicable) as the primary contacts for the contents of this proposal, marketing, sales, and any other area deemed essential by the Proposer. C. PROPOSER’S EXCEPTIONS TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS 3.4 Any exceptions, deviations, or contingencies a Proposer may have to the terms and conditions contained herein must be documented on Form C. 3.5 Exceptions, Deviations or contingencies stipulated in Proposer’s Response, while possibly necessary in the view of the Proposer, may result in disqualification of a Proposal Response. D. FORMAL INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS 3.6 It is the responsibility of all Proposers to examine the entire RFP package, to seek clarification of any item or requirement that may not be clear and to check all responses for accuracy before submitting a Proposal. Negligence in preparing a Proposal confers no right of withdrawal after the deadline for submission of proposals. 3.7 All proposals must be sent to “The National Joint Powers Alliance®, 200 1st ST NE Staples, MN 56479.” 3.8 Format for bid response: All proposals must be physically delivered to NJPA® at the above address in the following format: 3.8.1 Hard copy Original signed, completed, and dated forms C,D, E, H, and I from this RFP, 3.8.2 Hard copies of all addenda issued for the RFP with original counter signed by the Proposer, 3.8.3 Certificate of insurance verifying the coverage identified in this RFP, 3.8.4 Two complete copies of your response on A CD (Compact Disc) or flash drive containing completed Forms A,B,C,D,E,H, and I, and your statement of products and pricing together with all appropriate attachments 3.9 All Proposal forms must be legible. All appropriate forms must be executed by an authorized signatory of the Proposer. Blue ink is preferred for signatures. 3.10 Proposal submissions should be submitted using the electronic forms provided. If a Proposer chooses to use alternative documents for their response, the proposer will be responsible for ensuring the content is effectively equal to the NJPA form and the document is in a format readable by NJPA. 3.11 It is the responsibility of the Proposer to be certain the proposal submittal is in the physical possession of NJPA on or prior to the deadline for submission of proposals. 3.11.1 Proposals must be submitted in a sealed envelope or box properly addressed to NJPA and prominently identifying the proposal number, proposal category name, the message “Hold for Proposal Opening”, and the deadline for proposal submission. NJPA cannot be responsible for late receipt of proposals. Proposals received by the correct deadline for proposal submission will be opened and the name of each Proposer and other appropriate information will be publicly read. 3.12 Corrections, erasures, and interlineations on a Proposer’s Response must be initialed by the RFP 081411 11 of 47 authorized signer in original ink on all copies to be considered. 3.13 Addendums to the RFP: The Proposer is responsible for ensuring receipt of all addendums to this RFP. 3.13.1 Proposer’s are responsible for checking directly with NJPA, or checking the NJPA website for addendums to this RFP. 3.13.2 Addendums to this RFP can change terms and conditions of the RFP including the deadline for submission of proposals. F. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THIS RFP 3.14 Upon examination of this RFP document, Proposer shall promptly notify the Manager of Bids and Contracts of any ambiguity, inconsistency, or error they may discover. Interpretations, corrections and changes to this RFP must be made by addendum. Interpretations, corrections, or changes made in any other manner will not be binding and Proposer shall not rely upon such. 3.15 Submit all questions about this RFP, in writing, referencing “PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES to Gregg Meierhofer, NJPA, 200 First Street NE, Staples, MN 56479 or RFP@njpacoop.org. Those not having access to the Internet may call Gregg Meierhofer at (218) 894-1930 to determine if addenda have been issued or to request copies of the RFP. Requests for additional information or interpretation of instructions to Proposers or technical specifications shall also be addressed to Gregg Meierhofer. NJPA urges Potential Proposers to communicate all concerns well in advance of the deadline to avoid misunderstandings. Questions received less than seven (7) days ending at 4:00 p.m. Central Time of the seventh (7th) calendar day prior to proposal due-date cannot be answered. 3.16 If the answer to a question is deemed by NJPA to have a material impact on other potential proposers or the RFP itself, the answer to the question will become an addendum to this RFP. 3.17 If the answer to a question is deemed by NJPA to be a clarification of existing terms and conditions and does not have a material impact on other potential proposers or the RFP itself, no further documentation of that question is required. 3.18 As used in this solicitation, clarification means communication with a Potential Proposer for the sole purpose of eliminating minor irregularities, informalities, or apparent clerical mistakes in the RFP. 3.19 Addenda are written instruments issued by NJPA that modify or interpret the RFP. All addenda issued by NJPA shall become a part of the RFP. Addenda will be delivered to all Potential Proposers using the same method of delivery of the original RFP material. NJPA accepts no liability in connection with the delivery of said materials. Copies of addenda will also be made available on the NJPA website at www.njpacoop.org by clicking on “Current Proposals” and from the NJPA offices. No addenda will be issued later than five (5) days prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals, except an addendum withdrawing the request for proposals or one that includes postponement of the date of receipt of proposals. Each Potential Proposer shall ascertain prior to submitting a Proposal that it has received all addenda issued, and the Proposer shall acknowledge their receipt in its Proposal Response. 3.20 An amendment to a submitted proposal must be in writing and delivered to NJPA no later than the time specified for opening of all proposals. G. MODIFICATION OR WITHDRAWAL OF A SUBMITTED PROPOSAL 3.21 A submitted proposal may not be modified, withdrawn from or cancelled by the Proposer for a period of ninety (90) days following the date proposals were opened regarding this RFP. Prior to the deadline for submission of proposals, any proposal submitted may be modified or withdrawn by notice to the NJPA Manager of Bids and Contracts. Such notice shall be submitted in writing and include the RFP 081411 12 of 47 signature of the Proposer and shall be delivered to NJPA prior to the deadline for submission of proposals and it shall be so worded as not to reveal the content of the original proposal. However, the original proposal shall not be physically returned to the Potential Proposer until after the official proposal opening. Withdrawn proposals may be resubmitted up to the time designated for the receipt of the proposals if they are then fully in conformance with the Instructions to Proposer. H. VALUE ADDED ATTRIBUTES, PRODUCTS/SERVICES 3.22 Examples of Value Added Attributes: Value-Added attributes, products and services are items offered in addition to the products and services being proposed which adds value to those items being proposed. The availability of a contract for maintenance or service after the initial sale, installation, and set-up may, for instance, be “Value Added Services” for products where a typical buyer may not have the ability to perform these functions. 3.23 Where to document Value Added Attributes: The opportunity to indicate value added dimensions and such advancements will be available in the Proposer’s Questionnaire and Proposer’s product and service submittal and must be tabbed under Tab 5. 3.24 Value added products/services and expanded services, as they relate to this RFP, will be given positive consideration in the award selection. Consideration will be given to an expanded selection of PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, and advances to provide products/services, supplies meeting and/or exceeding today’s industry standards and expectations. A value add would include a program or service that further serves the members needs above and possibly beyond standard expectation and complements the products/services and training. Value added could include areas of product and service, sales, ordering, delivery, performance, maintenance, technology, and service that furthers the functionality and effectiveness of the procurement process while remaining within the scope of this RFP. 3.25 Minority, Small Business, and Women Business Enterprise (WMBE) participation: It is the policy of some NJPA Members to involve Minority, Small Business, and WMBE contractors in the purchase of goods and services. Vendors should document WMBE status for their organization AND any such status of their affiliates (i.e. Supplier networks) involved in carrying out the activities invited. The ability of a Proposer to provide “Credits” to NJPA and NJPA Members in these subject areas, either individually or through related entities involved in the transaction, will be evaluated positively by NJPA. NJPA is committed to facilitating the realization of such “Credits” through certain structuring techniques for transactions resulting from this RFP. 3.26 Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Opportunities: There is a growing trend among NJPA Members to consider the environmental impact of the products/services they purchase. Please identify any “Green” characteristics of the goods and services in your proposal and identify the sanctioning body determining that characteristic. Where appropriate, please indicate which products have been certified as “green” and by which certifying agency. 3.27 On-Line Requisitioning systems: When applicable, on-line requisitioning systems will be viewed as a value-added characteristic. Proposer shall include documentation about user interfaces that make on- line ordering easy for NJPA Members as well as the ability to punch-out from mainstream eProcurement or Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems that NJPA Members may currently utilize. 3.28 Financing: The ability of the Proposer to provide financing options for the products and services being proposed will be viewed as a Value Added Attribute. I. CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE 3.29 Proposer shall procure and maintain insurance which shall protect the Proposer and NJPA (as an additional insured) from any claims for bodily injury, property damage, or personal injury covered by the indemnification obligations set forth herein. The Proposer shall procure and maintain the insurance RFP 081411 13 of 47 policies described below at the Proposer’s own expense and shall furnish to NJPA an insurance certificate listing the NJPA as certificate holder and as an additional insured. The insurance certificate must document that the Commercial General Liability insurance coverage purchased by the Proposer includes contractual liability coverage applicable to this Contract. In addition, the insurance certificate must provide the following information: the name and address of the insured; name, address, telephone number and signature of the authorized agent; name of the insurance company (authorized to operate in all fifty United States); a description of coverage in detailed standard terminology (including policy period, policy number, limits of liability, exclusions and endorsements); and an acknowledgment of notice of cancellation to the NJPA. 3.30 Proposer is required to maintain the following insurance coverage’s during the term of the NJPA Contract: (1) Workers Compensation Insurance (Occurrence) with the following minimum coverage’s: Bodily injury by accident--per employee $100,000; Bodily injury by disease--per employee $100,000; Policy limits $500,000. In addition, Proposer shall require all subcontractors occupying the premises or performing work under the contract to obtain an insurance certificate showing proof of Workers Compensation Coverage with the following minimum coverage’s: Bodily injury by accident--per employee $100,000; Bodily injury by disease--per employee $100,000; Policy limits $500,000. (2) Commercial General Liability Policy per occurrence $1,000,000. (3) Business Auto Policy to include but not be limited to liability coverage on any owned, non- owned and hired vehicle used by Proposer or Proposer’s personnel in the performance of this Contract. The Business Automobile Policy shall have a per occurrence limit of $1,000,000. 3.31 The foregoing policies shall contain a provision that coverage afforded under the policies will not be canceled, or not renewed or allowed to lapse for any reason until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to NJPA. Certificates of Insurance showing such coverage to be in force shall be filed with NJPA prior to commencement of any work under the contract. The foregoing policies shall be obtained from insurance companies licensed to do business nationally and shall be with companies acceptable to NJPA, which must have a minimum AM Best rating of A-. All such coverage shall remain in full force and effect during the term and any renewal or extension thereof. 3.32 Within ten (10) days of contract award, the Proposer must provide NJPA with two (2) Certificates of Insurance. Certificates must reference NJPA RFP 102811 by number. J. ORDER PROCESS AND/OR FUNDS FLOW 3.33 Please propose an order process and funds flow in Tab 6 for your proposal. Please choose from one of the following: 3.33.1 B-TO-G: The Business-to-Government order process and/or funds flow model involves NJPA Members issuing Purchase Orders directly to a Vendor and pursuant to a Contract resulting from this RFP. 3.33.3 Other: Please fully identify. K. ADMINISTRATIVE FEES 3.34 Proposer agrees to authorize and/or allow for an administrative fee payable to NJPA by an Awarded Vendor in exchange for its facilitation and marketing of a Contract resulting from this RFP to current and potential NJPA Members. This Administration Fee shall be: 3.34.1 Calculated as a percentage of the dollar volume of all products/services provided to and purchased by NJPA Members or calculated as reasonable and acceptable method applicable to the contracted transaction, and 3.34.2 Included in, and not added to, the pricing included in Proposer’s Response to this RFP, and RFP 081411 14 of 47 3.34.3 Set based on the anticipated costs of NJPA’s involvement in facilitating the establishment, Vendor training, and the order/product/funds flow of the Contract resulting from this RFP. 3.34.3.1 Typical administrative fees for a B-TO-G order process and funds flow is 2.0%. 3.35 The opportunity to propose these factors and an appropriate administrative fee is available in the Proposer’s Questionnaire, and submitted in Tab 9 of your response. 4. PRICING STRATEGIES 4.1 NJPA requests Potential Proposers respond to this RFP only if they are able to offer a wide array of products/services and at prices lower and better value than what they would ordinarily offer to single government agency, larger school district, or regional cooperative. 4.2 RFP is an “Indefinite Quantity Product/Service Price Request” with potential national sales distribution and service. Proposers are agreeing to fulfill Contract obligations regarding each product/service to which you provide a description and a price. If Proposer’s solution requires additional supporting documentation, describe where it can be found in your submission. If Proposer offers the solution in an alternative fashion, describe your solution to be easily understood. All pricing must be tabbed and organized under Tab 9, and copied on a CD along with other requested information as a part of a Proposer’s Response. 4.3 Regardless of the payment method selected by NJPA or NJPA Member, a total cost associated with any purchase option of the products/services and being supplied must always be disclosed at the time of purchase. 4.4 Primary Pricing/Secondary Pricing Strategies- All Proposers will be required to submit “Primary Pricing” in the form of either “Line-Item Pricing,” or “Percentage Discount from Catalog Pricing,” or a combination of these pricing strategies. Proposers are also encouraged to offer OPTIONAL pricing strategies including “Hot List,” “Sourced Goods,” and “Volume Discounts,” as well as financing options such as leasing. 4.5 Government Price Assistance- It is understood that a component of the pricing to be offered to this solicitation is “Government Price Assistance” from the respective OEM manufacturers. Prices quoted on vehicles including “Government Price Assistance” are available only to NJPA Members qualifying for “Government Pricing Assistance”. 4.5.1 For NJPA Members not qualifying for “Governmental Price Assistance” (Non-Profits for example) all other manufacturer rebates applicable at the time of delivery. A. LINE-ITEM PRICING 4.6 Line-Item pricing- A pricing format where specific individual products and/or services are offered at specific individual Contract prices. Products and/or services are individually priced and described by characteristics such as manufacture name, stock or part number, size, or functionality. This method of pricing offers the least amount of confusion as products and prices are individually identified, however Proposers with a large number of products to propose may find this method cumbersome. In these situations, a percentage discount from catalog or category pricing model may make more sense. 4.7 Format: Line Item vehicle pricing for this RFP must be submitted using attached “Price Form P1”. The intent here is to describe and price a “Base” vehicle in each of eight classes AND also offer, on an ala carte basis, options (both Manufacturer Options and Dealer Options) to customize each vehicle offered. 4.8 All Line-Item Pricing items must be numbered, organized, sectioned, including SKU’s (when applicable) and easily understood by the Proposal Review Committee and members. RFP 081411 15 of 47 4.9 Line-Item Pricing items are to be submitted in an Excel spreadsheet format provided and are to include all appropriate identification information necessary to discern the line item from other line items in each Proposer’s proposal. 4.10 The purpose for the excel spreadsheet format for Line-Item Pricing is to be able to use the “Find” function to quickly find any particular item of interest. For that reason, Proposers are responsible for providing the appropriate product and service identification information along with the pricing information which is typically found on an invoice or price quote for such products and services. 4.11 All products and services typically appearing on an invoice or price quote must be individually priced and identified on the line-item price sheet, including any and all ancillary costs. 4.12 Proposers are asked to provide both a “List” price as well as a “Proposed Contract Price” in their pricing matrix. “List” price will be the standard “quantity of one” price currently available to government and educational customers excluding cooperative and volume discounts B. MASS PRODUCED PRODUCTION VEHICLES 4.13 Original Equipment from the Manufacturer (OEM) mass production vehicles will be priced using the pricing sheets attached as “Attachment P” and executed according to the instructions contained on the first tab of that attachment. C. ALL OTHER VEHICLES AND ACCESSORIES. 4.14 Please use the general descriptions for “Line Item Pricing”. A format is not specified for these items beyond those provided in “Line Item Pricing”. Please use a format which fully identifies and prices the goods and services being offered. D. TAX AND OTHER CREDITS. 4.15 Tax and other credits accruing to the vehicle being purchased which are not applicable to an NJPA Member will accrue to the benefit of the Awarded Contractor. E. HOT LIST PRICING 4.16 Where applicable, NJPA also invites the Vendor, at their option, to offer a specific selection of products/services, defined as a Hot List Pricing, at greater discounts than those listed in the standard Contract pricing. All product/service pricing, including the Hot List Pricing, must be submitted in hard copy as well as electronically provided in Excel format. Hot List pricing must be submitted in a Line- Item format. Providing a “Hot List” of products/services is optional. Products/services may be added or removed from the “Hot List” at any time provided that current “Hot List” prices are provided to NJPA at all times. 4.17 Hot List pricing when applicable may also be used to discount and liquidate close-out and discontinued products/services as long as those close-out and discontinued items are clearly labeled as such. Current ordering process and administrative fees apply. This option must be published and made available to all NJPA Members. 4.18 Hot List Pricing is allowed to change at the discretion of the Vendor within the definition of Hot List Pricing. The Vendor is responsible to maintain current Hot List product/service descriptions and Pricing with NJPA. RFP 081411 16 of 47 E. CEILING PRICE 4.19 Proposal pricing is to be established as a ceiling price. At no time may the proposed products/services be offered pursuant to this Contract at prices above this ceiling price without approval by NJPA. Prices may be reduced to allow for volume considerations and to meet the specific and unique needs of an NJPA Member. 4.20 Allowable specific needs may include certain purchase volume considerations or the creation of custom programs based on the individual needs of NJPA Members. F. VOLUME PRICE DISCOUNTS 4.21 Proposers are free to offer volume discounts from the quantity-of-one pricing documented in a Contract resulting from this RFP. Volume considerations shall be determined between the Vendor and individual NJPA Members on a case-by-case basis. 4.22 Nothing in this Contract establishes a favored member relationship between the NJPA or any NJPA Member and the Vendor. The Vendor will, upon request by NJPA Member, extend this same reduced price offered or delivered to another NJPA Member provided the same or similar volume commitment, specific needs, terms, and conditions, a similar time frame, seasonal considerations and provided the same manufacturer support is available to the Vendor. 4.23 All price adjustments are to be offered equally to all NJPA Members exhibiting the same or substantially similar characteristics such as purchase volume commitments, and timing including the availability of special pricing from the Vendor’s suppliers. G. SOURCED GOODS 4.24 NJPA and NJPA Members may, from time to time, request goods and/or products/services within the scope of this RFP which are not included in an awarded Vendor’s line-item product /service listing or “list or catalog” known as Sourced Goods. 4.25 An awarded Vendor resulting from this RFP may “Source” these products/services for NJPA or NJPA Member to the extent they: 4.25.1 Include in their bid response a cost-plus-percentage-of-cost pricing factor for such Sourced goods and services, and 4.25.2 Provide as many quotes for the Member’s “Total Cost of Acquisition” for the goods and services to be sourced as may reasonably be required by NJPA Member. 4.25.3 Provide “Sourced Goods” only to the extent that they are incidental to the total transaction being contemplated. H. COST PLUS A PERCENTAGE OF COST 4.26 Except as provided in “Sourced Goods” above, cost plus a percentage of cost as a primary pricing mechanism is not desirable. I. TOTAL COST OF ACQUISITION 4.27 The Total Cost of Acquisition for the products/services being proposed, including those payable by NJPA Members to either the Proposer or a third party, shall be disclosed in the Proposer’s Response including but not limited to:  The capitalized cost of the listed products/services being proposed,  The cost of accessories, alterations, and customizations typically incurred in the acquisition of the RFP 081411 17 of 47 products/services being proposed.  The cost of delivery, setup and installation (where applicable) of the products/services and any accessories being proposed.  Other costs, where applicable, typically associated with the purchase, delivery, set-up, and installation of the products/services being proposed and making it operational at the purchaser’s site. 4.28 The Total Cost of Acquisition is to be stated “As Proposed.” As an example, a materials only proposal, or portions of proposals, must include the total cost of acquisition for those materials delivered. In contrast, the Total Cost of Acquisition for a turn-key proposal must include the total costs to be incurred in the process of delivering that combination of products/services. J. REQUESTING PRODUCT AND SERVICE ADDITIONS/DELETIONS 4.29 Requests for product, service, and price additions, deletions, or changes must be made in written form and shall be subject to approval by NJPA. 4.30 New products/services may be added to a Contract resulting from this RFP at any time during that Contract to the extent those products/services are within the scope of this RFP. Those requests are subject to review and approval of NJPA. Allowable new products/services generally include new updated models of products/services and or enhanced services previously offered which could reflect new technology and improved functionality. 4.31 Proposers representing multiple manufacturers, or carrying multiple related product lines may also request the addition of new manufacturers or product lines to their Contract to the extent they remain within the scope of this RFP. 4.32 NJPA’s due diligence in analyzing any request for change is to determine if approval of the request is 1) within the scope of the original RFP, and 2) in the “Best Interests of NJPA and NJPA Members.” We are looking for consistent pricing and delivery mechanisms and an understanding of what value the proposal brings to NJPA and NJPA Members. 4.33 Documenting the “Best Interests of NJPA and NJPA Members” when out-dated equipment is being deleted is fairly straight forward since the product is no longer available and not relevant to the procurement Contract. 4.34 Requests must be in the form of 1) a cover letter to NJPA a) asking to add the product line, b) making a general statement identifying how the products to be added are within the scope of the original RFP, and c) making a general statement identifying that, if appropriate, the pricing is consistent with the existing Contract pricing and 2) the detail as to what is being added at what price will then be an attachment to that cover letter. 4.35 NJPA’s intent here is to encourage Proposers to provide and document NJPA’s due diligence in a clear and concise one page format on which we can stamp and sign our acknowledgment and acceptance. This information must ultimately come from Proposers, and NJPA is requiring it in this format. K. REQUESTING PRICING CHANGES 4.36 Price Decreases: Requests for standard Contract price decrease adjustments (percentage discount increases) are encouraged and will be allowed at any time based on market place efficiencies, market place competitiveness, improved technologies and/or improved methods of delivery or if Vendor engages in innovative procurement practices such as strategic sourcing, aggregate and volume purchasing. NJPA expects Vendors to propose their very best prices and anticipates price reductions due to the advancement of technologies and market place efficiencies. Documenting the “Best Interests of NJPA and NJPA Members” is pretty easy when we are documenting price reductions. RFP 081411 18 of 47 4.37 Price increases: Requests for standard contract price increases (or the inclusion of new generation products/services/services at higher prices) can be made at any time. These requests will again be evaluated by NJPA based on the best interests of NJPA and NJPA Members. As an example, typically acceptable requests for price increases for existing products/services may cite increases to the Vendor of input costs such as petroleum or other applicable commodities. Typically acceptable requests for price increases for new products/services enhance or improve on the current solutions currently offered as well as cite increases in utility of the new compared to the old. Vendors are requested to reasonably document the claims cited in their requests. Your written request for a price increase, therefore, is an exercise in describing what you need, and a justification for why you need it in sufficient detail for NJPA to deem such change to be in the best interests of our self and our Members. 4.37 Price Change Request Format: An awarded Proposer will use the format of a cover letter requesting price increases in general terms (a 5% increase in product line X) and stating their justification for that price increase (due to the recent increase in petroleum costs) by product category. Specific details for the requested price change must be attached to the request letter identifying product/services where appropriate, both current and proposed pricing. Attachments such as letters from suppliers announcing price increases are appropriate for documenting your requests here. L. PRICE AND PRODUCT CHANGES FORMAT 4.39 NJPA’s due diligence regarding product and price change requests is to consider the reasonableness of the request and document consideration on behalf of our members. We would appreciate it if you would send the following documentation to request a pricing change: 4.39.1 A cover letter: a. Please address the following subjects in your cover letter: i. What product/service prices are changing? ii. How much are the prices changing? iii. Why are the prices changing? iv. Any additions or deletions from the previous product list and the reason for the changes. b. The specifics of the product/services and price changes will be listed in the excel spreadsheets indentified below. Please take a more general “Disclosure” approach to identifying changes in the cover letter. i. If appropriate, for example, state, “All paper products/services increased 5 % in price due to transportation costs.” ii. If appropriate, for instance, state, “The 6400 series floor polisher added to the product list is the new model replacing the 5400 series. The 6400’s 3% price increase reflects the rate of inflation over the past year. The 5400 series is now included in the “Hot List” at a 20% discount from previous pricing until remaining inventory is liquidated.” 4.39.2 An excel spreadsheet identifying all products/services being offered and their pricing. Each subsequent pricing update will be saved using the naming convention of “[Vendor Name] pricing effective XX/XX/XXXX.” a. Include all products/services regardless of whether their prices have changed. By observing this convention we will: i. Reduce confusion by providing a single, easy to find, current pricing sheet for each Vendor. ii. Create a historical record of pricing. M. SINGLE STATEMENT OF PRICING/HISTORICAL RECORD OF PRICING 4.40 Initially; and with each request for product addition, deletion, and pricing change; all RFP 081411 19 of 47 products/services and services available, and the prices for those products/services and services will be stated in an Excel workbook. The request for price changes described above will serve as the documentation for those requested changes. Each complete pricing list will be identified by its “Effective Date.” Each successive price listing identified by its “Effective Date” will create a “Product and Price History” for the Contract. 4.41 Proposers may use the multiple tabs available in an Excel workbook to separately list logical product groupings or to separately list product and service pricing as they see fit. 4.42 All products/services together with their pricing, whether changed within the request or remaining unchanged, will be stated on each “Pricing” sheet created as a result of each request for product, service, or pricing change. 4.43 Each subsequent “Single Statement of Product and Pricing” will be archived by its effective date therefore creating a product and price history for any Contract resulting from this RFP. N. PAYMENT TERMS 4.44 Payment terms will be defined by the Proposer in the Proposer’s Response. Proposers are encouraged to offer payment terms through P Card services. 4.45 Leasing- If available, identify any leasing programs available to NJPA and NJPA Members as part of your proposed. Proposers should submit an example of the lease agreement to be used. Proposers should identify:  General leasing terms such as: o The percentage adjustment over/under an index rate used in calculating the internal rate of return for the lease; and o The index rate being adjusted; and o The “Purchase Option” at lease maturity ($1, or fair market value); and o The available term in months of lease(s) available.  Leasing company information such as: o The name and address of the leasing company; and o Any ownership, common ownership, or control between the Proposer and the Leasing Company O. SALES TAX 4.46 Sales and other taxes and all applicable title transfer fees, where applicable, shall not be included in the prices quoted. Vendor will charge state and local sales and other taxes on items for which a valid tax exemption certification has not been provided. Each NJPA Member is responsible for providing verification of tax exempt status to Vendor. When ordering, if applicable, NJPA Members must indicate that they are tax exempt entities. Except as set forth herein, no party shall be responsible for taxes imposed on another party as a result of or arising from the transactions contemplated by a Contract resulting from this RFP. P. SHIPPING AND SHIPPING PROGRAM 4.47 Shipping program for material only proposals, or sections of proposals, must be defined and tabbed under Tab 9 as a part of the cost of goods. If shipping is charged to NJPA or NJPA Member, only the actual cost of delivery may be added to an invoice. Shipping charges calculated as a percentage of the product price may not be used, unless such charges are lower than actual delivery charges. No COD orders will be accepted. It is desired that delivery be made within ninety-days (90) of receipt of the Purchase Order. RFP 081411 20 of 47 4.48 Any shipping cost charged to NJPA or NJPA Members will be considered to be part of “proposal pricing.” 4.49 Additional costs for expedited deliveries or additional goods or services required by the end-user will be at the expense to the NJPA Member/End User. 4.50 Selection of a carrier for shipment will be the option of the party paying for said shipping. Use of another carrier will be at the expense of the requester. 4.51 Proposers must define their shipping programs for Alaska and Hawaii and any location not served by conventional shipping services. Over-size and over-weight items and shipments may be subject to custom freight programs. 4.52 Proposals containing restocking fees are less advantageous than those not containing re-stocking fees. That being said, certain industries cannot avoid restocking fees. Certain industries providing made to order goods may not allow returns. With regard to returns and restocking fees, Proposers will be evaluated based on the relative flexibility extended to NJPA and NJPA Members relating to those subjects. Where used, restocking fees in excess of 15% will not be considered excessive. Restocking fees may be waived, at the option of the Proposer/Vendor. Indicate all shipping and re-stocking fees in price program under Tab 9. 4.53 Proposer agrees shipping errors will be at the expense of the Vendor. For example, if a Vendor ships a product that was not ordered by the member, it is the responsibility of the Vendor to pay for return mail or shipment at the convenience of the member. 4.54 Unless specifically stated otherwise in the “Shipping Program” of a Proposer’s Response, all prices quoted must be F.O.B. destination with the freight prepaid by the Vendor. Time is of the essence on this Contract. If completed deliveries are not made at the time agreed, NJPA or NJPA Member reserves the right to cancel and purchase elsewhere and hold Vendor accountable. If delivery dates cannot be met, Vendor agrees to advise NJPA or NJPA Member of the earliest possible shipping date for acceptance by NJPA or NJPA Member. 4.55 Goods and materials must be properly packaged. Damaged goods and materials will not be accepted, or if the damage is not readily apparent at the item of delivery, the goods shall be returned at no cost to NJPA or NJPA Member. NJPA and NJPA Members reserve the right to inspect the goods at a reasonable time subsequent to delivery where circumstances or conditions prevent effective inspection of the goods at the time of delivery. 4.56 Vendor shall deliver Contract conforming products in each shipment and may not substitute products without approval from NJPA Member. 4.57 NJPA reserves the right to declare a breach of Contract if the Vendor intentionally delivers substandard or inferior products which are not under Contract and described in its paper or electronic price lists or sourced upon request to any member under this Contract. In the event of the delivery of a non-conforming product, NJPA Member will immediately notify Vendor and Vendor will replace non- conforming product with conforming product. 4.58 Throughout the term of the Contract, Proposer agrees to pay for return shipment on goods that arrive in a defective or inoperable condition. Proposer must arrange for the return shipment of damaged goods. 4.59 Unless contrary to other parts of this solicitation, if the goods or the tender of delivery fail in any respect to conform to this Contract, the purchasing member may: 1) reject the whole, 2) accept the whole or 3) accept any commercial unit or units and reject the rest. Q. NORMAL WORKING HOURS RFP 081411 21 of 47 4.60 Prices quoted are for products/services delivered during normal business hours. Normal Business hours will be as specifically defined herein, defined through industry standards OR defined through statement contained in the purchase/work order issued pursuant to a Contract resulting from this RFP. 5. MARKETING PLAN 5.1 Internal Marketing Plan: An award of Contract resulting from this RFP is an opportunity for the awarded contractor to pursue commerce with, and deliver value to NJPA and NJPA Members nationwide. An award of Contract is not an opportunity to see how much business NJPA can drive to an awarded Vendor’s door. Your internal marketing plan should serve to: 5.1.1 Identify the appropriate levels of sales management whom will need to understand the value of, and the internal procedures necessary to deliver this Contract opportunity to NJPA and NJPA Members through your sales force. 5.1.2 Identify, in general, your national foot print and dedicated feet-on-the-street sales force that will be carrying this Contract message and opportunity in the field to NJPA Members. Outline the sale force in terms of numbers and geographic distribution. 5.1.2.1 Identify whether your sales force are employees or independent contractors. 5.1.3 Identify your plan for delivering training to these individuals. 5.1.3.1 Will you have your sales force gathered at national or regional events in the near future? Does you sales force have the ability to participate in webinar or webcast events? 5.1.3.2 NJPA is prepared to provide our personnel in your location for sales training and/or on a webinar or webcast where sufficient efficiencies can be shown in reaching the appropriate groups within your employee base, and sufficient numbers of personnel trained. 5.1.4 Identify your personnel involved in training. 5.1.4.1 NJPA can provide personnel to deliver training regarding the Contract itself, the authority of NJPA to offer the Contract vehicle to its Members, the value the Contract vehicle delivers to NJPA and NJPA Members, the scope of NJPA Membership, and the authority of NJPA Members to utilize our procurement contracts. 5.1.4.2 Your personnel will be needed to provide training regarding employee compensation and internal procedures when delivering the Contract opportunity, and how this Contract purchasing opportunity relates with other such opportunities available. 5.2 Success in marketing is dependent upon 1) the delivery of value as defined in section 1.4, 2) the delivery of knowledge of the program and its proper use and utility, and 3) the delivery of opportunity and reward which creates a personal commitment to the program. NJPA desires a marketing plan that: 5.2.1 identifies the value delivered in a competitively proposed national cooperative procurement contract by relieving both the NJPA Member and the Vendor/Vendor’s sales staff of the responsibility for bringing and answering many similar and individual RFP’s; and 5.2.2 identifies the appropriate Vendor personnel from both management and sales staff’s who will be trained on the use and utility of such a contract and a general schedule of when and how those individuals will be trained; and 5.2.3 identifies in general how the reward system for the marketing, delivery, and service chain of RFP 081411 22 of 47 the Vendor will be affected by the implementation of the proposed Contract and how that will be proposed to those individuals in terms of the value created for them and their departments in 5.1.1 above. 5.3 External Marketing Plan: NJPA is seeking the ability to serve all our current and potential members nationwide. The Proposer must demonstrate the ability to both market and service their products/services/services nationwide. Please demonstrate your sales and service force contains sufficient people in sufficient proximities, to receive the knowledge, opportunity, and reward in order to make a personal commitment to serving NJPA and NJPA Members nationwide. 5.4 The Proposer must exhibit the willingness and ability to develop marketing materials and participate in marketing venues such as: 5.4.1 Printed Marketing Materials. Proposer will initially produce and thereafter maintain full color print advertisements in camera ready electronic format including company logos, identifying the Vendor, the Vendor’s general utility for NJPA and NJPA Members, and contact information to be used by NJPA and NJPA Members in a full page, half page, and quarter page formats. These advertisements will be used in the NJPA Catalog and publications. 5.4.2 Press releases and advertisements. Proposer will identify a marketing plan identifying their anticipated press releases, contract announcements, advertisements in industry periodicals, or other direct or indirect marketing activities. 5.4.3 Proposer’s Website. Proposer will identify how an Awarded Contract will be displayed on the Proposer’s website. An on-line shopping experience for NJPA and NJPA Members is desired when applicable and will be viewed as a value-added attribute to a Proposer’s Response. 5.4.4 Trade Shows. Proposer will outline their proposed involvement in the promotion of a Contract resulting from this RFP through trade shows. Vendors are encouraged to identify trade- show, and other appropriate venues, for the promotion of any such Contract. Vendors are strongly encouraged to participate in cooperation with NJPA at the following NJPA embraced trade shows: NAEP National Association of Education Procurement I-ASBO International Association of School Business Officials NIGP National Institute of Government Purchasing 5.5 Proposer must also work in cooperation with NJPA to develop a marketing strategy and provide avenues to equally market and drive sales through the Contract and program to all NJPA Members nationally. Awarded Vendor agrees to actively market in cooperation with NJPA all available products/services to current and potential NJPA Members. NJPA reserves the right to deem a proposer non-responsive or to waive an award based on an unacceptable marketing plan. 5.6 As a part of this response, submit a complete Marketing Plan on how you would help NJPA rollout this program to current and potential NJPA Members. NJPA requires the Vendor actively promote the Contract in cooperation with the NJPA. Vendors are advised to consider marketing efforts in the areas of 1) Website Link from Vendors website to NJPA’s website, 2) Attendance and participation with a display booth at national trade shows as agreed upon/required by NJPA, and 3) Sales team and sales training programs involving both Vendor sales management and NJPA staff. NJPA requires awarded Vendors to offer the NJPA Contract opportunity to all current and qualified NJPA Members. 5.7 Facilitating NJPA Membership: Proposer should express their commitment to determine the membership status of their customers whom are eligible for NJPA Membership, AND their commitment RFP 081411 23 of 47 to establishing that membership. 5.7.1 Membership information: Proposer should further express their commitment to capturing sufficient member information as is deemed necessary by NJPA to appropriately facilitate membership and certain marketing activities as agreed to by NJPA and an Awarded contractor. 6. PROPOSAL OPENING PROCEDURE 6.1 Sealed and properly identified Proposer’s Responses for this RFP entitled “PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES” will be received by Gregg Meierhofer, Manager of Bids and Contracts, at NJPA Offices, 200 First Street NE, Staples, MN 56479 until the deadline for receipt of, and bid opening identified on page one of this RFP. The NJPA Director of Contracts and Marketing, or Representative from the NJPA Proposal Review Committee, will then read the Proposer’s names aloud. A summary of the responses to this RFP will be made available for public inspection in the NJPA office in Staples, MN. A letter or e-mail request is required to receive a complete RFP package. Send or communicate all requests to the attention of Gregg Meierhofer 200 1st Street Northeast Staples, MN 56479 or RFP@njpacoop.org to receive a complete copy of this RFP. Method of delivery needs to be indicated in the request; an email address is required for electronic transmission. Oral, facsimile, telephone or telegraphic Proposal Submissions or requests for this RFP are invalid and will not receive consideration. All Proposal Responses must be submitted in a sealed package. The outside of the package shall plainly identify “PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES” To avoid premature opening, it is the responsibility of the Proposer to label the Proposal Response properly. 7. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS A. PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS 7.1 NJPA will use a 1,000 Point Evaluation System to help determine the best overall Proposer(s) selection. Bonus points may be available for specific proposal characteristics identified such as “Green Product Certifications.” 7.2 NJPA reserves the right to use a “Cost Scoring Evaluation” through a product comparison process of like products/services. This process will establish points for submitted price levels. See Cost Scoring Evaluation. 7.3 NJPA shall use a final overall scoring system to include consideration for best price and cost evaluation. The total possible score is 1,000 points. NJPA reserves the right to assign any number of point awards or penalties it considers warranted if a Proposer stipulates exceptions, exclusions, or limitations of liabilities. 7.4 To qualify for the final evaluation, a Proposer must have been deemed responsive as a result of the criteria set forth under “Proposer Responsiveness.” 7.5 Responses will be evaluated first for responsiveness and thereafter for content. The NJPA Board of Directors will make awards to the selected Proposer(s) based on the recommendations of the Proposal Review Committee. 7.6 The procurement activities of the NJPA Proposal Review Committee are limited to document preparation, answering Proposer questions, advertising the solicitation, distribution of this RFP upon request, conducting an evaluation and making recommendation for possible approval to NJPA Board of Directors. RFP 081411 24 of 47 B. PROPOSER RESPONSIVENESS 7.7 Proposer’s Responses received after the deadline for submission will be invalid and returned to the Potential Proposer unopened. 7.8 An essential part of the proposal evaluation process is an evaluation to qualify the Proposer being considered. All proposals must contain answers or responses to the information requested in the proposal forms. Any Proposer failing to provide the required documentation may be considered non-responsive. 7.9 Deviations or exceptions stipulated in Proposer’s Response may result in the proposal being classified as non responsive. 7.10 To qualify for evaluation, a proposal must have been submitted on time and materially satisfy all mandatory requirements identified in this document. A proposal must reasonably and substantially conform to all the terms and conditions in the solicitation to be considered responsive. 7.11 The Proposal Review Committee shall utilize the following criteria to evaluate all proposals received. Items 1-4 constitute the test for “Level One Responsiveness” and are determined on the proposal opening date. “Level 2” responsiveness is determined through the evaluation of the remaining items listed below. These items are not arranged in order of importance and each item may encompass multiple areas of information requested. 1. The proposal response is received prior to the deadline for submission. 2. The proposal package was properly addressed and identified as a sealed bid with a specific opening date and time. 3. The proposal response contains the required certificate of liability insurance. 4. The proposal response contains original signatures on all documents requiring such. 5. Response’s conformance to terms and conditions as described in the solicitation, including documentation. 6. Possesses qualifications as a responding Proposer that meets or exceeds those set within the solicitation. 7. Information from references and past performance information including past member approval. 8. Demonstrates that they offer the most current industry standard products/services and/or services. 9. Demonstrates financial stability and a favorable banking line of credit. 10. Demonstrates their products/services and/or services proposed meet and/or exceed industry standards accepted by educational or governmental institutions. 11. Has demonstrated market place success and their past performance exhibit an acceptable reputation. 12. Demonstrates the company possesses the background, knowledge, capacity, and ability to sell, deliver, and support products/services offered to Members. 13. Has provided documentation defining, outlining, and describing their concept of a national marketing program they will be implementing to facilitate and coordinate the cooperative activities required by an awarded Contract. 14. Has provided all of the required and applicable documentation required i.e. insurance certificates, licenses, and/or registration certificates required to do business nationally. 15. Line-Item Pricing, in approved excel format, listing of all of the proposed products/services and warranty provisions with their associated units of costs. 16. Core List selection of products/services in Line-Item Pricing format 17. Hot List Pricing products/services in a Line-Item Pricing format (where applicable). 18. Contract Pricing submitted as requested to include core list or products/services, Line-Item Pricing and/or Percentage Discount from published gov/ed price list or Catalog. C. PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA RFP 081411 25 of 47 7.12 If a manufacturer or supplier chooses not to produce or supply goods and services to meet the scope of this RFP, such action will be considered sufficient cause to reduce evaluation points. 7.13 Consideration will be given in the award based on the completion and degree of information provided regarding available products, equipment, and accessories, as well as, applicable parts of the Proposer Information and Questionnaire. 7.14 The fact a manufacturer or supplier chooses not to produce or provide equipment products or services to meet the intent and scope of this RFP will not be considered sufficient cause to adjudge this RFP as restrictive. 7.15 The Proposer is required to have extensive knowledge and at least three (3) years experience with the related activities surrounding the selling of the equipment, service or related products offered. 7.16 NJPA reserves the right to accept or reject newly formed companies solely based on information provided in the proposal and/or its own investigation of the company. 7.17 Consideration will be given in the proposal evaluation based upon the selection, variety, technological advances, and demonstrated quality of products submitted, technological advances, and pricing. The ability of the Proposer to communicate the value of these factors and to demonstrate how the depth and breadth of their product and service offerings provide NJPA and NJPA Members with a sole source of responsibility within the scope of this RFP will be positively reviewed. 7.18 Consideration will also be given to proposals demonstrating technological advances, provide increased efficiencies, expanded service and other related improvements beyond today’s NJPA member’s needs and applicable standards. 7.19 Strong consideration will be given to a Proposer’s past performance, distribution model, and the demonstration their ability to effectively market and service NJPA Membership nationally. 7.20 Strong consideration will be given to the best price as it relates to the quality of the product and service. However, price is ultimately one of the factors taken into consideration in evaluation and award. 7.21 Evaluation of a Proposer’s Responses will take into consideration as a minimum response but not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Adherence to all requirements of this RFP as defined by industry standards. 2. Prior knowledge of and experience with a Proposer in terms of past performance and market place success. 3. Capability of meeting or exceeding current and future needs or requirements of NJPA and NJPA Members. 4. Evaluation of Proposer’s ability to market to and provide service to all NJPA Members nationally. 5. Financial condition of the Proposer. 6. Nature and extent of company data furnished in Proposer’s Response. 7. Quality of products, equipment, and services offered including value added related services. 8. History of member service to NJPA type customers. 9. Overall ability to perform sales, solutions and contract support as submitted. 10. Ability to meet service and warranty needs. 11. History of meeting shipping and delivery expectations of contracted products/ services. 12. Technology advancements and related provisions. 13. Ability to market and promote the Contract within current business practices. 14. Willingness to develop and enter into NJPA Contract and business relations. 15. Favorable bond rating and applicable industry standard licensing ability. RFP 081411 26 of 47 16. Past market place successes and brand recognition. 17. Demonstrated warranty and product/service responsibility. 7.22 The Proposer’s ability to follow the proposal preparation instructions set forth in this solicitation will also be considered to be an indicator of the Proposer’s ability to follow other future instructions should they receive an award as a result of this solicitation. Any Contract between NJPA and a Proposer requires the delivery of information and data. The quality of organization and writing reflected in the proposal will be considered an indication of the quality of organization and writing which would be prevalent if a Contract was awarded. As a result, the proposal will be evaluated as a sample of data submission. 7.23 Proposer’s Financial Statements- The Proposer’s financial statements are requested and reviewed to get a general feel for the size, strength, and probable scope of the Proposer. 7.24 NJPA reserves the right to reject the Proposer’s Response of the apparent successful Proposer where the available evidence or information does not exhibit the ability or intent to satisfy NJPA that the potential Vendor is unable to properly carry out the terms of this RFP and potential Contract. 7.25 NJPA shall reserve the right to reject any or all proposals. NJPA also reserves the right to reject a proposal not accompanied by required certificate of insurance, other data required by this RFP, or if a Proposer’s Response is incomplete or irregular. The NJPA shall reject all proposals where there has been collusion among the Proposers. 7.26 Overall Evaluation (FORM G) - The NJPA Proposal Review Committee will evaluate proposal received based on a 1,000 point evaluation system. The Committee will establish both the evaluation criteria and designate the relative importance of those criteria by assigning possible scores for each category. 7.27 Bonus Evaluation Points- Bonus evaluation points may be awarded by the NJPA Proposal Review Committee based on criteria identified as being both “optional” and “having additional value” D. COST SCORING EVALUATION 7.28 NJPA reserves the right to use this process in the event the evaluation committee feels it is necessary to make a final determination. 7.29 This process will be based on a point system with points being awarded for being low to high Proposer for each cost evaluation item selected. A “Market Basket” of identical (or substantially similar) products/services may be selected by the NJPA proposal Review Committee and the unit cost will be used as a basis for determining the point value. The “Market Basket:” will be selected by NJPA from all product categories as determined appropriate by NJPA. The low priced Proposer will receive the full point value and all other Proposers will receive points as follows: Lowest price Proposal = 5 (where there are five proposers), and inferior proposals = 4, 3, 2, 1 points each. The Total Score for each proposer will be the sum of all points earned. The result of this process shall not be the sole determination for award. E. PRODUCT TESTING 7.30 NJPA reserves the right to request and test products/services and/or services from the apparent successful Proposer. Prior to the award of the Contract, the apparent successful Proposer, if requested by NJPA, shall furnish current information and data regarding the Proposer’s resources, personnel, and organization within three (3) days. F. PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION 7.31 Past performance information is relevant information regarding a Proposer’s actions under RFP 081411 27 of 47 previously awarded contracts to schools, local, state, and governmental agencies and non-profit agencies. It includes the Proposer’s record of conforming to specifications and standards of good workmanship. The Proposer’s history for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to member satisfaction shall be under evaluation. Ultimately, Past Performance Information can be defined as the Proposer’s businesslike concern for the interests of the NJPA Member. G. WAIVER OF FORMALITIES 7.32 NJPA reserves the right to waive any minor formalities or irregularities in any proposal and to accept proposals, which, in its discretion and according to the law, may be in the best interest of its members. 8. POST AWARD OPERATING ISSUES A. SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENTS 8.1 Purchase Order- Purchase Orders for goods and services may be executed between NJPA or NJPA Members (Purchaser) and awarded Vendor(s) or Vendor’s sub-contractors pursuant to this invitation and any resulting Contract. NJPA Members are instructed to identify on the face of such Purchase orders that “This purchase order is issued pursuant to NJPA procurement contract #XXXXXX.” A Purchase Order is an offer to purchase goods and services at specified prices by NJPA or NJPA Members pursuant to a Contract resulting from this RFP. Purchase Order flow and procedure will be developed jointly between NJPA and an Awarded Vendor after an award is made. 8.2 Governing Law- Purchase Orders, as identified above, shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of a competent jurisdiction with respect to the purchaser. Each and every provision of law and clause required by law to be included in the Purchase Order shall be read and enforced as though it were included. If through mistake or otherwise any such provision is not included, or is not currently included, then upon application of either part the Contract shall be physically amended to make such inclusion or correction. The venue for any litigation arising out of disputes related to Purchase Order(s) shall be a court of competent jurisdiction to the Purchaser. 8.3 Additional Terms and Conditions- Additional terms and conditions to a Purchase Order may be proposed by NJPA, NJPA Members, or Vendors. Acceptance of these additional terms and conditions is OPTIONAL to all parties to the Purchase Order. The purpose of these additional terms and conditions is to, among other things; formerly introduce job or industry specific requirements of law such as prevailing wage legislation. Additional terms and conditions can include specific local policy requirements and standard business practices of the issuing Member. Said additional terms and conditions shall not interfere with the general purpose and intent of this RFP. 8.4 Asset Management Contracts: Asset Management type contracts can be initiated pursuant to a Contract resulting from this RFP at any time during the term of said Contract. The establishment of such Asset Management Contracts cannot exceed the authorized term of a Contract resulting from this RFP; however the Asset Management Contract term may extend beyond the maturity date of a Contract resulting from this RFP. 8.5 Specialized Service Requirements- In the event service requirements or specialized performance requirements such as e-commerce specifications, specialized delivery requirements, or other specifications and requirements not addressed in the Contract resulting from this RFP, NJPA Member and Vendor may enter into a separate, stand alone agreement, apart from a Contract resulting from this RFP. Any proposed service requirements or specialized performance requirements require pre-approval by Vendor. Any separate agreement developed to address these specialized service or performance requirements is exclusively between the NJPA Member and Vendor. NJPA, its agents, Members and employees shall not be made party to any claim for breach of such agreement. Product sourcing is not considered a service. NJPA Members will need to conduct procurements for any specialized services not identified in this Contract. RFP 081411 28 of 47 8.6 Performance Bond- At the request of the member, a Vendor will provide all performance bonds typically and customarily required in their industry. These bonds will be issued pursuant to the requirements of Purchase Orders for goods and services. If a purchase order is cancelled for lack of a required performance bond, it shall be the recommendation of NJPA that pending Purchase Orders with all NJPA Members be considered for cancellation. Each member has the final decision on Purchase Order continuation. ANY PERFORMANCE BONDING REQUIRED BY THE MEMBER OR CUSTOMER STATE LAWS OR LOCAL POLICY IS TO BE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON AND SECURED BETWEEN THE VENDOR AND THE CUSTOMER/MEMBER. B. NJPA MEMBER SIGN-UP PROCEDURE 8.7 Awarded Vendors will be responsible for familiarizing their sales and service forces with the various forms of NJPA Membership documentation and shall encourage and assist potential Members in establishing Membership C. REPORTING OF SALE ACTIVITY 8.8 A report of the total gross dollar volume of all products/services purchased by NJPA Members as it applies to this RFP and Contract will be provided quarterly to NJPA. The form and content of this reporting will be developed by NJPA in cooperation with the Vendor to include, but not limited to, name and address of purchasing agency, amount of purchase, and a description of the items purchased. D. AUDITS 8.9 During the Term, Vendor will, upon not less than fourteen (14) business days’ prior written request, make available to NJPA no more than once per calendar year, at Vendor’s corporate offices, during normal business hours, the invoice reports and/or invoice documents from Vendor pertaining to all invoices sent by Vendor and payments made by NJPA members for all products/services purchased under this Contract. NJPA may employ an independent auditor or NJPA may choose to conduct such audit on its own behalf. Vendor shall have the right to approve the independent auditor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Upon approval and after the auditor has executed an appropriate confidentiality agreement, Vendor will permit the auditor to review the relevant Vendor documents. NJPA shall be responsible for paying the auditor’s fees. The parties will make every reasonable effort to fairly and equitably resolve discrepancies to the satisfaction of both parties. Vendor agrees that the NJPA may audit their records with a reasonable notice to establish total compliance and to verify prices charged hereunder of the Contract are being met. Vendor agrees to provide verifiable documentation and tracking in a timely manner. E. HUB PARTNER 8.10 Hub Partner: Where Applicable, NJPA Members may, from time to time, request to be served in some way through a “Hub Partner” for the purposes of complying with a Law, Regulation, or Rule to which that individual NJPA Member deems to be applicable in their jurisdiction. Hub Partners may bring value to the proposed transactions through consultancy, Disadvantaged Business Entity Credits, or other considerations. 8.11 Hub Partner Fees: Fees, costs, or expenses from this Hub Partner levied upon a transaction resulting from this contract, shall be payable by the NJPA Member provide that: 8.11.1 The fees, costs, or expenses levied by the Hub Vendor must be clearly itemized in the transaction. and 8.11.2 To the extent that the he Vendor stands in the chain of title during a transaction resulting from this RFP, the documentation shall be documented to show it is “Executed for the Benefit of [NJPA Member Name]”. RFP 081411 29 of 47 F. TRADE-INS 8.12 Where Appropriate, the value in US Dollars, of Trade-ins will be negotiated between NJPA or an NJPA Member, and an Awarded Vendor. That identified “Trade-In” value shall be credited in full against the NJPA purchase price identified in a purchase order issued pursuant to any Awarded NJPA procurement contract. The full value of the trade-in will be consideration to that purchase order. G. OUT OF STOCK NOTIFICATION 8.13 Vendor shall immediately notify NJPA members upon receipt of order(s) when an out-of -stock occurs. Vendor shall inform the NJPA member regarding the anticipated date of availability for the out- of- stock item(s), and may suggest equivalent substitute(s). • The ordering organization shall have the option of accepting the suggested equivalent substitute, or canceling the item from the order. • Under no circumstance is Proposer permitted to make unauthorized substitutions. • Unfilled or substituted item(s) shall be indicated on the packing list. H. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT RESULTING FROM THIS RFP 8.14 NJPA reserves the right to cancel the whole or any part of a resulting Contract due to failure by the Vendor to carry out any obligation, term or condition as described in the below procedure. Prior to any termination for cause, the NJPA will provide written notice to the Vendor, opportunity to respond and opportunity to cure according to the steps in the procedure in this Cancellation Section. Some examples of material breach are the following:  The Vendor provides material that does not meet reasonable quality standards and is not remedied under the warranty;  The Vendor fails to ship the products or provide the services within a reasonable amount of time;  NJPA has reason to believe the Vendor will not or cannot perform to the requirements of the Contract and issues a request for assurance as described herein and Vendor fails to respond;  The Vendor fails to observe any of the material terms and conditions of the Contract; and/or,  The Vendor fails to follow the established procedure for purchase orders, invoices and/or receipt of funds as established by the NJPA and the Vendor in the Contract.  The Vendor fails to report quarterly sales volume;  The Vendor fails to actively market this Contract within the guidelines provided in this RFP and the expectations of NJPA. 8.15 Each party shall follow the below procedure if the Contract is to be terminated for violations or non-performance issues: Step 1: Issue a warning letter outlining the violations and/or non-performance and state the length of time (10 days) to provide a response and correct the problem(s) if reasonably possible in such time frame. Step 2: Issue a letter of intent to cancel Contract, if the problem(s) is not resolved within fifty (50) days. Step 3: Issue letter to cancel Contract for cause. 8.16 Upon receipt of the written notice of concern, the Vendor shall have ten (10) business days to provide a satisfactory response to the NJPA. Failure on the part of the Vendor to reasonably address all issues of concern may result in Contract cancellation pursuant to this Section. 8.17 Any termination shall have no effect on purchases that are in progress at the time the cancellation is received by the NJPA. The NJPA reserves the right to cancel the Contract immediately for convenience, RFP 081411 30 of 47 without penalty or recourse, in the event the Vendor is not responsive concerning the remedy, the performance, or the violation issue within the time frame, completely or in part. 8.18 NJPA reserves the right to cancel or suspend the use of any Contract resulting from this RFP if the Vendor files for bankruptcy protection or is acquired by an independent third party. Prior to commencing services under this Contract, the Proposer/Vendor must furnish NJPA certification from insurer(s) proving level of coverage usual and customary to the specific industry. The coverage is to be maintained in full effect during the Contract period. Vendor must be willing to provide, upon request, certification of insurance to any NJPA member or member using this Contract. 8.19 Either party may execute Contract termination without cause with a required 60-day written notice of termination. Termination of Contract shall not relieve either party of financial, product or service obligations incurred or accrued prior to termination. 8.20 NJPA may cancel any Contract resulting from this solicitation without any further obligation if any NJPA employee significantly involved in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting or creating the Contract on behalf of the NJPA is found to be in collusion with any Proposer to this RFP for their personal gain. Such cancellation shall be effective upon written notice from the NJPA or a later date if so designated in the notice given. A terminated Contract shall not relieve either party of financial, product or service obligations due to participating member or NJPA. 8.21 Events of Automatic termination to include:  Vendor’s or NJPA’s voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy or insolvency;  Vendor’s failure to remedy a material breach of a Contract resulting from this RFP within sixty (60) days of receipt of notice from NJPA specifying in reasonable detail the nature of such breach; and/or,  Receipt of written information from any authorized agency finding activities of Vendors engaged in pursuant to a Contract resulting from this RFP to be in violation of the law. 9. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. ADVERTISEMENT OF RFP 9.1 As a policy, NJPA shall advertise this solicitation 1) for two consecutive weeks in both the print and on-line editions of the MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE, 2) it shall be placed on a national wire service by the MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE, 3) it shall be posted on NJPA’s website, 4) it shall be posted to the website of “Noticetobidders.com,” and 5) it shall be posted to other third-party websites deemed appropriate by NJPA. Other third party advertisers may include Onvia and Bidsync, B. ADVERTISING OF A CONTRACT RESULTING FROM THIS RFP 9.2 Proposer/Vendor shall not advertise or publish information concerning this Contract prior to the award being announced by the NJPA. Once the award is made, a Vendor is expected to advertise the awarded Contract to both current and potential NJPA Members. C. APPLICABLE LAW 9.3 NJPA Compliance with Minnesota Procurement Law: Contracts awarded through NJPA are intended to meet the procurement laws of all states and NJPA will exhaust all avenues to comply with as many state laws as possible. It is the responsibility of each participating NJPA member to insure to their satisfaction that these laws are satisfied. An individual NJPA member using these contracts is deemed by their own accord to be in compliance with proposal regulations. NJPA encourages the awarded Vendor to assist NJPA and the NJPA member in this research to the benefit of all involved. RFP 081411 31 of 47 9.4 Governing Law: All applicable portions of the Minnesota Uniform Commercial Code and all other applicable Minnesota laws shall govern contracts with the National Joint Powers Alliance®. Any claims pertaining to this RFP and any resulting Contract that develop between NJPA and any other party must be brought forth only in courts in Todd County in the State of Minnesota. 9.5 Vendor Compliance with applicable law: Vendor(s) shall comply with all federal, state, or local laws applicable to or pertaining to the sale of the products/services resulting from this RFP. All such laws, whether or not herein contained, shall be included by this reference. It shall be Proposer’s/Vendor’s responsibility to determine the applicability and requirements of any such laws and to abide by them. 9.6 Indemnity: Each party agrees it will be responsible for its own acts and the result thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. NJPA’s liability shall be governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section §3.736, and other applicable law. 9.7 Prevailing Wage: It shall be the responsibility of the Vendor to comply, when applicable, with prevailing wage legislation in effect in the jurisdiction of the purchaser (NJPA or NJPA Member). It shall be the responsibility of the Vendor to monitor the prevailing wage rates as established by the appropriate department of labor for any increase in rates during the term of this Contract and adjust wage rates accordingly. 9.8 Patent and Copyright infringement: If an article sold and delivered to NJPA or NJPA Members hereunder shall be protected by any applicable patent or copyright, the Vendor agrees to indemnify and save harmless NJPA and NJPA Members against any and all suits, claims, judgments, and costs instituted or recovered against it by any person whosoever on account of the use or sale of such articles by NJPA or NJPA Members in violation or right under such patent or copyright. D. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT 9.9 No right or interest in this Contract shall be assigned or transferred by the Proposer/Vendor without prior written permission by the NJPA. No delegation of any duty of the Proposer/Vendor shall be made without prior written permission of the NJPA. The NJPA shall notify the members within fifteen (15) days of receipt of written notice by the Vender. After issuance the awarded Contract may be reassigned to a comparable Vendor at the discretion of NJPA. 9.10 If the original Vendor sells or transfers all assets or the entire portion of the assets used to perform this Contract, a successor in interest must guarantee to perform all obligations under this Contract. NJPA reserves the right to reject the acquiring person or entity as a Vendor. A simple change of name agreement will not change the contractual obligations of the Vendor. E. PROPOSERS LIST 9.11 NJPA will not maintain or communicate to a proposers list. All interested proposers must respond to the solicitation as a result of one of the methods of proposal advertisements listed above. Because of the scope of the potential Members and national Vendors, NJPA has determined this to be the best method of fairly soliciting proposals. F. CAPTIONS, HEADINGS, AND ILLUSTRATIONS 9.12 The captions, illustrations, headings, and subheadings in this solicitation are for convenience and ease of understanding and in no way define or limit the scope or intent of this request. RFP 081411 32 of 47 G. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 9.13 If a Proposer wishes to withhold any part of its proposal from public inspection, then a statement advising the NJPA of this fact shall accompany the submission. NJPA shall review the statement to determine whether the information shall be withheld. If NJPA determines to disclose the information, the Executive Director of NJPA shall inform the Proposer, in writing, of such determination prior to award of Contract to Proposer. H. DATA PRIVACY 9.14 Proposer agrees to abide by all applicable STATE and FEDERAL laws and regulations including HIPPA concerning the handling and disclosure of private and confidential information regarding individuals. Proposer agrees to hold NJPA harmless from its unlawful disclosure and/or use of private/confidential information. I. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 9.15 The Contract, as defined herein, shall constitute the entire understanding between the parties to that Contract. 9.16 A Contract resulting from this RFP is formed when the NJPA Board of Directors approves and signs the applicable Acceptance and Award Form document (see Form D). J. FORCE MAJEURE 9.17 Except for payments of sums due, neither party shall be liable to the other nor deemed in default under this Contract if and to the extent that such party’s performance of this Contract is prevented due to force majeure. The term “force majeure” means an occurrence that is beyond the control of the party affected and occurs without its fault or negligence including, but not limited to, the following: acts of God, acts of the public enemy, war, riots, strikes, mobilization, labor disputes, civil disorders, fire, flood, snow, earthquakes, tornadoes or violent wind, tsunamis, wind shears, squalls, Chinooks, blizzards, hail storms, volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, famine, sink holes, avalanches, lockouts, injunctions- intervention-acts, terrorist events or failures or refusals to act by government authority and/or other similar occurrences where such party is unable to prevent by exercising reasonable diligence. The force majeure shall be deemed to commence when the party declaring force majeure notifies the other party of the existence of the force majeure and shall be deemed to continue as long as the results or effects of the force majeure prevent the party from resuming performance in accordance with a Contract resulting from this RFP. Force majeure shall not include late deliveries of products/services caused by congestion at a manufacturer’s plant or elsewhere, an oversold condition of the market, inefficiencies, or other similar occurrences. If either party is delayed at any time by force majeure, then the delayed party shall notify the other party of such delay within forty-eight (48) hours. K. GRATUITIES 9.18 NJPA may cancel this Contract by written notice if it is found that gratuities, in the form of entertainment, gifts or otherwise, were offered or given by the Proposer/Vendor or any agent or representative of the Proposer/Vendor, to any employee of the NJPA are deemed to be excessive with a view toward securing a contract or with respect to the performance of this Contract. L. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 9.19 Proper Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), in compliance with OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard, must be provided by the Vendor to NJPA or NJPA Member at the time of purchase. RFP 081411 33 of 47 M. LEGAL REMEDIES 9.20 All claims and controversies between NJPA and Vendor shall be subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and are to be resolved in Todd County, Minnesota, the county in which NJPA is domiciled. N. LICENSES 9.21 Proposer/Vendor shall maintain a current status on all required federal, state, and local licenses, bonds and permits required for the operation of the business conducted by the Proposer/Vendor. 9.22 All responding Proposers must be licensed (where required) and have the authority to sell and distribute offered products/services to NJPA and NJPA Members in all states. Documentation of said licenses and authorities, if applicable, is requested. O. MATERIAL SUPPLIERS AND SUB-CONTRACTORS 9.23 The apparent successful Vendor shall be required to supply the names and addresses of sourcing suppliers and sub-contractors when requested. 9.24 Awarded Vendors under this RFP will be the sole source of responsibility for transactions originating that award. The Awarded Vendor is solely responsible for products/services and services provided by third party sourcing or service providers. P. NON-WAIVER OF RIGHTS 9.25 No failure of either party to exercise any power given to it hereunder, nor to insistence upon strict compliance by the other party with its obligations hereunder, and no custom or practice of the parties at variance with the terms hereof, nor any payment under a Contract resulting from this RFP shall constitute a waiver of either party’s right to demand exact compliance with the terms hereof. Failure by NJPA to take action or assert any right hereunder shall not be deemed as waiver of such right. Q. PROTESTS OF AWARDS MADE 9.26 Protests shall be filed with the NJPA’s Executive Director and shall be resolved in accordance with appropriate state statutes of Minnesota. Protests will only be accepted from Proposers. A protest must be in writing and filed with NJPA. A protest of an award or proposed award must be filed within ten (10) days after the public notice or announcement of the award. No protest shall lie for a claim that the selected Proposer is not a responsible Proposer. A protest must include: 1. The name, address and telephone number of the protester; 2. The original signature of the protester or its representative; 3. Identification of the solicitation by RFP number; 4. Identification f the statute or procedure that is alleged to have been violated; 5. A precise statement of the relevant facts; 6. Identification of the issues to be resolved; 7. The aggrieved party’s argument and supporting documentation. R. PROVISIONS REQUIRED BY LAW 9.27 Proposer/Vendor agrees in the performance of a Contract resulting from this RFP, it has complied with or will comply with all applicable statutes, laws, regulations, and orders of the United States and any State thereof. RFP 081411 34 of 47 S. PUBLIC RECORD 9.28 All proposals submitted to this invitation shall become the property of the NJPA and will become a matter of public record and available for review subsequent to the award notification. Proposals may be viewed by appointment at the NJPA offices Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. T. RIGHT TO ASSURANCE 9.29 Whenever one party to this Contract has reason to question the other party’s intent to perform, he/she may demand a written assurance of this intent. In the event a demand is made and no written assurance is given, the demanding party may treat this failure as an anticipatory repudiation of the Contract provided, however, in order to be effective, any such demand shall be addressed to the authorized signer for the party from whom the assurance is being sought, and sent via U.S. Postal Service, certified mail, return receipt requested or national overnight delivery service with proof of delivery. U. SUSPENSION OR DISBARMENT STATUS 9.30 If within the past five (5) years, any firm, business, person or Proposer submitting a proposal has been lawfully precluded from participating in any public procurement activity with a federal, state or local government, the Proposer must include a letter with its response setting forth the name and address of the public procurement unit, the effective date of the suspension or debarment, the duration of the suspension or debarment and the relevant circumstances relating to the suspension or debarment. Any failure to supply such a letter or to disclose pertinent information may result in the cancellation of any Contract. By signing the proposal affidavit, the Proposer certifies that no current suspension or debarment exists. V. HUMAN RIGHTS CERTIFICATE 9.31 If Proposer is not domiciled in Minnesota and has NOT on any single working day in the past year, employed more than 40 employees in the State of Minnesota, Proposer must provide a statement to that effect. 9.32 If Proposer is not domiciled in Minnesota and has on any single working day in the past year, employed more than 40 employees in the State of Minnesota, Proposer must document their application for a Human Rights Certificate issued by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights. Proposer must also document receipt by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights of that application and the Proposer’s affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and qualified disabled individuals. 9.33 If Proposer is domiciled in Minnesota and has on any single working day in the past year, employed more than 40 employees in the State of Minnesota, Proposer must provide a copy of their “Certificate of Compliance” from the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. W. SEVERABILITY 9.34 In the event that any of the terms of a Contract resulting from this RFP are in conflict with any rule, law, statutory provision or are otherwise unenforceable under the laws or regulations of any government or subdivision thereof, such terms shall be deemed stricken from a Contract resulting from this RFP, but such invalidity or unenforceability shall not invalidate any of the other terms of a Contract resulting from this RFP. X. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES 9.35 No Contract resulting from this RFP shall be considered a contract of employment. The relationship between NJPA and an Awarded Contractor is one of independent contractors each free to exercise judgment and discretion with regard to the conduct of their respective businesses. The parties do not RFP 081411 35 of 47 intend the proposed Contract to create, or is to be construed as creating a partnership, joint venture, master-servant, principal–agent, or any other relationship. Except as provided elsewhere in this RFP, neither party may be held liable for acts of omission or commission of the other party and neither party is authorized or has the power to obligate the other party by contract, agreement, warranty, representation or otherwise in any manner whatsoever except as may be expressly provided herein. RFP 081411 36 of 47 PROPOSER QUESTIONNAIRE Form A Proposer Name: _________________________________________________________________________ Questionnaire completed by: ______________________________________________________________ Please provide an answer to all questions below and address all requests made in this RFP. Please use the Microsoft Word/Excel document version of this questionnaire to respond to the questions contained herein. Please provide your answer to each question indented below the question. Please supply any applicable supporting information and documentation you feel appropriate in addition to answers entered to the Word document. All information must be typed, organized, and easily understood by evaluators. Company Information 1) Why did you respond to this RFP? 2) Provide a brief history of your company that includes its goals and philosophy. 3) Provide profiles and an organizational chart for key sales and marketing executives of your company that will oversee the implementation and operation of a Contract resulting from this RFP. 4) How long has your company has been in the PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, industry? 5) Is your organization best described as a manufacturer or a distributor/dealer/re-seller for a manufacturer of the products and services being proposed? a) If the Proposer is best described as a re-seller, manufacturer aggregate, or distributor, please provide evidence of your authorization as a dealer/re-seller/manufacturer aggregate for the manufacturer of the products you are proposing. b) If the Proposer is best described as a manufacturer, please describe your relationship with your sales/service force and/or Dealer Network in delivering the products and services proposed. Are these people your employees, or the employees of a third party? 6) For public companies, provide your most recent annual report to shareholders. 7) For private companies, provide your most recent year-end financial statements, your bond rating, and/or a credit reference from your bank. 8) Provide a discussion of licenses and certifications both required to be held, and actually held by your organization in pursuit of the commerce contemplated by this RFP. 9) Provide a discussion of licenses and certifications both required to be held, and actually held by third parties and sub- contractors to your organization in pursuit of the commerce contemplated by this RFP. If not applicable, please respond with “Not Applicable.” Industry-Marketplace Successes 10) List and document recent industry awards and recognition. 11) Supply three references/testimonials from customers similar to NJPA Members. Please include the customer’s name, contact, and phone number. 12) Provide names and addresses of the top five (5) governmental or education customers and dollar volumes from the past year. 13) Provide documentation indicating the total dollar volume for each of your sales to government, education, and non- profit agencies for the last three (3) fiscal years. Proposer’s ability to sell and service nationwide. 14) Please describe your sales force in terms of numbers, geographic dispersion, and the proportion of their attention focused on the sale of the products/services contemplated in this RFP? a) Are these individuals your employees, or RFP 081411 37 of 47 are they employees of a third party? 15) Please describe your service force in terms of numbers, geographic dispersion, and the proportion of their attention focused on the sale of the products/services contemplated in this RFP? a) Are these individuals your employees, or are they employees of a third party? 16) Describe in detail your customer service program regarding process and procedure. Please include, where appropriate, response time commitments. 17) Identify any geographic areas or NJPA market segments of the United States you will NOT be serving through the proposed contract. 18) Identify any of NJPA Member segments you will NOT be serving? (Government, Education, Non-profit) Marketing Plan 19) Describe your training program for both greet-the-public and sales management levels relating to a NJPA award. 20) Describe your general marketing program strategy to promote the proposed Contract nationally. 21) Describe your marketing material, and overall marketing ability, relating to promoting this type of partnership and contract opportunity. As much as possible, please send marketing materials in electronic format only to save paper. 22) Describe your use of technology and the internet to provide marketing and product awareness. 23) Describe your perception of NJPA’s role in marketing the partnership and your products/services. 24) Describe the unique quality of the products/services in your proposal in relationship to others available in the market. Value Added Attributes 25) Describe any training programs available as options for members. 26) Describe technological advances your proposal products/services offer. 27) Describe your “Green” program as it relates to your company, your products, and your recycling program, including a list of all green products accompanied by the certifying agency for each. 28) Describe any Women or Minority Business Entity (WMBE) or Small Business Entity (SBE) accreditations of your organization directly involved in a Contract resulting from this RFP. 29) Identify any other unique or custom value added attributes. 30) Identify any service contract options included in the proposed price, or offered as a proposed option, for the products or services being offered. 31) Identify your ability and willingness to service Canada specifically and internationally in general. 32) Describe any unique distribution method employed in your proposal. Payment Terms and Financing Options 33) Identify your payment terms. (Net 30, etc.) 34) Identify any applicable leasing or other financing options as defined herein. 35) Briefly describe your proposed order process for this proposal and contract award. (Note: order process may be modified or refined during an NJPA member’s final Contract phase process). Warranty 36) Describe, in detail, your Warranty Program including conditions to qualify, claims procedure, and overall structure. 37) Do all warranties cover all material and labor? 38) Do warranties impose usage limit restrictions? 39) Do warranties cover the technicians travel time to perform warranty repairs? 40) Please list any other limitations or circumstances that would not be covered under your warranty. 41) Please list any geographic regions of the United States for which you cannot provide a certified technician to perform warranty repairs. How do NJPA Members in these regions receive warranty work? Other Cooperative Procurement Contracts Held 42) Identify all cooperative governmental procurement contracts which are marketed in more than one state held or utilized by the Proposer. RFP 081411 38 of 47 43) Identify all government or state procurement contracts held or utilized by the Proposer with any State of the United States. 44) Identify any GSA Contracts held or utilized by the Proposer. 45) If you are awarded the NJPA contract, are there any market segments (e.g., higher education, county governments, etc.) or geographical markets where the NJPA contract will not be your primary contract purchasing vehicle? If so, please identify those markets and which cooperative purchasing agreement will be your primary vehicle. Products/Services and Pricing 46) Provide a general narrative description of the products/services and services you are offering in your proposal. 47) Provide a general narrative description of your pricing model identifying how the model works (line item and/or percentage discount). 48) Propose a strategy, process, and specific method of facilitating “Sourced Goods” solution as defined herein. 49) Provide an overall statement of method of pricing for individual line items, catalogs and category pricing with regard to all products/services and being proposed. Provide a SKU number for each item being proposed. 50) Provide a “CORE LIST” of products/services (as anticipated and defined by Proposer to meet or exceed the NJPA members needs) as a separate and named spreadsheet. Include special pricing, if any, on these items. 51) Provide, if any, your volume rebate programs 52) Identify any Total Cost of Acquisition (as defined herein) cost(s) which is NOT included “Pricing” submitted with your proposal response. Identify to whom these items are payable and their relationship to Proposer. 53) As an important part of the evaluation of your offer, you must indicate the level of pricing you are offering. Prices offered in this proposal are: ________ a. The same as typically offered to an individual municipality or school district. ________ b. The same as typically offered to cooperative procurement organizations or state purchasing departments. ________ c. Better than typically offered to cooperative procurement organizations or state purchasing departments. (Your proposal will be considered “Non-Responsive” if this question is not answered.) 54) Do you offer quantity or volume discounts? _____ YES _____ NO Outline guidelines and program. 55) Describe your shipping, exchange and return program(s) and policy(s). Also specifically identify those programs as they relate to Alaska and Hawaii. 56) Identify the Proposer’s proposal for an administrative fee payable to NJPA for facilitation and promotion of the Contract opportunity invited here. This fee should be calculated as a percentage of Contract sales. Authorized Signature (Same signature as on Proposal Affidavit Signature and Acceptance Form) RFP111010 Page 39 of 47 Form B PROPOSER INFORMATION Company Name: _________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ City/State/Zip: ___________________________________________________________________________ Phone: _____________________________________ Fax: ____________________________________ Toll Free Number: ___________________________ E-mail: __________________________________ Web site: _______________________________________________________________________________ Voids sometimes exist between management (those who respond to RFPs) and sales staff (those who contact NJPA Members) that result in communication problems. Due to this fact, provide the names of your key sales people, phone numbers, and geographic territories for which they are responsible COMPANY PERSONNEL CONTACTS Contract Manager: _________________________________________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ Name: _________________________________________Title:______________________________________ Email: _______________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ Name: _________________________________________Title:______________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ Name: _________________________________________Title:___________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ Name: _________________________________________Title:___________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ Name: _________________________________________Title:___________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ Name: _________________________________________Title:___________________________________________ Email: ________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________ RFP111010 Page 40 of 47 EXCEPTIONS TO PROPOSAL, TERMS, CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS REQUEST Form C Company Name: _____________________________________________________________________________ Note: Original must be signed and inserted in the inside front cover pouch. Any exceptions to the Terms, Conditions, Specifications, or Proposal Forms contained herein shall be noted in writing and included with the proposal submittal. Please sign and date the bottom of each page of this document. RFP Page Number Section Term, Condition, or Specification Exception RFP111010 Page 41 of 47 Proposal Offering And Acceptance and Award RFP #102811 FORM D PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, Proposal Offering (To be completed Only by Proposer) In compliance with the Request for proposal (RFP) for PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, the undersigned warrants that I/we have examined this RFP and, being familiar with all of the instructions, terms and conditions, general specifications, expectations, technical specifications, service expectations and any special terms, do hereby offer and agree to furnish the defined products/services and services in compliance with all terms, conditions of this RFP, any applicable amendments of this RFP, and all Proposer’s Response documentation. Proposer further understands they are the sole offeror herein and that the performance of any sub-contractors employed by the Proposer in fulfillment of this offer is the sole responsibility of the Proposer. Company Name: _______________________________ Date: ___________________________________________ Company Address: _______________________________________________________________________________ City:_________________________________________ State: ____________ Zip: __________________________ Contact Person: ________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________ Authorized Signature (ink only): ___________________________________________________________________ (Name printed or typed) Contract Acceptance and Award (To be completed only by NJPA) Your proposal offering is hereby accepted and awarded. As an awarded Proposer, you are now bound to provide the defined goods and services contained in your proposal offering according to all terms, conditions, and pricing set forth in this RFP, any amendments to this RFP, and the Proposer’s Response. The effective date of the Contract be ______________, __________ and continue for four years thereafter AND which is subject to annual renewal at the option of both parties. National Joint Powers Alliance® (NJPA) NJPA Authorized signature: _______________________________________________________________________ (Name printed or typed) Title: ____Executive Director NJPA____________________________________ Awarded this ________________ day of ____________________________ Contract Number # 102811 NJPA Authorized signature: ________________________________________________________________________ (Name printed or typed) Title: _____________________________________________________________ Executed this ________________ day of ____________________________ Contract Number # 102811 RFP 111010 Page 42 of 47 PROPOSER ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE Form E Proposal Affidavit Signature Page PROPOSER’S AFFIDAVIT The undersigned, representing the persons, firms and corporations joining in the submission of the foregoing proposal (such persons, firms and corporations hereinafter being referred to as the “Proposer”), being duly sworn on his/her oath, states to the best of his/her belief and knowledge: 1. The undersigned certifies the Proposer is submitting their proposal under their true and correct name, the Proposer has been properly originated and legally exists in good standing in its state of residence, that the Proposer possesses, or will posses prior to the delivery of any goods and services, all applicable licenses necessary for such delivery, and that they are authorized to act on behalf of, and encumber the “Proposer” in this Contract, and 2. To the best of my knowledge, no Proposer or Potential Proposer, nor any person duly representing the same, has directly or indirectly entered into any agreement or arrangement with any other Proposers, Potential Proposers, any official or employee of the NJPA, or any person, firm or corporation under contract with the NJPA in an effort to influence either the offering or non-offering of certain prices, terms, and conditions relating to this RFP which tends to, or does, lessen or destroy free competition in the letting of the Contract sought for by this RFP, and 3. The Proposer or any person on his/her behalf, has not agreed, connived or colluded to produce a deceptive show of competition in the manner of the proposal or award of the referenced contract, and 4. Neither I, the Proposer, nor, any officer, director, partner, member or associate of the Proposer, nor any of its employees directly involved in obtaining contracts with the NJPA or any subdivision of the NJPA, has been convicted of false pretenses, attempted false pretenses or conspiracy to commit false pretenses, bribery, attempted bribery or conspiracy to bribe under the laws of any state or federal government for acts or omissions after January 1, 1985, and 5. The Proposer has examined and understands the terms, conditions, scope, contract opportunity, specifications request and other documents of this solicitation and that any and all exceptions have been noted in writing and have been included with the proposal submittal, and 6. If awarded a contract, the Proposer will provide the products/services and/or services to qualifying members of the NJPA in accordance with the terms, conditions, scope of this RFP, Proposer offered specifications and other documents of this solicitation, and 7. The undersigned, being familiar with expectations and specifications request outlined in this RFP under consideration, hereby proposes to deliver through valid service request, Purchase Orders or forms for NJPA Members per this RFP, only new, unused and first quality products/services and services to designated NJPA Members, and 8. The Proposer has carefully checked the accuracy of all items and listed total price per item in this proposal. In addition, the Proposer accepts all general terms and conditions of this RFP, including all responsibilities of commitment and delivery of services as outlined, and 9. In submitting this proposal, it is understood that the right is reserved by the NJPA to reject any or all proposals and it is agreed by all parties that this proposal may not be withdrawn during a period of 90 days from the date proposals were opened regarding this RFP, and 10. The Proposer certifies that in performing this Contract they will comply with all applicable provisions of the federal, state, and local laws, regulations, rules, and orders, and 11. If Proposer has more than 40 employees in the state in which their principal place of business is located, Proposer RFP 111010 Page 43 of 47 hereby certifies their compliance with federal affirmative action requirements. Company Name: Contact Person for Questions: _____________________ Phone: _______________________________________ (Must be individual who is responsible for filling out this Proposer’s Response form) Address: ____________________________________________________________________________________ City/State/Zip: _______________________________________________________________________________ Telephone Number: _____________________________ Fax Number: _________________________________ E-mail Address:______________________________________________________________________________ Authorized Signature: _________________________________________________________________________ Authorized Name (typed): ______________________________________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________________________________________________ Notarized Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______________ the day of ___________________ , 20______________ Notary Public in and for the County of __________________________________________ State of __________ My commission expires: _______________________________________________________________________ Signature: __________________________________________________________________________________ RFP 111010 Page 44 of 47 Form G. OVERALL EVALUATION AND CRITERIA In accordance with accepted standards of competitive sealed proposal awards as set forth in the Minnesota Procurement Code, competitive sealed proposals/awards will be made to responsible Proposers whose proposals are determined in writing to be responsive and also be the most advantageous to NJPA and its NJPA Members. To qualify for the final evaluation, a Proposer must have been deemed responsive as a result of the criteria set for “Proposer Responsiveness.” A proposal must have been submitted on time and materially satisfy all mandatory requirements identified in this document. Evaluation for:____________________________________________________________________ For the Proposed Subject PASSENGER CARS, LIGHT DUTY, MEDIUM DUTY, AND HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS WITH RELATED ACCESSORIES, The evaluation criteria for this solicitation, not arranged in order of importance: Available Points Points Awarded Conformance to terms and conditions to include documentation 75 Pricing 300 Industry and Marketplace Successes 50 Bidder's Ability to Sell and Service Contract Nationally 100 Bidder's Marketing Plan 75 Value Added Attributes 75 Invoicing Payment Terms and Financing Options 25 Warranty Coverages and Information. 100 Selection and Variety of Products and Services Offered 200 Total Points 1000 0 Bonus Points awarded for: Bidders "Green" characteristics 50 Bidders Dissadvantaged Business Entity Charactoristics 50 Overall Evaluation Points 1100 0 Proposed Reviewed by: _________________________________________ Its_________________________________ _________________________________________ Its_________________________________ RFP 111010 Page 45 of 47 FORM H State Of Minnesota – Affirmative Action Certification If your response to this solicitation is or could be in excess of $100,000, complete the information requested below to determine whether you are subject to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minnesota Statutes 363A.36) certification requirement, and to provide documentation of compliance if necessary. It is your sole responsibility to provide this information and—if required—to apply for Human Rights certification prior to the due date and time of the proposal or proposal and to obtain Human Rights certification prior to the execution of the contract. The State of Minnesota is under no obligation to delay proceeding with a contract until a company receives Human Rights certification BOX A – For companies which have employed more than 40 full-time employees within Minnesota on any single working day during the previous 12 months. All other companies proceed to BOX B. Your response will be rejected unless your business: has a current Certificate of Compliance issued by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) –or– has submitted an affirmative action plan to the MDHR, which the Department received prior to the date and time the responses are due. Check one of the following statements if you have employed more than 40 full-time employees in Minnesota on any single working day during the previous 12 months:  We have a current Certificate of Compliance issued by the MDHR. Proceed to BOX C. Include a copy of your certificate with your response.  We do not have a current Certificate of Compliance. However, we submitted an Affirmative Action Plan to the MDHR for approval, which the Department received on __________________ (date). [If the date is the same as the response due date, indicate the time your plan was received: ________ (time). Proceed to BOX C.  We do not have a Certificate of Compliance, nor has the MDHR received an Affirmative Action Plan from our company. We acknowledge that our response will be rejected. Proceed to BOX C. Contact the Minnesota Department of Human Rights for assistance. (See below for contact information.) Please note: Certificates of Compliance must be issued by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Affirmative Action Plans approved by the Federal government, a county, or a municipality must still be received, reviewed, and approved by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights before a certificate can be issued. BOX B – For those companies not described in BOX A Check below.  We have not employed more than 40 full-time employees on any single working day in Minnesota within the previous 12 months. Proceed to BOX C. BOX C – For all companies By signing this statement, you certify that the information provided is accurate and that you are authorized to sign on behalf of the responder. You also certify that you are in compliance with federal affirmative action requirements that may apply to your company. (These requirements are generally triggered only by participating as a prime or subcontractor on federal projects or contracts. Contractors are alerted to these requirements by the federal government.) Name of Company: Date Authorized Signature: Telephone number: Printed Name: Title: For assistance with this form, contact: Minnesota Department of Human Rights, Compliance Services Section Mail: 190 East 5th St., Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101 TC Metro: (651) 296-5663 Toll Free: 800-657-3704 Web: www.humanrights.state.mn.us Fax: (651) 296-9042 TTY: (651) 296-1283 RFP 111010 Page 46 of 47 Form I State of Minnesota — Immigration Status Certification By order of the Governor’s Executive Order 08-01, vendors and subcontractors MUST certify compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) and certify use of the E-Verify system established by the Department of Homeland Security. E-Verify program information can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs. If any response to a solicitation is or could be in excess of $50,000, vendors and subcontractors must certify compliance with items 1 and 2 below. In addition, prior to the delivery of the product or initiation of services, vendors MUST obtain this certification from all subcontractors who will participate in the performance of the contract. All subcontractor certifications must be kept on file with the contract vendor and made available to the state upon request. 1. The company shown below is in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 in relation to all employees performing work in the United States and does not knowingly employ persons in violation of the United States immigration laws. The company shown below will obtain this certification from all subcontractors who will participate in the performance of this contract and maintain subcontractor certifications for inspection by the state if such inspection is requested; and 2. By the date of the delivery of the product and/or performance of services, the company shown below will have implemented or will be in the process of implementing the E-Verify program for all newly hired employees in the United States who will perform work on behalf of the State of Minnesota. I certify that the company shown below is in compliance with items 1 and 2 above and that I am authorized to sign on its behalf. Name of Company: _____________________________________ Date: ___________________________________ Authorized Signature: _______________________________________ Telephone Number: ________________________ Printed Name: ___________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________ If the contract vendor and/or the subcontractors are not in compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act, or knowingly employ persons in violation of the United States immigration laws, or have not begun or implemented the E-Verify program for all newly hired employees in support of the contract, the state reserves the right to determine what action it may take. This action could include, but would not be limited to cancellation of the contract, and/or suspending or debarring the contract vendor from state purchasing. For assistance with the E-Verify Program Contact the National Customer Service Center (NCSC) at 1-800-375-5283 (TTY 1-800-767-1833). For assistance with this form, contact: E-mail: MMDHelp.Line@state.mn.us Telephone: 651.296.2600 Persons with a hearing or speech disability may contact us by dialing 711 or 1.800.627.3529 Mail: 112 Administration Bldg, 50 Sherburne Ave. St. Paul, MN 55155 Page 47 of 47 Pre-submission Checklist  Have you read and understood the RFP?  Have you attended the Pre-Bid Conference for this RFP?  Have you completed the questionnaire (Form A) to the best of your ability?  Have you submitted pricing for all of the goods and services you offer within the scope of this RFP?  Have you submitted a “Sourced Goods Multiplier?  Have you packaged your bid submission identifying conspicuously “Competitive Bid Enclosed, Please hold for public opening XX-XX-XXX”.  Have you sent your package in sufficient time for physical delivery at 200 1st ST NE Staples, MN 56479 will occur prior to the deadline for delivery?  Have you submitted original completed and executed forms C,D,E,H, and I from this RFP?  Have you submitted verification of liability insurance with the coverage and limits required in the RFP?  Have you provided an electronic copy (saved on a CD or flash drive) of your entire proposal including, but not limited to, Forms A,B,C, D,E,H, and I in your proposal? City of Palo Alto (ID # 4997) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Update Title: Approval of Resolution Extending the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Boundares and Program Trial for Additional 12 Months From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing staff to continue the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program trial until September 2015, and to expand the boundaries of the program. Executive Summary On August 12, 2013, Council approved the implementation of a No Overnight Parking program on select streets within the Crescent Park neighborhood. The program was developed to address concerns and complaints that non- residents were parking within the Crescent Park neighborhood, resulting in noise, litter and blocked driveways. Crescent Park residents petitioned and the City implemented a No Overnight Parking program requiring residents to display a valid City of Palo Alto parking permit on their vehicles between the hours of 2:00am and 5:00am. Only residents of streets within the program boundaries are eligible to purchase permits. Residents are allowed up to two annual permits per household at a cost of $100 each. The original staff report can be found in Attachment A. The program has proved successful at addressing resident concerns and an extension of the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking trial program is warranted. Background Table 1 lists the streets which were originally declared eligible for the program based on the initial Council direction, and indicates at the writing of this report whether or not the street has chosen to opt into the program. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Table 1 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Trial Program Participating Streets Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status Edgewood Drive between Southwood and Patricia Opted In September 2013 Newell Road between Edgewood and Dana Opted in September 2013 Phillips Road Opted in September 2013 Madison Way Opted in September 2013 Hamilton Ave between Island and Alester Opted in September 2013 Jefferson Drive Opted in September 2013 Southwood Court Opted In November 2013 Crescent Drive Opted in November 2013 Dana Avenue, Ashby to Alester Opted in November 2013 East Crescent Drive Opted In December 2013 Center Drive Opted in June 2014 Island Drive Opted in April 2014 Kings Lane Opted in April 2014 Newell Road, Dana to Pitman Opted in November 2013 Pitman Avenue, 1432 to 1494 Pitman Petition Received; Surveys Distributed Southwood Drive from Hamilton to Edgewood Petition Distributed West Crescent No Petition Request Dana Avenue from Ashby to Center No Petition Request Ashby Drive No Petition Request Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Center No Petition Request Hamilton Avenue from Center to West and Crescent No Petition Request Louisa Court No Petition Request Hamilton Avenue from Island Drive to West Crescent No Petition Request University Avenue between East Crescent and Lincoln Avenue Pending Approval Hamilton Avenue between Lincoln and West Crescent Pending Approval Center Drive from Hamilton to Channing Avenue Pending Approval Newell Road from Alester/Dana to Channing Avenue Pending Approval Arcadia Place Pending Approval Newell Place Pending Approval City of Palo Alto Page 3 Lincoln Avenue between University and Hamilton Pending Approval Attachment B is a presentation which staff gave to the Crescent Park Annual Neighborhood Association in June. The presentation includes a summary of parking occupancy on participating streets in the program both before and after implementation. In most cases the program has drastically reduced parking occupancy on the streets on which it has been implemented, and has received favorable feedback from the Crescent Park residents. Enforcement of the streets is based primarily on resident-request but the Police Department does provide random enforcement. An estimated 275 parking citations have been issued since the implementation of the program. During initial implementation of the program, as blocks have opted into the program, parking occupancy on adjacent streets increased. This has meant that the program has grown as more residents organized and requested inclusion. Figure 1 shows the streets that are currently part of the program, the streets which have been approved for the program since last fall, and the streets which staff is recommending eligibility into the program for the upcoming year, based on resident requests. Figure 1 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program Current Participation and Proposed Program Eligibility City of Palo Alto Page 4 By adding additional street blocks into the program eligibility, residents of those streets are given the opportunity to organize and solicit participation by the City. The process that residents must follow includes: 1) Residents submit a petition signed by at least one member of at least 50% of the parcels on the street (City staff prepares the petition for residents); 2) The City issues a postal survey to verify participation/interest of all residents and a 70% support rate of responses returned is required for approval; 3) Following validation of majority support, City staff implements signs and residents are notified of eligility to purchase parking permits at City Hall. The additional street segments recommended for eligibility into the Crescent Park No Overnight trial parking program include:  University Avenue between East Crecent and Lincoln Avenue  Hamilton Avenue between Lincoln Avenue and West Crescent  Center Drive between Southwood Drive-Hamilton Avenue to Channing Avenue  Newell Road between Pitman Avenue-Louisa Court to Channing Avenue  Arcadia Place  Newell Place University Avenue in particular has experienced noticable parking impacts in recent months. University Avenue eligibility into the program will allow a resident champion to begin the petition and postal survey process for inclusion of the street. Staff is also pursuing sight distance improvements at intersections along Crescent Drive. Adding streets to the overnight parking restrictions requires a modification of the existing Crescent Park resolution, which summarizes the street names which are eligible for the program. The updated resolution has been provided in Attachment C for the Council’s consideration. Resource Impact The Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program currently receives no on-going targeted enforcement, the program is complaint driven. In addition, because the program enforcement period is during the early morning hours, the parking control officer program does not actively enforce the area, enforcement is by uniformed police officers as needed. The limited target enforcement minimizing the programs operations costs. The Revenue Collections Department manages permit sales at a cost of $100.00 per permit. During the first year trial of the program the city sold 222 permits over the trial period realizing about $20,000 in revenues to offset the limited enforcement and permit management costs. Permits were sold at various times of the year and permits purchased after the initial 6-months of the program were sold at a prorated basis. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Environmental Review Extension of existing parking restrictions and the additoin of streets to the program are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Here it can be seen with certainty that the minor changes proposed will not have a significant impact and CEQA does not apply. (Public Resources Code 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)). Attachments:  Attachment A: City Council Report dated August 5, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment B: Update on Crescent Park dated June 25, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment C: Resolution Expanding NOP in Crescent Park (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3969) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/5/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Resolution Title: Adoption of a Resolution Allowing the Implementation of a One-Year Trial No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Program on Streets within the Crescent Park Neighborhood From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution authorizing staff to implement a one-year trial for No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) program within certain street blocks of the Crescent Park Neighborhood. Background Citizens from the Crescent Park Neighborhood reached out to the City earlier this year requesting that the City implement parking restrictions within their neighborhood in order to limit parking intrusion from outside the neighborhood. This request was based on complaints involving overcrowded streets, blocking of driveways, noise and litter caused by overnight street parking. Following the initial request, the City implemented full-time, “No Parking” restrictions along Newell Road between Edgewood Drive and the Newell Road Bridge. Traffic calming improvements to improve pedestrian safety at Newell Road and Edgewood Drive and Newell Road and Hamilton Avenue were also implemented. These improvements included crosswalk improvements and all-way stop intersection controls. The Crescent Park citizens requested additional parking restrictions, initially along Edgewood Drive and worked with staff to develop and circulate petitions for No Overnight Parking (2AM- 5AM) for the following roadway segments, to manage the expected limits of parking intrusion:  Edgewood Drive: Southwood Drive to Jefferson Drive  Phillips Road: Edgewood Drive to Madison Way City of Palo Alto Page 2  Hamilton Avenue: Island Drive to Madison Way  Dana Avenue: Half-Block sections north and south of Newell Road  Newell Road: Dana Avenue to Edgewood Drive Following receipt of the petitions in June, staff released a follow-up post card survey to validate resident interest from each separate street block. These surveys were released throughout the month of July. Please note that the additional street block segments of Edgewood Drive between Southwood Drive and Island Drive were added to the post card survey following a petition received after the release of the initial post card surveys. The following additional street blocks have requested or submitted petitions for the No Overnight Parking restrictions but postal surveys have not yet been administered:  Edgewood Drive: Jefferson Drive to Patricia Lane  Hamilton Avenue: Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive  Hamilton Avenue: Madison Way to Alester Avenue  Madison Way: Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive  Jefferson Drive: Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive City staff required a minimum 70% support response from each street block to forward the restrictions to the Council for consideration. 70% has been the standard positive response rate used in Palo Alto for traffic calming programs. These restrictions would apply to resident vehicles, not just non-residents, and would be enforced by the Police Department. Overnight guest permits will be made available for residents that require parking for their guests at a cost of $5.00 per permit per night. Even with the guest permits, standard parking restrictions governed by the California Vehicle Code and Palo Alto Municipal Code continue to apply including a 72-hour parking restriction to avoid the storage of vehicles within the public right- of-way. The City has continued to accept responses to the post card survey through the month of July leading to the council meeting where this resolution will be considered. Table 1 below provides the findings of the post card survey through July 30th: Table 1 Crescent Park Neighborhood Post Card Survey Response No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Considerations City of Palo Alto Page 3 No. Street Block Segment No. of Households No. of Survey Responses (Yes and No) % Positive Support from Responses 1 Edgewood Drive Southwood Dr to Island Dr 7 5 100% 2 Edgewood Drive Island Dr to Newell Rd 20 18 94% 3 Edgewood Drive Newell Rd to Jefferson Dr 18 15 80% 4 Phillips Road Edgewood Rd to Madison Wy 9 9 89% 5 Hamilton Avenue Island Dr to Newell Rd 28 20 70% 6 Hamilton Avenue Newell Rd to Madison Wy 14 10 70% 7 Dana Avenue North of Newell Rd 14 10 30% 8 Dana Avenue South of Newell Road 16 13 54% 9 Newell Road Edgewood Dr to Hamilton Av 3 3 100% 10 Newell Road Hamilton Av to Dana Av 4 4 100% The post card survey shows that a majority of residents living on street blocks along Newell Road and towards the easterly limits of Crescent Park are in support of the No Overnight Parking Restrictions with only both blocks of Dana Avenue not currently in support of the restrictions. Staff recommends implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) for the streets that have positive support (70%+) for the restrictions to be implemented as a Phase 1 deployment City of Palo Alto Page 4 by September. Streets that opt to add in later can be deployed immediately upon receipt of a new petition and administration of another post card survey as a Phase 2 deployment. Under the current proposal, street blocks that did not have strong support for immediate implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) restrictions could opt in later. This recommendation is consistent with the conversations staff has had with neighborhood leaders. Therefore, staff requests authorization to implement additional restrictions in the future as part of this resolution including the blocks of: Edgewood Drive between Jefferson Drive and Patricia Lane; Hamilton Avenue: Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive; Hamilton Avenue between Madison Way and Alester Avenue; Madison Way: Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive; and Jefferson Drive: Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive, if supported by residents, for which a post card survey will be released following approval of the proposed resolution. Attachment A includes the Resolution. Attachment B describes the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 No Parking (2AM-5AM) considerations. Attachment C includes a sample of the post card survey released by the City. It is important to note that this is a proposed as a one-year pilot program. Staff will continue to work with neighborhood residents, as well as adjacent neighborhoods and communities to ensure that the program is being implemented as effectively as possible. Furthermore, staff will evaluate the ultimate request from many neighborhood residents for a Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program. Finally, staff will continue to work with City of East Palo Alto staff and nearby apartment owners on addressing the parking supply issue that is resulting in the need for this parking restriction trial. The City held a community meeting July 30th to present the above findings to residents. Residents noted that the proposed No Overnight Parking restrictions were not an ideal solution and that Residential Parking Permit (RPP) was a preferred alternative but that the proposal was a good step forward while solutions for RPP options are discussed further with the community. Residents from streets on Hamilton Avenue near Center Drive-Southwood Drive and on Madison Way and Jefferson Drive requested inclusion in the future Phase 2 program. Policy Implications The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 – Restrictions Established – Signs Designating allows the installation of parking restrictions by time-of-day following a city council ordinance or resolution. Vehicles that are cited for parking in areas where time restrictions have been established are cited by the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.40.020 (b) – Signs or Curb Markings to Indicated No Stopping and Parking Regulations. The California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22507.5 – Local Regulations allows the issuance of City of Palo Alto Page 5 Day Permits for parking through parking restricted periods of the day for residents and their guests. Resource Impact The design and construction of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) are estimated to cost approximateyl $12,000 and will be funded through the existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – PL12000 (Parking & Transportation Improvements) project. The Revenue Collections Department will make available for purchase Overnight Guest Permits for specific use by the Crescent Park Neighborhood on a limited basis at a cost of $5.00 per permit. Permits are good one night only and a limited amount of permits will be available. Timeline The City recommends implementation of the signage restrictions through the remainder of August followed by a 2-week warning period for vehicles that continue to park during the new No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) period with citations being issued on an as-needed basis by mid-September. City staff expects to meet with neighborhood residents at the six-month mark and again near the end of the one-year trial to assess te effectiveness of the program and at the year end to coniser recommendation for continuation or discontinuation of the program. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution for Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (PDF)  Attachment B: Crescent Park - No Overnight Parking Survey Findings (PDF)  Attachment C: Sample Crescent Park Postal Survey (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 1 130729 jb 0131119 Resolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Implementing No Overnight Parking Restrictions around the Crescent Park Neighborhood as a One Year Trial Program R E C I T A L S A. Some of the residents of Crescent Park have requested No Overnight Parking Restrictions (2AM – 5AM) to minimize the impacts of parking intrusion on individual blocks. The following street block segments have been identified by staff as appropriate areas for the restrictions, pending resident support through a post card survey: No. Street Street Block Segment No Parking Restriction Period Post Card Survey Support 1 Edgewood Drive Southwood Drive to Island Drive 2AM – 5AM 100% 2 Edgewood Drive Island Drive to Newell Road 2AM – 5AM 94% 3 Edgewood Drive Newell Road to Jefferson Dr 2AM – 5AM 80% 4 Edgewood Drive Jefferson Drive to Patricia Lane 2AM – 5AM Pending 5 Phillips Road Edgewood Drive to Madison Way 2AM – 5AM 89% 6 Hamilton Avenue Island Drive to Newell Road 2AM – 5AM 70% 7 Hamilton Avenue Newell Road to Madison Way 2AM – 5AM 70% 8 Hamilton Avenue Madison Way to Alester Avenue 2AM – 5AM Pending 9 Hamilton Avenue Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending 10 Jefferson Drive Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending 11 Dana Avenue North of Newell Road Half Way to Ashby Drive 2AM – 5AM 30% 12 Dana Avenue South of Newell Road Half Way to Alester Avenue 2AM – 5AM 54% 13 Madison Way Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending 14 Newell Road Edgewood Drive to Hamilton Avenue 2AM – 5AM 100% 15 Newell Road Hamilton Avenue to Dana Avenue 2AM – 5AM 100% B. The Post Card surveys administered by the City in July 2013 show a majority of the streets being supportive of the implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) restrictions. C. The current results of the survey are depicted in Exhibit A which is attached and incorporated by reference. Phase 1 streets have expressed support for the proposed overnight parking restriction and Phase 2 streets have been identified by staff as potential candidates for such regulations pending resident support. NOT YET APPROVED 2 130729 jb 0131119 D. The City Council finds that there is a parking intrusion problem in parts of the Crescent Park neighborhood and desires to implement a pilot one year program to attempt to mitigate this problem. E. The California Vehicle Code Section 22507.5 authorizes the City to enact, by ordinance or resolution, parking restrictions on public streets between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. and further authorizes the City to provide for a system of permits for the purpose of exempting from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution, disabled persons, residents, and guests of residents of residential areas. F. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 allows for the implementation of parking restrictions. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council authorizes staff to implement No Overnight Parking Restrictions on all of the street block segments identified in Recital A and labeled as Phase 1 and Phase 2 in Exhibit A as petitions by residents are received. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block upon receipt and verification of a minimum 70% support from surveys received. SECTION 2: Vehicles displaying overnight residential parking permits for the designated streets shall be exempt from the posted parking restriction. SECTION 3: The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. // // // // // // // // NOT YET APPROVED 3 130729 jb 0131119 SECTION 4: This program shall expire within one year of adoption unless extended by City Council. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment SCALE: NONE 10-o 10-a> +-' c a> () Channing Av Legend: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Survey Findings Phase 1 -Community Support Received Phase 2 -Community Support Pending Last Update: 7-31-13 SCALE: NONE 10-o 10-a> +-' c a> () Channing Av Legend: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Survey Findings Phase 1 -Community Support Received Phase 2 -Community Support Pending Last Update: 7-31-13       June 17, 2013                                                            Dear Edgewood Drive Resident,    The City received a petition requesting the installation of No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM)  restrictions for the areas designed on the map on the other side of this notice within the  Crescent Park Neighborhood.  The City is supportive of implementing parking considerations  requested by residents as long as the improvements are supported by a majority of residents.    In order for the City to implement the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM)  Restrictions a 70% positive response rate for each street block from surveys returns is required.   The restrictions will be implemented on a block‐by‐block basis for streets where the 70%  support threshold is received. The City Council will also need to approve a resolution  implementing the parking restriction.  Street blocks that do not have the 70% positive response  now, or that that did not originally request the parking restrictions, can request them at a later  date following the receipt of a petition circulated by residents.     This survey notice is intended to validate support for No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM)  restrictions identified in the petition for the block of Edgewood Drive between Island Drive and  Newell Road.    Please indicate your preference for the No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM) restrictions by  completing and returning this survey in the self‐addressed stamped envelope provided.  The  City will accept survey responses through Friday, July 5th and present the results of the survey  process at a community meeting tentatively scheduled the week of July 22nd; a separate  community meeting notice card will be issued prior to the meeting with meeting location and  time information.    If you live on a street that you believe does not need restrictions at this time we encourage you  to complete the survey and return it as support will be evaluated based on returned surveys  only.  In addition, you may feel restrictions are appropriate after being implemented on an  adjacent street and the City restrictions can be implemented later following receipt of a  petition.    If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City of Palo Alto – Transportation  Division at (650) 329‐2442 or by email at transportation@cityofpaloalto.org.     Crescent Park Neighborhood  No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5PM) Restrictions  Survey                                             XXXX Edgewood Drive    Please mark your preference to only one of the options below:    □   We support the implementation of No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM) restrictions along  Edgewood Drive between Island Drive and Newell Road.  We understand that resident and non‐ resident vehicles parked on the street during this time period will be subject to citations during  the time restriction period.  □   We do not support the implementation of No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM) restrictions along  Edgewood Drive between Island Drive and Newell Road.    Comments:              Please return survey by July 5, 2013 to: City of Palo Alto    Transportation Division    250 Hamilton Avenue    Palo Alto, CA  94301  Survey for No Overnight  Parking (2AM to 5AM)  Restrictions on Edgewood  Drive, Island Drive to Newell  Road.  1 Update on the Crescent Park No  Over Night Parking (NOP) Program Crescent Park Neighborhood Association June 25, 2014 2 Agenda Program Boundaries – Then and Now Occupancy Studies Wrap Up and Questions 3 Program Background Original program boundaries – August 2013 4 Program Background Current Program Boundaries (Center in Process) June 2014 5 Parking Occupancy Studies Name of Street Before NOP  Program  (8/21/13) After NOP  Program  (1/22/14) Parking Reduction, % Edgewood 87 19 79% Hamilton (Newell to Island) 22 11 50% Newell (to Dana) 13 1 99% Phillips 16 3 82% Madison 6 4 67% Jefferson141214% Hamilton (Newell  to Alester) 22 10 50% 6 Parking Occupancy Studies,  Cont. Name of Street Before NOP  Program (8/21/13) After NOP  Program (5/8/14)  / (6/11/14) Parking Reduction, % Crescent N/A 3 N/A E. Crescent N/A 8 N/A Dana –Newell to  Ashby 19 16 16% Dana –Newell to  Alester 21 23 +10% Kings Lane 19 7 63% Island Drive 22 8 64% 7 Summary and Other Notes In general CP streets are significantly less parked  where the NOP program is active Petition Completed for Center Dr (University to  Hamilton) – Installation Pending Request for NOP on Pitman Av Several residents have expressed interest in  including parts of University within the program  boundaries. Residents must put hangtag permits on rearview  mirrors, or may face citations 8 Recommendations Continue program for another year to allow  for development of a Citywide Residential  Preferential Parking (RPP) Policy to be  completed. Consideration 1:  University Avenue – Permanent No Parking on South Side of  Street with NOP on North? Consideration 2:Expand NOP to Channing  Avenue and Lincoln Av (see map) 9 Option: Year  2 CP NOP Limits Not Yet Approved Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expanding No Overnight Parking Restrictions around the Crescent Park Neighborhood as a One Year Trial Program R E C I T A L S A. On August 12, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution 9367 establishing a trial program prohibiting overnight parking from 2AM to 5AM on certain blocks in Crescent Park. On September 23, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9373A expanding the overnight ban to additional streets in the Crescent Park neighborhood and implementing a process for further extensions. B. Since adoption of the Resolution neighbors and staff have identified additional blocks that should be included in this trial program. The current streets and street segments that have been identified for inclusion in the trial program are depicted on Exhibit A attached and incorporated and described below: No. Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status 1 Edgewood Drive between Southwood and Patricia Opted In September 2013 2 Newell Road between Edgewood and Dana Opted in September 2013 3 Phillips Road Opted in September 2013 4 Madison Way Opted in September 2013 5 Hamilton Ave between Island and Alester Opted in September 2013 6 Jefferson Drive Opted in September 2013 7 Southwood Court Opted In November 2013 8 Crescent Drive Opted in November 2013 9 Dana Avenue, Ashby to Alester Opted in November 2013 10 East Crescent Drive Opted In December 2013 11 Center Drive Opted in June 2014 12 Island Drive Opted in April 2014 13 Kings Lane Opted in April 2014 14 Newell Road, Dana to Pitman Opted in November 2013 15 Pitman Avenue, 1432 to 1494 Pitman Petition Received; Surveys Distributed 16 Southwood Drive from Hamilton to Edgewood Petition Distributed 17 West Crescent No Petition Request 18 Dana Avenue from Ashby to Center No Petition Request 19 Ashby Drive No Petition Request 20 Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Center No Petition Request 140923 jb 0131260 1 Not Yet Approved 21 Hamilton Avenue from Center to West and Crescent No Petition Request 22 Louisa Court No Petition Request 23 Hamilton Avenue from Island Drive to West Crescent No Petition Request 24 University Avenue between East Crescent and Lincoln Avenue Pending Approval 25 Hamilton Avenue between Lincoln and West Crescent Pending Approval 26 Center Drive from Hamilton to Channing Avenue Pending Approval 27 Newell Road from Alester/Dana to Channing Avenue Pending Approval 28 Arcadia Place Pending Approval 29 Newell Place Pending Approval 30 Lincoln Avenue between University and Hamilton Pending Approval C. The City Council finds that there is a parking intrusion problem in parts of the Crescent Park neighborhood and desires to implement an additional one year pilot program to attempt to mitigate this problem. D. The California Vehicle Code Section 22507.5 authorizes the City to enact, by ordinance or resolution, parking restrictions on public streets between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. and further authorizes the City to provide for a system of permits for the purpose of exempting from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution, disabled persons, residents, and guests of residents of residential areas. E. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 allows for the implementation of parking restrictions. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1: Resolutions 9367 and 9373A are hereby repealed and superseded by this Resolution. SECTION 2: Restricted Parking Area. The City Council authorizes staff to retain the existing No Overnight Parking restrictions on the streets listed under Recital B that have opted in as indicated in Recital B. In addition, the City Council authorizes staff to allow additional streets listed under Recital B to be eligible for inclusion in the program upon successful completion of the process outlined in Section 3. SECTION 3: Petitions. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block upon receipt of the following: 140923 jb 0131260 2 Not Yet Approved 1.City-issued petition showing signatures from at least 50% of the block, and; 2.70% support from City-issued surveys to verify SECTION 4: Posting of Signs. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block. SECTION 5: Permits. The City shall provide overnight guest permits for residents that require parking for their guests at a cost not to exceed $5.00 per permit per night. A prepaid parking permit will be made available for use by residents and their guests at a cost of $100 per permit. Two (2) pre-paid permits will be available per household. SECTION 6: Exemption. Vehicles displaying overnight residential parking permits for the designated streets shall be exempt from the posted parking restriction. SECTION 7: CEQA. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. SECTION 8: This program shall be reviewed in 12 months to determine if it should continue. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 140923 jb 0131260 3 Exhibit A City of Palo Alto (ID # 5126) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Response to City of EPA GP Update NOP Title: Response to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the City of East Palo Alto General Plan Update From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to submit comments in response to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the East Palo Alto General Plan Update. Executive Summary The City of East Palo Alto has issued a Notice of Preparation of a Programmatic Environment Impact Report for their General Plan Update (Attachment A). The Notice of Preparation does not contain sufficient information to allow for detailed comments, and staff believes the attached draft letter (Attachment B) will communicate this concern. Background and Discussion The City of East Palo Alto (EPA) began work in the fall of 2013 to update their General Plan. East Palo Alto has completed the preparation of an Existing Conditions Report and visioning exercises with the public. They are currently developing alternatives and policy changes. An important component of the General Plan Update is the preparation of the Westside Area Plan, which will provide more detailed policy regulations for the area west of U.S Highway 101. This area borders Palo Alto and is adjacent to the Crescent Park and Duveneck-St. Francis neighborhoods. Accordingly, any changes proposed for this area plan would directly impact Palo Alto, and staff is concerned that the City of EPA’s Notice of Preparation does not specify the changes that are being considered, even though the City of EPA has had public workshops where significant increases in density have been discussed. More information on the update process can be found on the project website http://vista2035epa.org. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of EPA issued a Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on September 3, City of Palo Alto Page 2 2014. The close of the NOP comment period is October 3, 2014, however staff of East Palo Alto have agreed to extend the comment period to October 10, 2014 to allow for City Council review of the attached comment letter. The most significant concern that Palo Alto may have with the East Palo Alto General Plan Update would be any proposed land use or policy changes for their Westside Area Plan. Because of the area’s proximity to Palo Alto, any consideration of an increase in density or changes in use could have significant area-wide impacts. Staff will request that East Palo Alto better define the various growth scenarios that are being considered to allow for a clearer understanding of what potential impacts may be and what specific issues must be studied in the EIR. Next Steps Upon receiving authorization, the City Manager will submit an official comment letter to the City of East Palo Alto. Staff will also monitor East Palo Alto’s planning process and follow up with their staff as needed. East Palo Alto planning staff has also been invited to present a project summary to the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission later this fall. (Palo Alto planning staff has been invited to present a summary of the Comprehensive Plan Update to the East Palo Alto planning commission.) Attachments:  Attachment A: East Palo Alto General Plan Update Notice of Preparation of an EIR (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft Comment Letter for EPA GP Update NOP (PDF) Notice of Preparation 1 East Palo Alto General Plan & Zoning Code Update EIR NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO: State Clearinghouse, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, and Other Interested Parties DATE: September 3, 2014 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report Notice of EIR Scoping Meeting on September 22, 2014 LEAD AGENCY: City of East Palo Alto PROJECT TITLE: East Palo Alto General Plan and Zoning Code Update PROJECT AREA: City of East Palo Alto Notice is hereby given that the City of East Palo Alto (the “City”) will be the Lead Agency and will prepare a programmatic environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the East Palo Alto General Plan and Zoning Code Update (the “Project”). The Project, its location, and potential environmental effects are described below. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. § 15060(d)), the City has determined that an EIR is clearly required for the Project and as such an Initial Study will not be prepared and the City will begin work directly on the EIR. The City is requesting comments and guidance on the scope and content of the EIR from interested public agencies, organizations and the general public. With respect to the views of Responsible and Trustee Agencies as to significant environmental issues, the City needs to know the reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that are germane to each agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the Project. Responsible agencies may need to use the EIR prepared by the City when considering permitting or other approvals for the Project. We would appreciate your response at the earliest possible date; however due to time limits mandated by state law comments on the NOP are due no later than the close of the NOP review period on October 3, 2014. Please send your written comments to Anne Cook at the address shown below. Public agencies providing comments are asked to include a contact person for the agency. An EIR scoping meeting will be held by the Planning Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting on: September 22, 2014, 7:00 p.m. East Palo Alto City Council Chambers 2415 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 ATTACHMENT A Notice of Preparation 2 East Palo Alto General Plan & Zoning Code Update EIR Although the scoping meeting will provide an opportunity for the City to summarize the General Plan and Zoning Code Update process, the focus of the scoping meeting will be on the EIR only. PROJECT TITLE: East Palo Alto General Plan and Zoning Code Update LEAD AGENCY CONTACT: Anne Cook, General Plan Project Manager City of East Palo Alto, Community and Economic Development Department 1960 Tate Street East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: 650-853-3142 Email: acook@cityofepa.org INTRODUCTION: The purpose of an EIR is to inform decision-makers and the general public of the environmental effects of a proposed project. The EIR process is intended to provide environmental information sufficient to evaluate a proposed project and its potential to cause significant effects on the environment; examine methods of reducing adverse environmental impacts; and consider alternatives to a proposed project. The East Palo Alto General Plan and Zoning Code Update EIR will be prepared as a program EIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines. The project location, project description, and the potential environmental effects that will be evaluated in the EIR are described generally below. PROJECT LOCATION: The project area consists of all lands within the jurisdictional limits of the City of East Palo Alto, all of which are considered the General Plan Planning Area. The City of East Palo Alto is located on the San Francisco Peninsula in the San Francisco Bay Area, in southeastern corner of San Mateo County. The City is bounded on the north and west by the city of Menlo Park, on the east by the San Francisco Bay, and on the south by the city of Palo Alto. Regional access to East Palo Alto is provided by U.S. Highway 101 and State Routes 84, 109 and 114. San Francisquito Creek runs along the south and west edges of the City and flows through the Baylands preserve into San Francisco Bay. East Palo Alto is primarily a residential community that also contains a regional shopping center and a major hotel and office complex along U.S. Highway 101, and other commercial, industrial and agricultural uses. Figure 1 shows the Project location. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Notice of Preparation 3 East Palo Alto General Plan & Zoning Code Update EIR The City of East Palo Alto is preparing a comprehensive update and revision to its 1999 General Plan and its Zoning Code1 which, together, will serve as a blueprint to guide the City’s vision (also known as “Vista 2035”) for its long-term land use and development through the year 2035. See www.vista2035.epa.org for more information. There have been significant changes in East Palo Alto since the adoption of the 1999 General Plan, including substantial shifts in job and housing markets, demographics, and transportation and infrastructure needs. The General Plan Update process has therefore been designed to:  Respond to socio-economic and demographic changes;  Encourage community members to express their values and create a common vision for the City’s future;  Update policies for land use, community design, transportation, infrastructure, and quality of life, among others;  Prioritize community health and equity;  Include a chapter that provides focused policies for the Westside of the City to address major concerns there such as affordable housing, risk of flooding and infrastructure deficiencies. Focus on Community Health - Like most general plan and zoning code updates, the Project will include a prioritized, progressive, and practical set of policy measures and implementation actions which will be addressed in separate sections or “elements” as required by State law (land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety). Corresponding zoning code revisions and updates also will be made. Unlike many other general plan updates, however, the City of East Palo Alto will also include a specific focus on land use and planning goals and policies designed to positively affect the health and socio-economic well-being of the residents of East Palo Alto, who have long lagged behind other residents of San Mateo County on key indicators of public health and well- being. To this end, the City received a $1 million grant for the Project from the State’s Strategic Growth Council. As a condition of that grant, the success of the Project will be measured in large part by how well it addresses key indicators of public health, over the life of the Project. Health-related issues and goals and policy measures that address them will be incorporated throughout the Plan. Creating a safe and healthy community is a policy priority for the City of East Palo Alto, and will be a focus of Vista2035. There is increasing consensus that many aspects of the built environment – streets, buildings, parks, public space, and housing – influence the health of a community’s residents. Planning for a healthy community therefore involves issues as 1 City of East Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, Section 6100 et seq. Notice of Preparation 4 East Palo Alto General Plan & Zoning Code Update EIR seemingly diverse as land use, economics, transportation, air quality, parks, and demographics. Community health will be emphasized in the Project through a focus on a number of factors closely tied to health outcomes, including:  Socioeconomic issues such as income, poverty, and educational attainment;  Market issues such as unemployment, and the associated lack of health coverage;  Community issues such as walkable neighborhoods, availability of healthy foods, and alcohol and liquor store densities;  Safety issues such as pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile injuries and fatalities;  Housing issues such as overcrowding, affordability, and homelessness;  Open space issues such as proximity and access to parks; and  Environmental issues such as air quality and respiratory health, water availability and quality, climate change, and noise pollution. Land Use and Housing − Land use and housing policies also will be a major focus of the Project. Most of the City’s sales tax generators are concentrated at the Ravenswood 101 shopping center, a freeway-accessible regional shopping center that includes large anchor stores like IKEA and Home Depot. The Project will consider options to re-envision this shopping center to meet the needs of the future, which could include additional land uses and increased densities. It will also consider additional residential, retail, and other commercial uses along the University Avenue corridor, and elsewhere in the City. Although the City currently offers some of the most affordable housing in Silicon Valley, pressures on the housing market are continuing to push housing costs up. The City has long supported affordable housing within its boundaries. Updates to general plan policies are expected to include new and strengthen existing strategies for preserving affordability for existing residents, while also providing opportunities for new residential and mixed use development. Transportation and Mobility − Transportation and mobility are also key planning factors that impact the health of communities. Specific issues that will be addressed as part of the Project include:  Auto traffic: Heavy traffic volumes, congestion, and safety, especially on and around University Avenue and other roads that have become through-routes between Silicon Valley/Peninsula employment centers and major residential communities across the Dumbarton Bridge in the East Bay. Notice of Preparation 5 East Palo Alto General Plan & Zoning Code Update EIR  Pedestrians: Sidewalks in East Palo Alto can be intermittent or in poor condition, complicating and discouraging pedestrian travel.  Bicycles: Creating a city-wide bicycle network that overcomes major barriers, such as U.S. Highway 101. The rate of bicycle trips to work by City residents is four times the countywide average, so addressing gaps and barriers is of particular importance to the community.  Increasing transit access and availability. While transit coverage is relatively extensive, most services are infrequent, even during peak times, and are somewhat more focused on through-travel than on serving the needs of local residents. These discussions will be integrated throughout the General Plan Update so that the many and varied connections between General Plan topics and community health are considered. Community health cannot be treated as a stand-alone topic. Zoning Code Update – The Project includes updates to the City’s Zoning Ordinance to make zoning consistent with the General Plan Update as well as previously adopted City specific plans and ordinances. Updates to zoning will include the following topics, among others:  General site planning and zoning standards, including site access requirements; fences, hedges, walls, and screening; noise regulations; outdoor lighting standards; performance standards (e.g., air quality, glare, vibration); and other topics determined to be appropriate by City staff.  Affordable housing requirements, housing density bonus provisions, and related incentives, consistent with the City’s Municipal Code and State law.  Landscaping standards, including specific requirements for preliminary and final landscape plan submittal and review.  Off-street parking and loading standards organized into user-friendly tables, including parking and loading area design, parking lot landscaping requirements, pedestrian circulation requirements, and bicycle and motorcycle parking.  Sign standards organized into user-friendly tables with illustrative examples.  Regulations that address standards for specific land uses that may include, but are not limited to, alcoholic beverage sales, child daycare facilities, home occupations, recycling areas, second dwelling units, wireless and telecommunications facilities, and other uses as directed by City staff.  Updated City subdivision regulations (Title 16 - Subdivisions) to ensure full compliance with current California Subdivision Map Act requirements as interpreted by case law. Notice of Preparation 6 East Palo Alto General Plan & Zoning Code Update EIR  Updated and refined design guidelines already adopted by the City’s Planning Commission. EIR ANALYSIS: The EIR will evaluate the General Plan and Zoning Code Update for potential impacts on the environment and analyze proposed land use designations, urban design policies, and the environmental consequences of buildout of the General Plan planning area. The cumulative impacts discussion will consider relevant projects in and around the General Plan planning area that are not included as part of the Project. CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate alternatives to a project that could reasonably attain the project objectives while reducing any significant impact of the project, as well as considering the “No Project Alternative”. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT: The EIR will assess the Project’s potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts on all environmental factors outlined in the CEQA Environmental Checklist (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G) as follows:  Aesthetics  Agricultural and Forestry Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Geology/Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Hydrology/Water Quality  Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population/Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation/Traffic  Utilities/Service Systems Date: September 3, 2014 Signature: Anne E. Cook_______ Anne Cook General Plan Project Manager City of East Palo Alto Notice of Preparation 7 East Palo Alto General Plan & Zoning Code Update EIR Figure 1 – Project Location October 6, 2014  Anne Cook, General Plan Project Manager   City of East Palo Alto  Community and Economic Development Department   1960 Tate Street   East Palo Alto, CA 94303  Re: Comments on Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update  Dear Ms. Cook:  Thank you for the providing the City of Palo Alto with the opportunity to review and comment on the  Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the East Palo Alto General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report  (EIR).  We also greatly appreciate your agency’s extension of the comment period.  As a neighboring city,  Palo Alto shares many interests with East Palo Alto.  Among those interests are traffic, safety and flood  control, as well as other impacts from development located near the East Palo Alto and Palo Alto  borders.  Evaluating the impacts of a comprehensive document such as General Plan can be complex,  and, a strong public process for feedback can lead to a more robust planning process that will result in a  stronger document.    The City is specifically concerned that the NOP does not provide sufficient information about the  Westside Area Plan growth scenarios to permit us to comment effectively.   The analysis of the growth  scenarios is a critical component for the City of Palo Alto to understand not only the immediate effect,  but also the area wide and long term impacts that would occur from adoption of the proposed Westside  Area Plan.  Palo Alto has a significant interest in the future of the Westside area due to its proximity to  some of the City’s residential neighborhoods and potential impact on the already stressed  transportation network.  Impacts are not always contained within the boundaries of one jurisdiction.  A  well‐defined range for the growth scenarios must be carefully developed for a meaningful analysis in the  EIR.  Without a clearly identified range, it is not possible to provide the detailed comments or feedback  needed to begin the EIR process.   We would request that the growth scenarios be better defined before  analysis is to begin.   You should expect that our community will have significant concerns about increased density and its impacts. We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments and for your consideration of our comments.  If  you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community  Environment Director or Elena Lee, Senior Planner at (650) 617-3196 or email at  Elena.Lee@cityofpaloalto.org.    Sincerely,  James Keene  City Manager  ATTACHMENT B (DRAFT) cc: City Council Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment Molly Stump, City Attorney Elan Lee, Senior Planner cc: City Council Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment Molly Stump, City Attorney Elena Lee, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto (ID # 5138) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Blanket P.O. for Asphalt Concrete Title: Request for Approval of a Three-Year Blanket Purchase Order with Granite Rock Company in the Total Amount of $1,060,830 to be the Primary Supplier of Asphalt Concrete Products and Request for Approval of a Three- Year Blanket Purchase Order with Granite Construction Company in the Total Amount of $270,000 to be the Secondary Supplier of Asphalt Concrete Products, with Both Blanket Purchase Orders Supplying the Public Works and Utilities Departments From September 22, 2014 through September 21, 2017 (Continued From September 23, 2014) From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1.) Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute, a blanket purchase order with Granite Rock Company as the primary supplier of asphalt concrete products for a period of three years with funding in the amount not to exceed of $353,610 for the first year, adjusted in each subsequent year based on the Stone Mining & Quarry Producer Price Index (PPI); 2.) Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute, a blanket purchase order with Granite Construction as the secondary supplier of asphalt concrete products for a period of three years with funding in the amount not to exceed of $90,000 for the first year adjusted in each subsequent year based on the Stone Mining & Quarry Producer Price Index (PPI). Background The City has two different work groups using asphalt concrete in the Public Works and the Utilities Departments. The Public Works Department uses asphalt City of Palo Alto Page 2 concrete for performing repairs on damaged sections of roadway, sidewalk, and bike paths located on our public facilities, parks and streets. The projects related to roadway repair contribute to the improved pavement condition index score (PCI) throughout the City. The Utilities Department uses asphalt concrete to repair the streets after work has been completed on underground services throughout the City. The asphalt is hot, ready for application, and is picked up in various sized dump trucks owned and operated by City crews in quantities customized for the individual projects. The quantities typically required for these repairs range from 1 ton to 80 tons each day. Discussion Mix The asphalt mix varies dependent upon the area that is being repaired. For example, the mix required for repairing sidewalks has smaller aggregate mixed in compared to the aggregate mix used for paving streets. In order to provide the best adherence and life of the repair the mix needs to consistent and not compromised by foreign material. Additionally the mix needs to be between 275 and 300 degrees Fahrenheit for optimum application. If the mix cools too much before it can be placed, the mix will lose workability. The mix must then be rejected according to State and City standards. Rejected loads must be disposed of and cannot be reused. Batch and Drum Plants There are two primary methods of manufacturing asphalt concrete, either through the use of a batch plant or a drum plant. A batch plant allows City crews to specify the mix that they need for each job on demand, in the exact quantities needed and with minimal down time for the crews since the batch is manufactured on demand and the quantities are typically smaller and take less time to load. Due to the flexibility that a batch plant offers, these plants charge a premium for their product. The ability to order the exact amount and specific size places an additional cost on the supplier, and this leads to higher prices for the end user than prices charged for material from a drum plant. A drum plant does not have the ability to mix asphalt to order. Crews are forced to use whatever mix is being produced at the drum plant on any given day and City of Palo Alto Page 3 should one or a number of customers require large quantities, the mix may not even be available. Wait times at a drum plant are increased due to the volumes of material that are produced and picked up. Drum plants are designed for large projects primarily manufacturing a single product in quantities over 100 tons. Asphalt is manufactured at these plants well in advance of the large projects and stored in specially designed silos and as a result the temperature of the material can be inconsistent. The scope of work in the Request for Quotation (RFQ) requires that the primary supplier of asphalt concrete produce their product in a batch plant, as this affords the various crews the most flexibility when it comes to scheduling and completing jobs throughout the City. Besides the ability to specify the asphalt order on a daily basis when using a batch plant, the quality of asphalt produced in a batch plant surpasses the asphalt made in a drum plant due to the superior design of a batch plant’s material screening system and the fact that the material is manufactured on demand and the temperature is consistently ideal for maximum workability. This leads to better asphalt being put on the streets working toward the City’s goal of an increase in PCI for the City. While the higher level of quality and the on-demand flexibility does cost more up front, staff believes that the initial investment in a higher quality product pays off down the road with higher productivity and more jobs being completed each day. The RFQ also requires that the plant be located close enough to the City that traffic patterns and other conditions will not delay the delivery of hot asphalt to the job sites throughout the City. Having a primary supplier within 10 miles of the Municipal Service Center (MSC) gives staff the ability to schedule projects and plan pick up of the hot asphalt around expected events such as known traffic patterns. On larger projects our trucks may be required to pick up numerous loads in a day to complete the project as scheduled. Having a plant within close proximity not only ensures the temperature of the asphalt, avoiding a load arriving too cold and not meeting City standards, but also increases staff productivity minimizing travel time, particularly during peak traffic hours. Delays resulting in a temperature drop could result in the load being rejected and being dumped for recycling, wasting City funds on material and man-hours. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Bidding and Selection Process The RFQ for asphalt concrete and asphalt concrete products was sent to the only three supply vendors located near Palo Alto. A copy of the RFQ is included with this report as Attachment A. Bids were received from all three vendors on August 5, 2014. A review committee comprised of Public Works Department and Purchasing Division staff chose Granite Rock Company to be the City’s primary supplier of asphalt concrete and asphalt concrete products for use on City streets, sidewalks and roadways. Of the three suppliers that responded to the RFQ, only Granite Rock met all of the specific criteria required in the RFQ. Due to the stringent requirements this contract has historically had been deemed exempt from solicitation. However, on the advice from the City’s Purchasing Division during this current solicitation, they required the RFQ due to the fact that the business requirements (geographical local, delivery time, mix type) are biddable specifications/scope of work. Theoretically any supplier of asphalt could serve the City if they are willing to meet the criteria, but we have the obligation to prove that they choose not to. Vendor information is shown in Table 1 and bid summary in Table 2. RFQ #155219 Results Company Bidding Miles (One Way) From MSC Type of Asphalt Producing Plant Meets Criteria to be Primary Supplier of Asphalt Meets Criteria to be Secondary Supplier of Asphalt Cost Granite Rock 7.2 Batch Yes Yes $443.610.00 Granite Construction 10.6 Drum No Yes $241,000.00 Reed & Graham 18.2 Batch No No $325,950.00 Bid Summary: RFQ #155219 Bid Prices Bid Item Tons Bid Granite Rock Price Granite Construction Price Reed & Graham Price City of Palo Alto Page 5 Per Ton (Batch plant) Per Ton (Drum Plant) Per Ton (Batch Plant) Asphalt Concrete, 3/4” fine 1,000 $108.90 $75.00 $78.00 Asphalt Concrete, 1/2” fine 2,000 $111.40 $76.50 $79.00 Asphalt Concrete, 3/8” fine 100 $112.40 $81.00 $86.00 Asphalt Concrete, 1/4” fine 700 $113.40 No Bid $96.00 Asphalt Concrete, Sheet Asphalt 100 $116.40 No Bid $98.00 SS-1H Mixing Emulsion 1,000 (Gallons) $9.65 $5.00 $4.35 The criteria used to determine the primary supplier were the distance from the MSC, and the supplier’s ability to produce asphalt concrete in a batch plant. The criteria for the secondary supplier were similar, except for the fact that staff will accept asphalt concrete from a secondary supplier that is produced in a drum plant in the event the primary supplier cannot deliver. Granite Rock is the only supplier that is able to meet all of the requirements to be the primary supplier of asphalt to the City, therefore staff is recommending that Council approve and authorize the blanket purchase order for asphalt concrete with Granite Rock as the primary supplier. The City has previously had a blanket purchase order with Granite Rock, and staff has consistently received product that meets both State and City standards for consistent temperature and aggregate size. The fact that they are the closest batch plant to the City allows the different works groups to specify which particular product they will need that day, and have it back to the City in the timeliest manner. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Staff is also requesting that a second blanket purchase order be awarded to Granite Construction to be the secondary supplier of asphalt products. While reliable, asphalt plants occasionally go down for scheduled maintenance or for unforeseen equipment failures. Having a secondary supplier is important for the continuity of operations, and ensures that work gets completed in a timely manner. While staff does not foresee using much asphalt from the secondary supplier, the importance of having a backup supplier ensures that repairs and project schedules are not impacted. Because the secondary supplier is used so infrequently, allowing a greater travel distance for a short interim of time is acceptable. Resource Impact Funding for the purchase of material under this purchase order is available in the FY 2015 Public Works and Utility Departments’ operating budgets. Funding for contract years two and three are contingent upon Council approval of each department’s budget for each subsequent year. Policy Implications Authorization of the blanket order does not represent any change to the existing policy. Environmental Review The blanket order being supplied is in conformance with all applicable emissions laws and regulations. This purchase is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under the CEQA guidelines (Sections 15061 and 15301(c)). Attachments:  Attachment A: RFQ 155219 Asphalt Concrete Products (PDF) July 22, 2014 The City of Palo Alto, Purchasing and Contract Administration, on behalf of the Public Works Department, Public Services Division, the Utilities Department, Water, Gas, and Wastewater Division and Electrical Operations Division requests a quotation for: PROJECT TITLE: ASPHALT CONCRETE PRODUCTS REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) NUMBER RFQ155219 RFQ DUE DATE: TUESDAY, August 5, 2014 Documents will not be accepted after 3:00 P.M., Tuesday, August 5, 2014 Table of Contents: SECTION I Cover Page Request for Quotation and Bidder Required Information (including submittal instructions)* SECTION II Insurance Requirements Purchase Order Terms and Conditions SECTION III Specifications and Bidder’s Bid Pages* *Complete, sign and submit forms as instructed in the RFQ. Failure to complete and/or submit these forms may cause rejection of your Bid. FOR BID DOCUMENTS: CONTACT PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION (650) 329-2271 CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ155219 Rev. 12/02/10 1 BIDDER (COMPANY): _____________________________________________________ DATE: ______________ (Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION I – REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) AND BIDDER REQUIRED INFORMATION July 22, 2014 In response to this Request for Quotation (RFQ), the undersigned, as Bidder, declares that the only persons or parties interested in this Bid as principals are those named herein; that this Bid is made without collusion with any other person, firm or corporation; that the Bidder has carefully examined the specifications herein referred to; and the Bidder proposes and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, that the Bidder will contract with the City of Palo Alto (City), to provide all necessary materials, and furnish the specified requirements in this RFQ, in the manner herein prescribed and at the prices stated in the Bid. Project Title ASPHALT CONCRETE PRODUCTS City of Palo Alto Request for Quotation (RFQ) number: RFQ155219 Quotation Due Date Quotation acceptance period closes (your quotation must be received by purchasing and contract Administration not later than) 3:00 p.m. Tuesday, August 5, 2014. Buyer/Contracts Administrator Project Manager Michelle Nolen michelle.nolen@cityofpaloalto.org Todd Seeley todd.seeley@cityofpaloalto.org Telephone Number: (650) 329-2319 Telephone Number: (650) 496-5945 Specifications The specifications or scope of work included have been prepared to describe the standard quality, performance, and other characteristics needed to meet city requirements. The city will accept alternate proposals of a designed material, product, thing, service, “or equal”, and will determine if such alternate proposals are satisfactory in meeting a mandatory requirement or specification and if the proposed alternate meets the intent of the original mandatory requirement. Term of Agreement City intends to issue a Blanket Order to provide for the purchase and delivery of Asphalt Concrete Products as required by the Public Works Department, Public Services Division, the Utilities Department, Water, Gas, and Wastewater Division and the Utilities Department, Electrical Operations Division. A City of Palo Alto representative will issue release orders for goods on an as-requested and authorized basis. Quantities specified in the Bidder Bid Pages are approximate and total of the bid will be used for the purpose of selecting the lowest responsible bidder. Base on prior year’s activity, the yearly expenditures is estimated to $225,000 per year. The term of the pricing agreement shall be effective on the date of award and shall expire three years from the commencement date, subject to: Firm price for the initial term of the pricing agreement; City of Palo Alto City Council’s annual approval of each current year’s budget and appropriation of funds; The Vendor’s compliance with the terms and conditions as established by this RFQ; The Vendor’s satisfactory performance, and timely compliance with the requirements of this RFQ; and Firm pricing for the two optional twelve (12) month term extensions, as set forth herein. (Please check Bid Pages for price escalation clause for 2nd, and 3rd year.) Note: If a price increase is to apply to the City’s optional contract extensions specify such in the space provided on each bid schedule. CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ155219 Rev. 12/02/10 2 BIDDER (COMPANY): _____________________________________________________ DATE: ______________ (Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION I – REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) AND BIDDER REQUIRED INFORMATION Notwithstanding the foregoing, City may terminate the agreement, with or without cause, by providing ten (10) days written notice. Contract Award The contract, if awarded, shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The lowest bid shall be the lowest total of the bid prices quoted on the Bid Schedule. This total is being used for the purpose of determining the lowest bid. City will award a not-to-exceed amount based on the needs of and prices quoted. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.30.440, a responsible bidder is a bidder determined by the awarding authority: (1) To have the ability, capacity, experience and skill to perform the work, or provide the goods and/or services in accordance with the bid specifications; (2) To have the ability to perform the contract within the time specified; (3) To have the equipment, facilities and resources of such capacity and location and location to enable the bidder to perform the contract; (4) To have the ability to provide, as required, future maintenance, repair, parts and service for the use of goods purchased; (5) To have a record of satisfactory or better performance under prior contracts with the city or others; and (6) To have complied with applicable laws, regulations, policies (including city council policies), guidelines and orders governing prior or existing contracts performed by the bidder. F.O.B. Point Prices shall be F.O.B. Palo Alto, Freight Prepaid. Price shall include all applicable transportation and delivery charges. See Bid Schedule for delivery point. Submittal of Documents Submit documents by delivering or mailing to the Manager of Purchasing and Contract Administration (fax responses shall not be accepted). Bidders assume the risk of the method of dispatch chosen: (Delivery in person or by other carriers) City of Palo Alto Purchasing and Contract Administration Mezzanine, Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue, MS-MB Palo Alto, CA 94301 (US Mail only) City of Palo Alto Purchasing and Contract Administration Mail Stop - MB PO Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Marking instructions All Bids/Quotations and accompanying documents shall be submitted in a sealed envelope. The outside of the envelope shall be marked, and identified in the manner specified below: Quotation Enclosed Project Title: PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PRODUCTS RFQ 155209 Bidder/Company name, and return address. Complete, sign and submit the RFQ/Bidder Information, Nondiscrimination Certification, and Bidder Bid Pages with your quotation. Failure to complete and/or submit these forms may cause rejection of your quotation. All quotations must be submitted on these forms. Decision to Reject The City reserves the right to reject any or all quotations, to waive any informalities contained therein, and to select quotations on an item-by-item basis. The City reserves the right to award more than one contract from this solicitation. No quotation may be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) days following the date of bid opening. The terms and conditions (the provisions) that shall govern any resulting agreement between City and the Lowest Responsible Bidder are contained in this RFQ. No charges of any kind will be allowed unless specifically made part of your quotation and are specified in your response. CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ155219 Rev. 12/02/10 3 BIDDER (COMPANY): _____________________________________________________ DATE: ______________ (Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION I – REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) AND BIDDER REQUIRED INFORMATION Exceptions To the specifications or requirements issued must be itemized and justified in writing and included with proposals or quotations submitted. Taxes Quotations shall include all applicable federal, state and local taxes, import duties, commissions or other charges. Bidder Information Provide the information requested below or indicate “not applicable”, if appropriate: A. Name and Address of Bidder (Company) – also provide “Remit To” address if different: _____________________________________ ______________________________________ _____________________________________ ______________________________________ _____________________________________ ______________________________________ Telephone Number: _____________________ Facsimile number: _______________________ E-Mail: ________________________________ Website:: _______________________________ B. Bidder is a: □California Corporation □Corporation organized under the laws of the State of ______________________________, with head offices located at __________________________________________________, and offices in California at __________________________.________________________. □Limited Liability Company List name of managing member(s): __________________________________________________________________________ □Sole Proprietorship _____________________________________________ proprietor. □Partnership □Limited Liability Partnership List names of general partners; state which partner or partners are managing partner(s) _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ □Other (attach Addendum with explanatory details) C. Have you (or your firm) previously worked for the City of Palo Alto? ____ Yes, or ____ No (if “Yes”, list above, or if necessary, provide information on additional sheets). D. Contractors license, number/type (if required): ____________________________________________ E. The Bidder represents that it has not retained a person to solicit or secure a City contract (upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee) except for CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ155219 Rev. 12/02/10 4 BIDDER (COMPANY): _____________________________________________________ DATE: ______________ (Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION I – REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFQ) AND BIDDER REQUIRED INFORMATION retention of bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business. F. During the Quotation process there may be changes to the Quotation documents, which would require an issuance of an addendum or addenda. City disclaims any and all liability for loss, or damage to any Bidder who does not receive any addendum issued by City in connection with this RFQ. Any Bidder in submitting a Quotation is deemed to waive any and all claims and demands Bidder may have against City on account of the failure of delivery of any such addendum to Bidder. Any and all addenda issued by City shall be deemed included in this RFQ, and the provisions and instructions therein contained shall be incorporated to any Quotation submitted by Bidder. To assure that all Bidders have received each addendum, the following acknowledgment and sign-off is required. Failure to acknowledge receipt of addendum/addenda may be considered an irregularity in the Bid: Addendum number(s) received: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9 Or, _____ _____No Addendum/Addenda Were Received (check and initial). G. The firm and individuals listed below, certify that: they do not and in the performance of this contract they will not discriminate in employment of any person because of race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person; and further certify that they are in compliance with all Federal, State and local directives and executive orders regarding nondiscrimination in employment Signature must be the same signature as appears in Bidder Bid Pages: Officer* ____________________________________ (Signature) ____________________________________ (Printed name of signatory) ____________________________________ (Title of signatory) Or, The undersigned certifies that the Bidder is not a corporation, and is not subject to the requirements of California Corporations code, and hereby agrees to, and accepts the terms and conditions of this RFQ. ________________________________________________ (Signature) ________________________________________________ (Printed name of signatory) ________________________________________________ (Title of signatory) CITY OF PALO ALTO RFQ155219 Rev. 12/02/10 5 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION YES EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, YES INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II.CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III.ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A.PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. Rev. 11/07 6 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. A. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THENON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICEBEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303. Rev. 11/07 7 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE ACCEPTANCE/AGREEMENT: City of Palo Alto (City) reserves the right to reject any and all quotations, to waive any informalities, and, unless otherwise specified by Seller, to accept any item in a quotation. By accepting or filing this Purchase Order (P.O.), Seller agrees to the terms and conditions herein which shall prevail over any inconsistent provision in any form or other paper submitted by Seller. All shipments or services performed shall be deemed to have been made pursuant hereto. No other terms are acceptable. This P.O., including all specifications and drawings, shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties unless modified in writing by City. CITY’S PROPERTY: Seller agrees that the information, tools, jigs, dies, or materials, and drawings, patterns, and specification supplied or paid for by City shall be and remain City property and shall be held by Seller for City unless directed otherwise. Seller shall account for such items and keep them protected, insured, and in good working conditions without expense to City. DELIVERY: The terms of delivery are as stated on the reverse side hereof. The obligation of Seller to meet the delivery dates, specifications, and quantities set forth herein is of the essence of this P.O. No boxing, packing, or cartage charge will be allowed unless authorized by this P.O. Deliveries are to be made both in quantities and at times specified herein or, if not, such quantities and times are specified pursuant to City’s written instruction. Items not delivered may be canceled without penalty to City. Shipments in greater or lesser quantity that ordered may be returned at Seller’s expense unless written authorization is issued by City. PRICES: The price which Seller charges in filling this P.O. shall not be higher than Seller’s most recent quote or charge to City for such materials, supplies, services and/or installations unless City expressly agrees otherwise in writing. Notwithstanding the prices set forth the P.O. City shall receive the benefit of any general reduction in the price of any item(s) listed herein which may be made by Seller at any time prior to the last delivery of goods or services covered by this P.O. TERMINATION: City shall have the right to terminate this P.O. or any part thereof upon ten (10) days notice in writing to Seller. (1) Without Cause. City may terminate all or any part of this P.O. without cause. Any claim by Seller for damages due to termination without cause must be submitted to City within thirty (30) days after effective date of termination. (2) For Cause. If Seller fails to make any delivery in accordance with the agreed delivery date, delivery schedule, or otherwise fails to observe or comply with any of the other instructions, terms, conditions or warranties applicable to this P.O., City may, in addition to any other right or remedy provided by this P.O. or by law, terminate all or any part of this P.O. in writing without any liability of City with respect to Seller at any time during the term of this P.O. In the event of termination for cause, City may purchase supplies or services elsewhere on such terms or in such manner as City may deem appropriate and Seller shall be liable to City for any cost and other expenses incurred by City, which is charged to City. CHANGES: City shall have the right at any time by written notice via P.O. Change Order to Seller to make changes in the specifications, the quantity of items called for, delivery schedules, and requirements covering testing, packaging, or destination. Any claim by Seller for adjustment under this clause shall be deemed waived unless made in writing with then (10) days after receipt by Seller of notice of such change. Price increases or extensions of time for delivery shall not be binding on City unless evidenced by a P.O. Change Order issued by City’s Purchasing Manager. INSPECTION: City shall have the right to inspect and approve or reject any materials, supplies, services and/or installations upon arrival of notice of completion prior to payment without regard to the manner of shipment, completion, or any shipping or price terms contained in this P.O. All materials, supplies, services and/or installations must be furnished as specified. (1) Defective, damaged, and nonconforming materials and/or supplies may be returned for credit or refund, at Seller’s expense. City may charge Seller for all expenses of unpacking, examining, repacking and reshipping of such materials and/or supplies. (2) Defective, incorrect and nonconforming services and/or installations may be returned for credit or refund, at Seller’s expense. All of the above notwithstanding prior payment by City (3) City may waive defects that exist. WARRANTY: Seller expressly warrants that all materials, supplies, services and/or installations covered by this P.O. shall: (1) conform to the specifications, drawings, samples, or other descriptions specified by City or if none are so specified, to Seller’s standard specification or the standards of the ASTM or ANSI or other national standard organizations; (2) be new and unless specified to the contrary on the face hereof, will be free from defects in material and workmanship and will be free of all liens and encumbrances and will conform to any affirmation of facts made on the container or label; (3) be adequately contained, packaged, marked, labeled and/or provided in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws and regulations (including materials deemed hazardous); (4) be performed within the rules and regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (as amended); (5) be produced or transferred or disposed of as required by federal and state laws and regulation under the conditions of the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Hazardous Materials Control and Hazardous Waste Regulations; and other toxic laws and programs. Seller further expressly agrees to protect, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its employees and agents for any loss, damage, fine, liability, fee (including reasonable charges and fees) or expense arising in connection with or resulting from Seller’s failure to furnish materials or supplies or perform services that conform with any warranty contained herein. (6) have good marketable title. GOVERNING LAW: This P.O. shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, INSURANCE: Seller certifies, by acceptance, that he/she is an independent contractor. Seller shall protect, defend, and indemnify and hold City harmless against all damages, liability, claims, losses and expenses (including attorney’s fees) arising out of , or resulting in any way from Seller’s negligence in providing the goods or services purchased hereunder or from any act or omission of Seller, its agents, employees, or subcontractors, Seller shall maintain such public liability insurance, including contractual liability, automobile and general public liability, (including non-owned automobile liability) Worker’s Compensation, and employer’s liability insurance as well adequately protect City against such damage, liabilities, claims, losses, and expenses (including attorney’s fees). Seller agrees to submit certificates of insurance, evidencing its insurance coverage when requested by City. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CLAUSE: By acceptance of this P.O., Seller certifies it is in compliance with the Equal Opportunity Clause required by Executive Order 11246, as amended, and the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as amended, including Affirmative Action Compliance Programs for Veterans; Handicapped; and Minority Business, and other equal opportunity programs. FORCE MAJEURE: City may delay delivery or acceptance occasioned by causes beyond its control. Seller shall hold such materials, supplies, services and or installations at the direction of City and shall deliver them when the cause affecting the delay has been removed. City shall be responsible only for Seller’s direct additional costs in holding the goods or delaying performance of this P.O. and City’s request. Seller shall also be excused if delivery is delayed by unforeseen events beyond its reasonable control, provided Seller notifies City as soon as they occur. City may cancel this P.O. if such delay exceeds thirty (30) days from the original delivery date. Seller shall use its best efforts to grant preference to this P.O. over those of other customers, which were placed after this P.O. AUTHORITY OF AGENT OR FACTOR: Seller represents that, whenever it executes this P.O. on behalf of a third party as an agent or factor, it shall disclose the existence of the agency or factor relationship to City. Seller shall be deemed to have the legal authority to enter into this P.O. with City on behalf of the third party. INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: In the event of a conflict between the terms of this P.O. and the attached specification with respect to any obligation of Seller, the provision which impose the greater obligations upon Seller shall prevail. CITY OF PALO ALTO GDS Rev. 09/28/2012 8 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE EVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING REQUIREMENTS: Seller agrees to comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Requirements. (1) Hazardous Waste: Seller shall take-back all spent or otherwise discarded hazardous products sold to the City by the Seller if the spent or discarded products are classified as hazardous or universal wastes by State or Federal regulations. Seller shall provide convenient collection and recycling services (or disposal services if recycling technology is unavailable) for all universal wastes, which originate from the Vendor. Hazardous waste manifests or bills of lading must be provided to City staff upon request. Recycling and reuse of hazardous wastes must occur within the United States. Universal waste lists and information are available www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/UniversalWaste/. A hazardous waste list is available at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LEA/Training/wasteclass/yep.htm. Additional information can be obtained by contacting the City of Palo Alto Hazardous Waste Department at (650) 496-6980. (2) Zero Waste: Seller shall comply with the waste reduction, reuse and recycling requirements of the City’s Zero Waste Program. Seller acknowledges and agrees that if Seller fails to fully and satisfactorily comply with these requirements, the City will suffer, as a result of Seller’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Therefore, the Seller agrees that in addition to all other damages to which the City may be entitled, in the event Seller fails to comply with the below requirements Seller shall pay City as liquidated damages the amounts specified below. The liquidated damage amount is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer as a result of such non-compliance. •Sellers shall adhere to the standard that all printed materials provided to the City that are generated from a personal computer and printer including, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials shall be double-sided, printed on a minimum of 50% post-consumer content paper or greater unless otherwise approved by the City’s Environmental Services Division (650) 329-2117. Materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 50% post-consumer material or greater and printed with vegetable based inks. Liquidated damages of $30 per document will be assessed by City for failure to adhere to this requirement.. •All secondary and shipping (tertiary) packaging generated shall first be minimized/reduced to the maximum extent feasible while protecting the product shipped. •All paper packaging must be Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified. •Expanded plastics (e.g., foam or cushion blocks, trays, packing “peanuts”), such as but not limited to polystyrene (aka Styrofoam™), polypropylene, or polyurethane shall not be used as secondary or tertiary/shipping packaging. Liquidated damages of $235 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $235 or less will be assessed by City for failure to adhere to this requirement. •All secondary and shipping packaging shall be recyclable in the City’s recycling program. A complete list of items accepted for recycling are found at www.zerowastepaloalto.org or by calling (650) 496-5910. If any portion is received that does not meet this requirement, liquidated damages of $235 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $235 or less will be assessed by City for failure to adhere to this requirement. •If approved by the City’s Environmental Services Division and Administrative Services Department, a packaging takeback program may be proposed by the vendor or manufacturer for City use if the service is provided at no additional cost to the City. Staff will review proposed takeback programs to ensure the program meets City needs. •If approved by the City’s Environmental Services Division, a packaging requirement may be waived if no other viable alternative exists and not using the current packaging presents the likelihood of product damage. •Reusable/returnable pallets shall be used and taken back by the Seller, at no additional cost to the City. Seller shall provide documentation upon request ensuring reuse of pallets and/or recycling of broken pallets. Liquidated damages of $262 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $262 or less will be assessed by City for failure to adhere to this requirement. (3) Energy and Water Efficiency: Seller shall provide products with an ENERGY STAR, Water Sense or State of California standard rating, whichever is more efficient, when ratings exist for those products. A life cycle cost analysis shall be provided to the City upon request and shall at minimum include: first cost, operating costs, maintenance costs, and disposal costs. Contacts for additional information about City of Palo Alto Hazardous Waste, Zero Waste and Utilities programs: Hazardous Waste Program (Public Works) (650) 496-6980 Zero Waste Program (Public Works) (650) 496-5910 Watershed Protection (650) 329-2117 Energy Efficiency (650) 496-2244 (4) Liquidated Damages: Seller agrees that failure to comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Requirements will result in Liquidated Damages, according to the table marked Liquidated Damages on page 3 of this P.O. CITY OF PALO ALTO GDS Rev. 09/28/2012 9 BIDDER (COMPANY): _____________________________________________________ DATE: ______________ (Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION II – NOISE ORDINANCE & SAMPLE AGREEMENT NONCOMPLIANCE WITH EVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING REQUIREMENTS, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: The following table lists the events that constitute breaches of the Agreement’s standard of performance warranting the imposition of liquidated damages; the acceptable performance level, and the amount of liquidated damages for failure to meet the contractually required standards of performance. Event of Non-Performance Acceptable Performance Level (Allowed events per Fiscal Year) Liquidated Damage Amount Recycled Paper Use Failure to use 50% recycled content paper 1 $30 per each document Recyclable Packaging Materials Failure of Seller to Use secondary and shipping packaging that is recyclable in the City’s recycling program. 1 $235 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $250 or less will be incurred if this is not adhered to. Expanded Foam Plastics Unapproved use of expanded foam plastics for secondary or shipping packaging 0 $235 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $235 or less Pallet use Failure of Seller to take-back and reuse pallets, recycling only broken pallets, at no additional cost to the City. 1 $262 or a minimum of $50 if the combined product and shipping cost is $2 or less CITY OF PALO ALTO GDS Rev. 09/28/2012 11 BIDDER (COMPANY): _____________________________________________________ DATE: ______________ (Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION III – SPECIFICATIONS & BIDDERS PAGES Bidder’s Response and Acceptance In response to this Request for Quotations (RFQ), the undersigned, as Bidder, declares that the only persons or parties interested in this Bid as principals are those named herein; that this Bid is made without collusion with any other person, firm or corporation; that the Bidder has carefully examined the specifications herein referred to; and the Bidder proposes and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, that the Bidder will contract with the City of Palo Alto (City), to provide all necessary materials, and furnish the specified requirements in this RFQ, in the manner herein prescribed and at the prices stated. Project Title: ASPHALT CONCRETE PRODUCTS Request for Quotations (RFQ) number 155219 Quotation Due Date: 3:00 P.M., TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2014 The City of Palo Alto is looking for a Primary and Secondary supplier of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA). The City uses different hot asphalt mix (HMA) aggregate gradations on its daily operations. The HMA shall conform to the current CalTrans Standard Specifications. The HMA aggregate gradations are 3/8” fine, ¼” fine, ½” fine, ½” medium, and ¾” medium. The City prefers to have two asphalt concrete products suppliers, a primary supplier and a secondary supplier as a back up to the primary supplier. The City prefers its primary asphalt products supplier to produce HMA in a batch plant over drum plant because a batch plant has the ability to switch production of HMA of different gradations. The City is looking for firms to provide firm pricing for up to three (3) years for the purchase of Hot Mix Asphalt in different aggregate gradations. However, due to the limited shelf life of hot asphalt, transporting material over an extended distance may impact the quality of the projects performed by the City crews. The City is requiring that the Primary Provider produce HMA in a batch plant, and be located within nine (9) miles of the Palo Alto Municipal Services Center (MSC) which is located at 3201 E. Bayshore Road in Palo Alto. The City will also require that the Secondary Provider be located within fifteen (15) miles of the Palo Alto MSC. For the Secondary Provider, a drum plant will be acceptable. For the purpose of calculating mileage, Google Maps will be the only authorized method for making these calculations. No other calculation will be accepted. Bid Schedule A: Year 1 – September 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 BID ITEM QTY. UNIT DESCRIPTION ITEM PRICE TOTAL PRICE 01 1,000 Tons Asphalt Concrete, 3/4” fine: Price per ton (in words) $ $ 02 2,000 Tons Asphalt Concrete, 1/2” fine: Price per ton (in words) $ $ 03 100 Tons Asphalt Concrete, 3/8” fine: Price per ton (in words) $ $ CITY OF PALO ALTO GDS Rev. 09/28/2012 12 BIDDER (COMPANY): _____________________________________________________ DATE: ______________ (Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION III – SPECIFICATIONS & BIDDERS PAGES BID ITEM QTY. UNIT DESCRIPTION ITEM PRICE TOTAL PRICE 04 700 Tons Asphalt Concrete, 1/4” fine: Price per yard (in words) $ $ 05 100 Tons Asphalt Concrete, Sheet Asphalt: Price per ton (in words) $ $ 06 1,000 Gallons Asphalt Concrete, Sheet Asphalt: Price per gallon (in words) $ $ Bid Schedule A Total (items 1 through 6, without sales taxes) Total Price (in words) $ Bid Total: $_____________________ Bid Total in words: _________________________________________________________________ Price Bid prices are to be firm for the term from award date through the first year (June 30, 2015). COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS. CONTRACTOR’S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the same as the original term; OR The base bid prices shown in the initial contract award notification may be adjusted in accordance with the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be adjusted higher or lower effective on the commencement of each Additional Term. The base year (September 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015) unit prices shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the Producer Price Index calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (PPI) which is published most immediately preceding the commencement of the applicable Additional Term, which shall be compared with the PPI with the same index code published most immediately preceding when the base price was set. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall CONTRACTOR’s unit prices be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the unit price in effect during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment to CONTRACTOR’s compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amendment to this Agreement. CITY OF PALO ALTO GDS Rev. 09/28/2012 13 BIDDER (COMPANY): _____________________________________________________ DATE: ______________ (Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION III – SPECIFICATIONS & BIDDERS PAGES Dates for Implementation: Effective Date of Adjustment BLS (PPI) Month: Month for Implementation Base Period Index Value (PPI) July 1, 2015 May 2015 September 2014 July 1, 2016 May 2016 September 2014 The BLS Value will be “Not Seasonally Adjusted”. The indexes are: For Product Producer Price Index (PPI) Series ID: PCU 21231-21231 Industry: Stone Mining & Quarry Product: Stone Mining & Quarry The base value for the calculation shall be September 2014. The calculation for the adjustment in unit prices shall be as follows: Divide the index value which corresponds with the month associated with the contract escalation by the index value for September 2014, which represents the base period index value, and then multiply the base unit prices by the result. This equals the adjusted unit price for the escalated product. (PPI Index at time of calculation) / (Index at time base unit price was set) = Multiplier (Base Price) X (Multiplier) = Escalated Unit Price In the next year, the procedure will be applied again by taking the next years PPI index value, dividing by the index value at the time the base price was set and proceeding as described above. (PPI Index at time of second calculation) / (Index at time base unit price was set) = Multiplier (Base Price) X Multiplier = Escalated Unit Price Example: Base Bid Price $130.00 May 2015 201.60 September 2014 211.10 Adjustment effective July 1, 2015 = = (211.10/201.60) X $130 = 1.0471 X $130 = $136.123 = $136.12 CITY OF PALO ALTO GDS Rev. 09/28/2012 14 BIDDER (COMPANY): _____________________________________________________ DATE: ______________ (Fill in name on each page) (Date on Each Page) SECTION III – SPECIFICATIONS & BIDDERS PAGES In the next year, the procedure will be applied again by taking the next years PPI index value, dividing by the index value at the time the base price was set and proceeding as described above. Lowest Responsible Bidder The lowest bid shall be the lowest total of the bid prices on the base contract. This total is being used for the purpose of determining the lowest responsible bidder. QUANTITIES: Material quantities as specified are approximate and no guarantee is implied that the exact amount will be purchased. PAYMENT TERMS:____________________________(or City shall pay vendor within 30 days following receipt of an acceptable invoice) Signature must be the same as signature(s) in Section I – Request for Quotation and Bidder Required Information. Signature: _______________________________________________ (Signature) _______________________________________________ (Print name) CITY OF PALO ALTO GDS Rev. 09/28/2012 15 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 6, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 2.28.090 (Lapse of Appropriation) of Chapter 2.28 (Fiscal Procedures), Repealing Section 2.08.145 (Consultation with City Auditor) and Amending Section 2.08.150 (Department of Administrative Services) of Section 2.08 (Officers and Departments) (First Reading: September 22, 2014 PASSED: 9-0) The attached Ordinance was first heard by Council on Monday, September 22, 2014. No changes were made at that time. It is attached for your review and second approval. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Ordinance (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 2.28.090 (Lapse of Appropriation) of Chapter 2.28 (Fiscal Procedures), Repealing Section 2.08.145 (Consultation with City Auditor) and Amending Section 2.08.150 (Department of Administrative Services) of Section 2.08 (Officers and Departments) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Section 2.28.090 Lapse of appropriations of Chapter 2.28 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 2.28.090 Lapse of appropriations. The unencumbered balance of appropriations shall lapse at the close of the fiscal year. Reappropriations may be authorized by majority vote of the city council from the unencumbered balance of the noncapital appropriations of one fiscal year to the next fiscal year on a preliminary basis as of the beginning of the new fiscal year before the approval of the budget closing ordinance as long as the Director of Administrative Services certifies that sufficient funds are available to be carried forward to the next fiscal year. Final authorization shall be provided by the city council at the same time as it approves the budget closing ordinance. However, unless amended by the council, the appropriations of capital improvement funds for project expenditures shall continue in full force and effect until the purpose for which each was made has been accomplished or abandoned. The purpose of any capital appropriation shall be deemed abandoned if two years pass without any expenditure from the appropriation. SECTION 2. Section 2.08.145 Consultation with the City Auditor of Chapter 2.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is repealed in its entirety. The finance and accounting procedures of the city, and the reporting thereof, shall be established and maintained after consultation with the city auditor. SECTION 3. Section 2.08.150 Department of Administrative Services of Chapter 2.08 (Officers and Departments) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Page 1 140811 jb 0131213 Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED 2.08.150 Department of administrative services. (a) The department of administrative services shall be under the control of a director of administrative services (Chief Financial Officer (CFO)) who shall be accountable to the city manager. The duties of the director of administrative services (CFO) shall be as follows: …… (11) To coordinate audit activities with the city auditor and external auditors, to coordinate internal audits and to establish accounting controls in accordance with standard audit requirements. To establish and maintain finance and accounting procedures and internal controls of the city including financial reporting requirements and to coordinate financial audit activities with the city auditor and external auditors in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The department may seek advice from the city auditor in developing those procedures, internal controls, and financial reporting requirements. …… (16) To plan and maintain the city's information systems to ensure that the automated systems, including the computer and telecommunications systems, meet the city's short and long-term goals; …… (18) (b) For organizational purposes, the department of administrative services shall consist of the following divisions: finance (which includes Purchasing, Treasury, and Accounting), Real Estate, Stores, Printing and Mailing, and Office of Management and Budget. budget and management analysis, and information resources. SECTION 4. The City Council finds that this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of significant environmental effects occurring as a result of the adoption of this ordinance. Page 2 140811 jb 0131213 Attachment A NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ _____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Page 3 140811 jb 0131213 Attachment A City of Palo Alto (ID # 5054) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning Summary Title: Approval of Annual Williamson Act Contracts Title: Approval of Annual Williamson Act Contracts and Acceptance of Nonrenewal Notice from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for 5061, 5065, 22601 Skyline Boulevard From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council review the Williamson Act Properties Report for Calendar Year 2014 (Attachment A), approve the renewal of eighteen contracts, accept the Notice of Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District for Assessor’s Parcel Number 351-12-006, and direct staff to file the current list of Williamson Act properties with the appropriate agencies. Executive Summary The proposed action would perpetuate eighteen existing contracts between the City and landowners aimed at preserving agricultural and compatible open-space uses. Council is also requested to accept the non-renewal application filed by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District that will terminate the contract in nine years. Background The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, is a state program to discourage agricultural lands from being converted to urban uses. The program provides property tax relief to owners of agricultural land who agree to limit the use of their property to agricultural or other approved compatible uses. On July 24, 1974, the City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance No. 2663 to establish rules for both establishing and administering Williamson Act contracts for Palo Alto properties. Among other things, the rules regarding administration of established contracts limit the allowable uses of the property to what is described in the contract, and provide that the contract remains in City of Palo Alto Page 2 place when a property is sold, ensuring that the new owners are subject to the same use restrictions. Contracts are for rolling 10-year terms with a renewal date of January 1 each year. As a result, each year—at least 80 days prior to that renewal date—the Council reviews the contracts and, at that time, may initiate a notice of nonrenewal for any contract or approve a notice of nonrenewal submitted by a landowner. If the Council takes such action, then that contract does not renew on January 1 and terminates nine years later. Under certain conditions, the Council may also approve a landowner’s request to cancel a contract. Contracts, for which the Council has not approved a notice of nonrenewal or a cancellation, automatically renew for another 10- year term each January 1. Discussion Under the California Land Conservation Act Program (Williamson Act) private landowners voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses under minimum 10-year rolling term contracts administered by City of Palo Alto. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than potential market value. The following is the status of the parcels under Williamson Act. Properties under Contract Renewal: Currently there are eighteen properties renewing their contract with the City of Palo Alto. Approximately 285 acres of land is under Williamson Act contract in Palo Alto as compared to 306,551 acres in Santa Clara County. The eighteen contracts will renew for another 10-year term from January 1, 2015. At present one of the eighteen contracts (Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club) identified on the attached report and map is not eligible for tax benefits. Although a golf course is a permitted use, only golf courses that are open to the public and charge minimal green fees are eligible for tax benefits. Property with Notice of Nonrenewal filed: One notice of nonrenewal has been filed with the City since the last City Council report in October 2013. The Notice of Nonrenewal of Land Conservation Contract for Assessor’s Parcel Number 351-12-006, has been filed by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Staff requests City Council to accept the nonrenewal notice so that the nine year nonrenewal cycle can take effect from January 1, 2015. The City has determined the effective termination date to be 1/1/2024. Attachment A of the staff report includes the letter of request for nonrenewal by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Properties under Contract Nonrenewal: Four parcels owned by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District are going through the process of non-renewal. Notice of Nonrenewal for these parcels was accepted by the City Council in October of 2008. The expected contract termination date for all the four parcels is 12/31/2017. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The Williamson Act Properties Report, included as Attachment B, lists parcels that have applied for contract renewal, filed notice of nonrenewal and currently going through the process of nonrenewal for calendar year of 2014. The report contains information on individual Williamson Act property parcels with their 2014 assessed land value. Attachment C shows the location of individual parcels under Williamson Act contract. The California Department of Conservation’s Williamson Act Program requires participating cities and counties to fill out and submit applications for an Open Space Subvention Act payment per Government Code section 16144, which states: "On or before October 31 each year, the governing body of each county, city, or city and county shall report to the Secretary of the Resources Agency the number of acres of land under its regulatory jurisdiction which qualify for state payments pursuant to the various categories enumerated in Section 16142, together with supporting documentation as the secretary by regulation may require.” In theory, the California Open Space Subvention Act (OSSA) entitles the City to partial replacement of local property tax revenue foregone by participating in the Williamson Act Program. However since 2009, the State effectively eliminated all funding allocated to Open Space Subvention payments. Hence since 2009 none of the participating jurisdictions have received any payment. Attachment D, the California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report published in October 2013 discusses recent legislation that has affected Williamson Act implementation. Staff requests City Council to approve the attached list of eighteen parcels currently under the Williamson Act, and accept the nonrenewal application filed so that this list can be filed in the City Clerk’s Office and the information can be forwarded to the State Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection by October 31, 2014. Resource Impacts Minimal resource impacts would result from the recommended action. Foregone property tax revenue is generally not significant from these properties. Historically, the City of Palo Alto received approximately $1,000 a year in subvention payments from the State; however, as noted above, the State has suspended funding for these payments. Assembly Bill X4 enacted on July 24, 2009 resulted in a total subvention allowance of $1,000 for all participating California counties. As a result of this bill, Palo Alto received $0.03 in subvention payments for fiscal year 2009-10. On October 19, 2010 Senate Bill 863 provided a one-time allocation of $10,000,000 for the program and an option for participating cities and counties to recapture 10% of the benefits provided by the contracts; however, on March 24, 2011, Senate Bill SB80 eliminated these provisions. The most recent legislation, Assembly Bill 1265, passed on July 15, 2011, again allows participating cities and counties to recapture 10% of the benefits; however, implementation of this provision is generally only cost effective for cities and counties that have significant acreage under contract. Policy Implications City of Palo Alto Page 4 The recommended action implements Ordinance 2663 regarding the administration of the Williamson Act for Palo Alto properties. The Williamson Act in general complies with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically supports Goal L-1 regarding growth management as well as Policy L-1 regarding the extent of urban development. Environmental Review The recommended action of renewal of eighteen contracts under Williamson Act is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act per Categorical Exclusion 15317 (Open space contracts or easements). Acceptance of the nonrenewal application of Assessor’s Parcel Number 351-12-006 will not result in any development of the subject property, as it is owned by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Attachments:  Attachment A: Recorded Notice of Non Renewal with County of Santa Clara (PDF)  Attachment B: Williamson Act Property Report 2014 (PDF)  Attachment C: Williamson Act Parcels Map 2014 (PDF)  Attachment D: 2012 Land Conservation Act Status Report (PDF) ATTACHMENT A Williamson Act Properties Report for Calendar Year 2014 On the following pages is a list of the 23 Palo Alto properties that were enrolled in the Williamson Act during the calendar year of 2014. About the Williamson Act About this List/Report The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act is a state program to discourage agricultural lands from being converted to urban uses. The program provides property tax relief to owners of agricultural land who agree to limit the use of their property to agricultural or other approved compatible uses. On July 24, 1974, the City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance No. 2663 to establish rules for both establishing and administering Williamson Act contracts for Palo Alto properties. Highlights of the rules regarding administration of established contracts include: Contracts limit the allowable uses of the property to what is described in the contract. Contracts remain in place when a property is sold and new owners are subject to the same use restrictions. Contracts are for 10-year terms and have a renewal date of January 1. Each year—at least 80 days prior to that renewal date—the Council reviews the contracts and, at that time, may initiate a notice on nonrenewal for any contract or approve a notice of nonrenewal submitted by a landowner. If the Council takes such action then that contract does not renew on January 1 and terminates 9 years later. Under certain conditions, the Council may also approve a landowner's request to cancel a contract. Contracts, for which the Council has not approved a notice of nonrenewal or a cancellation, automatically renew for another 10-year term each January1. 18 contracts will renew on January 1, 2015 if the Council approves this report. 5 contracts will not renew because Notices of Nonrenewal have been approved. See individual records for termination dates. Note: One of the 18 contracts does not include tax benefits. Although the Palo Alto Hills Golf Course is under contract the use is not eligible for tax benefits--see notes for this parcel. 9/9/2014 Page 1 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2014 Attachment B Will Renew on January 1, 2015 Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club at 3000 Alexis Drive Although this property is under contract, there are no tax benefits.A golf course may only be eligible for tax benefits if it is open to the public and charges minimal green fees. Prime Owner: 1 Assessed Value Land Class: 5/1/1973Contract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc., 3000 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Acreage: General Notes: 119.92 182-35-035APN: 2012:$1,344,354.00 Value Notes: 4279Resolution No: 2013:$1,371,241.0 2014 $1,377,466.0 No address; adjacent to Country Club at 3000 Alexis Drive Prime Owner: 2 Assessed Value Land Class: 5/1/1973Contract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc., 3000 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Acreage: General Notes: 5.52 182-35-008APN: 2012:$48,781.00 Value Notes: 4279Resolution No: 2013:$49,756.00 2014 $49,981.00 Open Space land adjacent to the Arastradero Preserve Prime Owner: 3 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Acreage: General Notes: 11.42 182-33-014APN: 2012:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$0.00 2014 $0.00 9/9/2014 Page 2 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2014 El Camino Park (east of Palo Alto Ave to University Ave) Prime Owner: 4 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees, P.O.Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 120-31-009APN: 2012:$127,999.00 The City of Palo Alto leases this land for public use; however, it is privately owned.Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$133,565.00 2014 $139,636.00 El Camino Park (west of Palo Alto Ave to the creek) Prime Owner: 5 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees, P.O.Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Acreage: General Notes: 0.72 12031001APN: 2012:$9,199.00 The City of Palo Alto leases this land for public use; however, it is privately owned.Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$9,599.00 2014 $10,036.00 No address; on Page Mill Road; below Foothill Open Space Preserve Non Prime Owner: 6 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Richard D. Guhse Trustee, 37 Babras Court, Hollister, CA 95023 Acreage: General Notes: 20.01 351-05-043APN: 2012:$1,000.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$1,043.00 2014 $1,090.00 3837 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 7 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: David P. and Cynthia Lautzenheiser Trustee, 3837 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 9.00 351-05-042APN: 2012:$373,957.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$381,446.00 2014 $383,196.00 9/9/2014 Page 3 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2014 3845 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 8 Assessed Value Land Class: 2/16/1976Contract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Judith A. Block Trustee, 412 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Acreage: General Notes: 8.72 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 7.72 351-05-024APN: 2012:$49,166.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$50,158.00 2014 $50,401.00 3849 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94306 Non Prime Owner: 9 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Jeffrey A. and Mary L. Thomas, 3849 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 351-05-050APN: 2012:$1,411,375.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$1,326,000.0 2014 $1,446,137.0 3855 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94306 Non Prime Owner: 10 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Patrick K. Suppes, 599 College Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 351-05-049APN: 2012:$488,108.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$497,870.00 2014 $500,130.00 3865 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 11 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Grace Carland Trustee, 3865 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 9.00 351-05-048APN: 2012:$33,779.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$34,465.00 2014 $34,639.00 9/9/2014 Page 4 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2014 3875 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 12 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Richard D. Kniss Trustee & Et Al, 1985 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 351-05-047APN: 2012:$500.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$521.00 2014 $545.00 3885 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 13 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: William W. and Sharon T. Luciw Trustee, 3885 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 8.45 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 7.45 351-05-046APN: 2012:$979,301.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$918,000.00 2014 $1,003,445.0 3895 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 14 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Lawrence Markosian, 635 Wildwood Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Acreage: General Notes: 10.00 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 9.00 351-05-045APN: 2012:$238,266.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$243,041.00 2014 $244,163.00 3905 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 15 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Michael R. Lowry, 3905 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 6.43 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 5.43 351-05-044APN: 2012:$918,000.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$174,796.00 2014 $175,589.00 9/9/2014 Page 5 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2014 4201 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 Non Prime Owner: 16 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Bruce A Leak, 4201 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 11.31 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 10.31 351-25-015APN: 2012:$1,499,757.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$1,529,799.0 2014 $1,536,828.0 22601 Skyline Blvd, Palo Alto, 94306 Non Prime Owner: 17 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Harvey D. Jr. and Pamela K. Loucks Trustee, Rt 2 Box 332, La Honda, CA 94020 Acreage: General Notes: 10.39 351-12-062APN: 2012:$552.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$575.00 2014 $602.00 No address; adjacent to 22601 Skyline Blvd Non Prime Owner: 18 Assessed Value Land Class: UnknownContract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Harvey D. Jr. and Pamela K. Loucks Trustee, Rt 2 Box 332, La Honda, CA 94020 Acreage: General Notes: 12.35 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 11.35 351-12-063APN: 2012:$298,637.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2013:$500,000.00 2014 $462,088.00 Will Not Renew on January 1, 2015 because a Notice of Nonrenewal was filed on 03/25/14 5061, 5065, 22601 Skyline Blvd Non Prime Owner: 1 Assessed Value Land Class: 3/6/1973Contract Start: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Acreage: Contract Status: Notice of Nonrenewal filed on 3/25/2014; contract will terminate on 1/1/2024 General Notes: 139.59 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 138.59 351-12-006APN: 2012:$35,894.00 Value Notes: 4707Resolution No: 2013:$36,813.00 2014 $37,346.00 9/9/2014 Page 6 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2014 Will Not Renew on January 1, 2015 because a Notice of Nonrenewal has been approved Open Space within Foothill Open Space Preserve Non Prime Owner: 1 Assessed Value Land Class: 2/27/1979Contract Start: Notice of Nonrenewal approved on 10/6/2008; contract will terminate on 12/31/2017Contract Status: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 27.34 351-04-031APN: 2012:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: 5657 and 5658Resolution No: 2013: 2014 Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve Non Prime Owner: 2 Assessed Value Land Class: 2/28/1973Contract Start: Notice of Nonrenewal approved on 10/6/2008; contract will terminate on 12/31/2017Contract Status: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 8.74 351-12-043APN: 2012:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: 4706Resolution No: 2013: 2014 Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve Non Prime Owner: 3 Assessed Value Land Class: 2/26/1975Contract Start: Notice of Nonrenewal approved on 10/6/2008; contract will terminate on 12/31/2017Contract Status: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 10.72 351-25-014APN: 2012:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: 5067Resolution No: 2013: 2014 Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve Non Prime Owner: 4 Assessed Value Land Class: 2/28/1973Contract Start: Notice of Nonrenewal approved on 10/6/2008; contract will terminate on 12/31/2017Contract Status: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 Acreage: General Notes: 24.00 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 23.00 351-06-017APN: 2012:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: 4708Resolution No: 2013: 2014 9/9/2014 Page 7 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2014 Arastradero Lake FeltLake BorondaLake HeritagePark FoothillsPark Los TrancosOpen SpacePreserve Monte Bello OpenSpace Preserve Upper StevensCreek CanyonCounty Park Skyline Ridge OpenSpace Preserve Long Ridge OpenSpace Preserve Russian RidgeOpen SpacePreserve Coal CreekOpen SpacePreserve JasperRidgeBiologicalPreserve Rancho San AntonioOpen Space Preserve PaloAltoBaylandsNaturePreserve Shoreline Park Mtn.View Munic.Golf Course FoothillOpen SpacePreserve ArastraderoPreserve CameronPark WeisshaarPark MayflieldPark PeersPark ElPaloAltoPark LyttonPlaza CogswellPlaza ScottPark KelloggPark BolPark RinconadaPark BowdenPark JohnsonPark PardeePark BoulwarePark TermanPark RoblesPark MonroePark MitchellPark D Jesus RamosPark HooverPark GreerPark ByxbeePark BowlingGreen HenrySealePark SarahWallisPark WerryPark JuanaBrionesPark EstherClarkPark WilliamsPark SanAntonioRd 280 B o ule v ard Alameda de las Pulgas Sa nd H i l l R o a d 2 8 0 Junipe r o Serra Boulevard P age Mi l l Road A r a s t ra d er o R o ad El Cam i n o R e a l San Antonio Avenue Ch a rl e s t o n R o a d G 5 M o n t e B e l l o R o a d MoodyRoad A l t a m on t Road Oregon Expr e ssway Middlefie l d Road Un 1 0 1 Alma Street A l p i n e R o a d Foothill Expre s s w a y H i g h w a y 2 8 0 Lo sTrancosRoad Hillview EastBayshore WestBayshore Fabian CentralExpressw El C aminoReal El M onte R oad Sand HillRoad Road MillPage Skyline E mbar c a d e ro Ro a d StanfordUniversity Mountain View Los AltosLos Altos Hills Santa Clara County San Mateo County Portola Valley El CaminoPark This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. '0007'0 Williamson Act ParcelsinPalo Alto2014 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2014 City of Palo AltoRRivera, 2014-09-09 10:47:15Williamson Act Properties (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 18 Williamson Act Parcels; Contracts automatically renewed foranother 10 year term on 01/01/15 4 Parcels for which notices of Non-Renewal have been approved; These will terminate on 12/31/17 1 Parcel for which a notice of Non-Renewal has been led; This will terminate on01/01/2024 Legend Note: Although the Palo Alto HillsGolf & Country Club is under contract, it is not eligible to receive tax benets; only golf courses open to the public are eligible. Attachment C The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report The Williamson Act October 2013 Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor John Laird, Secretary, Natural Resources Agency Mark Nechodom, Director, Department of Conservation Attachment D California Departme nt of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection (DLRP) Our Mission: The Department of Conservation balances today's needs with tomorrow's challenges and fosters intelligent, sustainable, and efficient use of California's energy, land, and mineral resources. DLRP’s goal is to lead the change in the value proposition for the conservation of agricultural and open space land in California. The California Land Conservation Act The Program: The California Land Conservation Act, known commonly as the Williamson Act, has helped preserve agricultural and open space lands since 1965. Local governments and landowners enter into voluntary contracts that restrict enrolled lands to agricultural uses for periods of 10 to 20 years. The program creates resource planning and economic benefits for the contracting participants, and the citizens of California. For further information, please contact: California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection Land Conservation Act Program 801 K Street, MS 18-01 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528 (916) 324-0850 FAX (916) 327-3430 TDD (916) 324-2555 email: dlrp@conservation.ca.gov www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca Cover Graphics Front: Broccoli and hillside grazing located on the Hibbits Ranch, Santa Barbara County. Photo by Ken Murray. Back: Sunset and the rising moon, San Benito County. Photo by Mike Kisko. © 2013, California Department of Conservation All rights reserved. Fair use of this report for a non-commercial, educational, research, or scientific purpose is not a violation of copyright. However, no part of the contents of this report may be reproduced, transmitted, or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose without the express written permission of the Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report The Williamson Act CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCE PROTECTION WILLIAMSON ACT PROGRAM OCTOBER 2013 Acknowledgements Land Conservation Act Program Staff Molly Penberth, Manager Michael Krug, Staff Counsel Heather Anderson Meredith Meraz Jacquelyn Ramsey With the assistance of Kerri Kisko and Alexandra Borack Division of Land Resource Protection John Lowrie, Acting Assistant Director David Thesell, Deputy Chief, Financial Assistance Monica Cea, Administrative Liaison This page left intentionally blank. Land Conservation Act - Glossary of Terms ............................................................i Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1 1 The California Land Conservation Act ................................................ 3 Land Conservation Act Contracts .............................................................................. 4 Farmland Security Zones .......................................................................................... 5 The Open Space Subvention Act .............................................................................. 5 New Challenges and Opportunities ........................................................................... 5 The Land Conservation Act Status Report and Statistical Notes .............................. 6 2 2010 and 2011 Land Conservation Act Enrollment ............................ 7 Statewide Enrollment ................................................................................................. 8 Net Increases and Decreases in Enrollment ............................................................. 8 New Enrollments ....................................................................................................... 9 Farmland Security Zones – Transfers and Total Acreage ........................................ 9 Nonrenewal Initiations ............................................................................................. 10 Nonrenewal Expirations........................................................................................... 11 Total Acreage in Nonrenewal .................................................................................. 12 Contract Cancellations ............................................................................................ 12 Public Acquisitions ................................................................................................... 13 City Annexations ...................................................................................................... 14 Net Adjustments ...................................................................................................... 14 3 Longer-Term Trends in the Land Conservation Act ......................... 17 A Decade of Land Conservation Act Contract Termination Trends ........................ 17 4 Statewide Land Conservation Act Administration, Support, and Legislation .................................................................................... 21 Reported Eligible Acreage and Subvention Application Totals ............................... 21 Compliance Audits ................................................................................................... 22 Recent Legislation Affecting the Land Conservation Act ........................................ 24 APPENDIX A 2010 and 2011 Reported Statistics by County .............................. 25 APPENDIX B Open Space Subvention Act Inflation-Adjusted Expenditures .... 52 The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Table of Conten ts FIGURES Figure 1 John Williamson, Author of the California Land Conservation Act ................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Counties Participating in the Land Conservation Act ............ 4 Figure 3 Regions for Land Conservation Act Report Analysis ............ 6 Figure 4 Termination Trend Comparison, 2000-2011 ....................... 17 Figure 5 Statewide Cumulative Nonrenewal Acreage: 2000-2011 ........................................................................... 18 Figure 6 Statewide Cumulative Nonrenewal Acreage: 2000-2011, Prime v. Nonprime ........................................... 18 Figure 7 Nonrenewal Initiations v. Nonrenewal Expirations: 2000-2011 ........................................................................... 18 Figure 8 Public Acquisitions: 2000-2011 ........................................... 19 Figure 9 Net Adjustments to Land Conservation Act Acreage Reported by Counties.......................................................... 19 Figure 10 Cancellations: 2000-2011 ................................................... 20 Figure B-1 Annual Open Space Subvention Act Expenditures 1971-2010 ........................................................................... 54 Figure B-2 Cumulative Open Space Subvention Act Expenditures 1971-2010 ........................................................................... 54 TABLES Table 1 Agricultural Land Conservation Programs Statewide Reported Acreage ................................................................. 2 Table 2 Counties Participating in Land Conservation Act Alternative Funding Option ...................................................................... 5 Table 3 Land Conservation Act Statewide and County Reported Enrollment 2008-2011 ........................................................... 7 Table 4 Counties with the Largest Enrollment Increase (Net) ........... 8 Table 5 Counties with the Largest Enrollment Decrease (Net) .......... 8 Table 6 Counties with the Greatest Amount of New Enrollments ..... 9 Table 7 Regional Ranking by the Amount of New Enrollments ......... 9 Table 8 Farmland Security Zone Acreage and Percentage of Total Enrollment by County in 2011 ................................ 10 Table 9 Counties with the Greatest Amount of Nonrenewal Initiations ............................................................................. 10 Table 10 Regional Ranking by the Amount of Nonrenewal Initiations ............................................................................. 11 Table 11 Counties with the Greatest Amount of Nonrenewal Expirations ........................................................................... 11 Table 12 Regional Ranking by the Amount of Nonrenewal Expirations ........................................................................... 12 Table 13 Counties with the Largest Percentage of Enrollment Under Nonrenewal .............................................................. 12 Table 14 Counties with Cancellations ................................................ 13 Table 15 Counties with the Greatest Amount of Public Acquisitions ......................................................................... 13 Table 16 Regional Ranking by the Amount of Public Acquisitions ......................................................................... 14 Table 17 Counties with Annexations of Contracted Land to Cities ............................................................................... 14 Table 18 Counties with the Greatest Amount of Adjustments (Net) .. 15 Table 19 Regional Ranking by the Amount of Adjustments (Net) ...... 15 Table 20 Cumulative Acres Terminated by Category: 2000-2011 ..... 20 Table 21 Counties with the Largest Subvention Application Amounts .............................................................................. 21 Table 22 2010 Open Space Subvention Claims by Region ............... 22 Table 23 2011 Open Space Subvention Claims by Region ............... 22 Table 24 Recaptured Subvention Payments from Audits ….………...23 Appendix A: Land Conservation Act Data Tables Table A-1 Total Reported Enrollment 2010 .......................................... 26 Table A-2 Total Reported Enrollment 2011 .......................................... 27 Table A-3 Farmland Security Zone Transfers 2010 ............................. 28 Table A-4 Farmland Security Zone Transfers 2011 ............................. 29 Table A-5 Cumulative Nonrenewal Acreage, Land Conservation Act 2010 & 2011 ........................................................................... 30 Table A-6 Cumulative Nonrenewal Acreage, Farmland Security Zone 2010 ................................................................. 31 Table A-7 Cumulative Nonrenewal Acreage, Farmland Security Zone 2010 ................................................................. 32 Table A-8 New Enrollments 2010 ............................................................ 33 Table A-9 New Enrollments 2011 ............................................................ 34 Table A-10 Nonrenewal Initiations ............................................................. 35 Table A-11 Nonrenewal Expirations .......................................................... 36 Table A-12 Nonrenewal Withdrawn Acreage, Land Conservation Act ...................................................................... 37 Table A-13 Cancellations 2010 ................................................................. 38 Table A-14 Cancellations 2011 ................................................................. 39 Table A-15 Public Acquisitions 2010 ......................................................... 40 Table A-16 Public Acquisitions 2011 ......................................................... 41 Table A-17 City Annexations 2010 ........................................................... 42 Table A-18 City Annexations 2011 ........................................................... 43 Table A-19 Net Adjustments 2010 ............................................................ 44 Table A-20 Net Adjustments 2011 ............................................................ 45 Table A-21 Contracted Land Not Receiving Tax Relief Benefits 2010 ........................................................................... 46 Table A-22 Contracted Land Not Receiving Tax Relief Benefits 2011 ........................................................................... 47 Table A-23 Acres Eligible for Open Space Subvention Payment 2010 ........................................................................................... 48 Table A-24 Acres Eligible for Open Space Subvention Payment 2011 ........................................................................................... 49 Table A-25 Open Space Subvention Act Payment Claims 2010......... 50 Table A-26 Open Space Subvention Act Payment Claims 2011......... 51 Appendix B: Open Space Subvention Act Inflation-Adjusted Expenditures Table B-1 Open Space Subvention Act Inflation-Adjusted Expenditures 1971-2010 ................................................................. 53 This page intentionally left blank. Land Conservation Act - Glossary of Terms Term Definition Code Citation or Reference Agricultural Commodity An agricultural commodity includes plant and animal products produced in the state for commercial purposes. Plant products used for producing biofuels are also considered to be agricultural commodities.Government Code § 51201(a) Agricultural Preserve An agricultural preserve is an area established in accordance with the Land Conervation Act by a city or county that is devoted to either agricultural, recreational, or open-space use, or some combination of those uses.Government Code §§ 51201(d) and 51205 Agricultural Use Agricultural use means the use of land, including but not limited to greenhouses, for the purposes of producing an agricultural commodity for commercial purposes.Government Code § 51201(b) Animal Unit An animal unit is a measurement of forage needed to support livestock.http://ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/rmg/1%20rangelandm anagement/1%20aum93.pdf. Cancellation Cancellation is an expedited method to terminate a Land Conservation Act or Farmland Security Zone contract. It requires a board of supervisors or city council approval based on rigorous findings, and payment of a cancellation fee of 12.5 percent or 25 percent of assessed property value, depending on the type of contract. Contract cancellation provisions are a means to address situations where ending the contract will either facilitate an alternative land use that is consistent with the purposes of the Act or facilitate a public interest that substantially outweighs the objectives of the Act. Government Code § 51280 et seq. Compatible Use A compatible use is any use determined by a county or city that participates in the Land Conservation Act to be compatible with agricultural, recreational, or open-space uses and satisfy the principles of compatibility in §§51238, 51238.1, 51238.2 or 51238.3. Participating jurisdictions adopt rules that define which uses are allowable, prohibited, and permitted under specific circumstances. Government Code § 51201(e), and §§ 51238, 51238.1, 51238.2, and 51238.3 Development Development means the construction of buildings or other uses of the property that are unrelated to agricultural or open-space uses, or that substantially impair agricultural or open-space uses of the property. Development does not include land uses that are considered compatible with agricultural or open-space uses, or the acquisition of land or an interest in land. Government Code § 51201 (p) Easement Exchange An easement exchange is a process whereby a city or county enters into an agreement with a landowner to rescind a Land Conservation Act contract in order to simultaneously place other land within that city or the county where the contract is rescinded under a permanent agricultural conservation easement. Government Code § 51256 Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) Farmland Security Zones (FSZ) are areas where contracts are of longer duration than regular Land Conservation Act contracts, initially at least 20 year terms. There is a greater tax benefit to enroll in an FSZ contract due to its longer duration. The land must meet specified qualitative thresholds in order to be eligible for FSZ enrollment. Government Code §§51296, 51296.1, and 51296.8 Important Farmland Series Maps Important Farmland Series Maps document soil quality and current land use status and are compiled on a biennial basis by the California Department of Conservation. The maps are used in the planning process to determine the impacts of proposed development projects on farmland resources in California. Land must be designated in specified Important Farmland Map categories to be eligible for enrollment in Farmland Security Zone contracts. Government Code § 65570 Land Capability Classification The Land capability classification is a system of grouping soils primarily on the basis of their capability to produce common cultivated crops and pasture. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/par t622.html Land Conservation Act Contract A Land Conservation Act contract, also known as a Williamson Act contract, is a contract between a landowner and a city or county wherein land devoted to agricultural use is restricted to agricultural, open-space, and/or recreational uses. Local governments and landowners may voluntarily enter into these contracts whereby the landowner foregoes the possibility of development during the term of the contract, in return for lower property taxes. The local government foregoes a portion of its property taxes in return for the planning advantages and values implicit in retaining land in agriculture or open space. They are self-renewing contracts that last for a period of ten years unless they are not renewed. Government Code § 51200 et seq., and §51240 et seq. Managed Wetland Area A managed wetland area is an area which may be diked off from the ocean or other water body and that is occasionally flooded. For purposes of the Land Conservation Act, the land must be used and maintained as a waterfowl hunting preserve, game refuge, or for agricultural purposes for at least three years prior to being placed within an agricultural preserve. Government Code § 51201 (l) Non-Prime Agricultural Land Non-Prime agricultural land is land enrolled under a California Land Conservation Act contract but not defined as "prime agricultural land" under Government Code Section 51201 (c) or as land that is not classified as "agricultural land" under Public Resources Code Section 21060.1 (a). Non-prime agricultural land is also defined as open space uses of statewide significance under Government Code Section 16143(b), and may be identified as such in other documents. Government Code §51238.1, 16143, and Public Resources Code §21060.1 Non-Renewal Land Conservation Act contracts automatically renew each year unless non-renewal of the contract is requested by either the landowner or the participating city or county. Non-renewal involves a written notice to the other party to the contract in advance of the contract's annual renewal date. Specific timelines apply for providing a notice of non-renewal. Once non-renewal is filed, the existing contract remains in effect for the balance of the period remaining on the contract, and valuation for property tax purposes gradually increase to fair market value. Non-renewal is the preferred and orderly method for terminating a Land Conservation Act contract. Government Code §§ 51245 and 51246 These glossary definitions are generalizations of formal legal terms. They do not represent legal interpretations or how statute should be applied to specific situations. For complete definitions please refer to the code citations or references. i Land Conservation Act - Glossary of Terms Term Definition Code Citation or Reference Open Space Subvention Act The Open Space Subvention Act was enacted in 1972 to provide partial replacement of local property tax revenues foregone as a result of participation in the Land Conservation Act. The subventions to local governments are calculated based of the number of acres, quality (soil type and agricultural productivity), and for Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) contracts the proximity of the FSZ enrolled land to the city. Government Code § 16141 et seq. Open space uses of statewide significance Open space uses of statewide significance is land that (a) could be developed as prime agricultural land, or (b) is open-space land as defined in Section 65560 which constitutes a resource whose preservation is of more than local importance for ecological, economic, educational, or other purposes. The Secretary of the Resources Agency shall be the final judge of whether the land is in fact devoted to open-space use of statewide significance. Government Code §16143 Open space use Open space use is the use or maintenance of land in a manner that preserves its natural characteristics, beauty, or openness for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, to provide habitat for wildlife, or for the solar evaporation of seawater in the course of salt production for commercial purposes. The land must be within a scenic highway corridor, wildlife habitat area, saltpond, managed wetland area, submerged area, or enrolled in the United States Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program or Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Government Code § 51201 (0) Prime Agricultural Land Prime agricultural land is land that meets specified soil quality, forage production, or income criteria under Government Code Section 51201. Under the Land Conservation Act, the Prime agricultural land designation impacts what uses are considered compatible, eligible parcel sizes, and other factors, including the amount of open space subventions payable to the participating city or county. Government Code § 51201 (c) Prime Farmland Prime Farmland is land designated on the Important Farmland series maps as having the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. The designation is based on soil data from the USDA and current land use status. In California, land must be irrigated or have been used for irrigated agricultural production within a specified historic timeframe to qualify for Prime Farmland. Government Code § 65570 Public Acquisition A public acquisition is the purchase of property by a public agency--such as a county, city, school district, other special district, or state and federal agency--for the purpose of a public improvement. A “public improvement” means any interest in facilities or real property, including easements, rights-of-way, and fee title ownership. Agencies considering the purchase of property that is located in an agricultural preserve, or enrolled in a Land Conservation Act or Farmland Security Zone contract, are required to follow specific site selection and notification processes. Government Code §§ 51290.5 and 51291 Recreational Use As it pertains to the Land Conservation Act, recreational use is the use of land in its agricultural or natural state by the public for any of the following: walking, hiking, picnicking, camping, swimming, boating, fishing, hunting, or other outdoor games or sports. Any fees charged for the recreational use of the land shall be reasonable so as to not limit its access to the general public. Government Code § 51201 (n) Scenic Highway Corridor A scenic highway corridor is an area adjacent to and in view of the right-of-way of state or county scenic highways. The scenic highway must meet specified planning requirements to be eligible for consideration as this type of corridor. Government Code § 51201 (i) Storie Index Storie Index is a classification system to rate soils based on the land's potential productive capacity.http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8335.pdf. Submerged Area A submerged area is any land determined by the participating city or county to be submerged or subject to tidal action and found by the jurisdiction's board or council to be of great value to the state as open space.Government Code § 51201 (m) Subvention Funds Subvention Funds are funds paid by the state's General Fund to participating cities and counties as partial replacement of the property tax revenues foregone as a result of participation in the Land Conservation Act. Subvention amounts are calculated based of the number of acres and other criteria, subject to certification by the Department of Conservation. Government Code § 16141 Wildlife Habitat Area A wildlife habitat area is a land or water area designated by a board or council, after consulting with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, as an area of importance for the protection or enhancement of the wildlife resources of the state. Government Code § 51201 (j) These glossary definitions are generalizations of formal legal terms. They do not represent legal interpretations or how statute should be applied to specific situations. For complete definitions please refer to the code citations or references. ii The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Page 1 Executive Summary Fiscal Challenges Impact Participant Reporting The 2012 Land Conservation Act Status Report represents data submitted to the Department of Conservation (Department) regarding program participation during 2010 and 2011, as part of the annual Open Space Subvention payment application process. As of the 2011 snapshot, approximately 15.0 million acres were reported as being enrolled statewide. This is an 8.5 percent drop from the 16.4 million acres accounted for in the 2010 Status Report. The decrease is in large measure associated with 10 counties not reporting enrollment to the State, as opposed to a decrease in Land Conservation Act participation. Nonreporting by counties is likely due to the decreases to, and eventual loss of, Open Space Subvention payments. 2011 Enrollment Snapshot Of California’s 58 counties, 52 have executed contracts under the Land Conservation Act Program. Private landowners voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses under minimum 10-year rolling term contracts with local governments. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than potential market value. For more information about the Program, please refer to Chapter 1. For the 2010 and 2011 reporting period, 43 counties and 2 city governments submitted information to the Department. The pattern of nonreporting expanded from 7 to 10 counties between 2010 and 2011, likely reflecting the loss of subvention funds paid to local government from the State General Fund. A map depicting participating counties is located on page 4. Counties reported approximately 15.0 million acres enrolled in Land Conservation Act contracts statewide (Table 1, next page). This represents approximately 50 percent of California’s farmland total of about 30 million acres, or about 31 percent of the State’s privately owned land. The Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) program, based on 20- year contracts, has been adopted by 25 counties, although not all of these counties have executed contracts. Twenty-one counties reported a total of 875,604 acres of land under FSZ contract, which constituted approximately 6 percent of the statewide Land Conservation Act enrollment. Using prior enrollment data to adjust for the lower reporting rate in 2011, it is estimated that 16.3 million acres are currently enrolled in the Land Conservation Act statewide. Local governments claimed a total of $71.71 million in Open Space Subvention Act payments for the partial replacement of property tax revenue losses associated with contract enrollment during 2010 and 2011. However, pursuant to Government Code section 16148, subvention payments were effectively eliminated beginning in Fiscal Year 2010-11. Open Space Subvention payments have totaled more than $863 million between 1971 and 2010. Adjusted for inflation, the State’s investment in subventions to counties totals nearly $1.5 billion. Despite the fiscal challenges, contracts between landowners and local governments continue. Legislation to lessen the impact of subvention payment losses to local governments was passed in 20101, offering a decrease of the term of the rolling contracts to 9 years for regular LCA contracts or 18 years for Farmland Security Zone contracts. To date, 12 counties have opted for this compromise. One county, Imperial, chose to exit the Program, simultaneously nonrenewing contracts covering 117,246 acres in a ten-year wind down. In contrast, 29 counties accepted new contracts during the reporting period. 1 SB 863 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2010) and AB 1265 (Nielsen, Chapter 90, Statutes of 2011). California Department of Conservation Page 2 In total, 630,246 acres of contracted land were reported to be at some stage of the nonrenewal process. The cumulative nonrenewal acreage constituted 4.2 percent of statewide Land Conservation Act enrollment. The other major trend affecting enrolled land during this reporting period is the interest in solar power generation, incentivized by the State’s requirement that 33 percent of investor-owned electric utility retail sales be derived from renewable sources by 2020. Legislation signed in 20112 provides an option to rescind Land Conservation Act contracts on land that has been compromised due to chemical, physical, or water-related limitations-- replacing them with Solar-Use Easements. Regulations to implement this legislation are currently under review as required under the California Administrative Procedure Act.3 Land Conservation Act Statewide Enrollment Summary Contracts occur in 52 counties. Enrollment statistics are submitted annually as part of the Open Space Subvention application process. Top participating counties: Kern, Fresno, and Tulare (1.7, 1.5 and 1.1 million acres, respectively). Longer term enrollments: Farmland Security Zones (FSZ). 18 counties participate in the 20-year FSZ contract option. FSZ’s cover more than 875,600 acres or 6 percent of statewide LCA total enrollment. 2 SB 618 (Wolk, Chapter 596, Statutes of 2011) 3 http://www.oal.ca.gov/Regular_Rulemaking_Process.htm Category 2010 2011^ Prime 5,301,075 4,726,715 Non-Prime 10,142,994 9,358,572 Prime 653,928 792,934 Non-Prime 216,276 82,670 Other Restrictions*55,335 55,938 Total 16,369,608 15,016,829 Table 1 Agricultural Land Conservation Programs Land Conservation Act Farmland Security Zones *Other Restrictions include agricultural conservation and open space easements reported by participating jurisdictions. Statewide Reported Acres ^Ten counties, including the two high participation counties of Stanislaus and Mendocino, did not submit data in 2011. Assuming 2010 data for these counties, the statewide total would be 16.3 million acres. See Chapter 2 for more information. The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Page 3 Chapter 1: The California Land Conservation Act A partnership between landowners, local governments, and the State since 1965 The California Land Conservation Act has been the State’s premier agricultural land protection program since its enactment in 1965. More than 16 million of the State’s 30 million acres of farm and ranch land have participated in the Program, which is authorized under California Government Code beginning with Section 51200. Of California’s 58 counties, 52 have executed Land Conservation Act contracts with landowners.4 Following World War II, California experienced tremendous population and economic growth. This growth, in tandem with the State’s property tax system, led to increased pressures to convert agricultural land to urban use. Rapidly escalating property taxes often presented a prohibitive burden for farmers who wanted to maintain their agricultural operations. In response, the California Legislature passed the Land Conservation Act in 1965 to preserve agricultural and open space lands by discouraging ―premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses.‖5 The legislation was authored by Assemblyman John Williamson of Yolo County (Figure 1); and the law is commonly referred to as the Williamson Act. The Land Conservation Act was then, and remains today, a policy that protects agricultural land through an interrelated set of property tax, land use, and conservation measures. The Land Conservation Act is a California State statute administered by local governments. Local governments are not mandated to participate, and those that do have some latitude to tailor the program to suit local goals and objectives. A three-way relationship between private landowners, local governments, and the State is central to the success of the Program. Local governments and landowners voluntarily enter into a contract in which each accepts certain costs in return for other benefits. The landowner foregoes the possibility of development, or converting his or her property into nonagricultural or non-open space use during the term of the contract, in return for lower property taxes. The local government foregoes a portion of its property taxes in return for the planning advantages and values implicit in retaining land in agriculture or open space. The State is also a key player in the program. Between fiscal years 1971 and 2009, the State paid an average of $22.7 million per year to offset the differential tax rates ($38.6 million on an inflation adjusted basis). The State continues to support local governments and landowners in the form of technical and implementation assistance, interpretation of the Act, issue and policy research, contract enforcement, and preparation of the Land Conservation Act Status Report.6 4 Alpine County has adopted the program, but has yet to execute a contract. Los Angeles County’s open space enforceable restrictions on Catalina Island include no executed contracts. 5 Government Code Section 51220 (c). 6 The biennial status report is required under Government Code Section 51207. Figure 1 John Williamson, Author of the California Land Conservation Act California Department of Conservation Page 4 Land Conservation Act contracts have an initial term of ten years, with renewal occurring automatically each year (local governments can establish initial contract terms for longer periods of time). The contracts run with the land and are binding on all successors in interest of the landowner. Only land located within an agricultural preserve is eligible to participate. An agricultural preserve defines the boundary of an area within which a city or county will enter into contracts with landowners. The boundary is designated by resolution of the board of supervisors or city council having jurisdiction. Preserves are regulated by rules and restrictions designated in the resolution to ensure that the land within the preserve is maintained for agricultural or open space use. The rules of each agricultural preserve specify the uses allowed. Generally, any commercial agricultural use will be permitted within an agricultural preserve. In addition, local governments may identify compatible uses that are allowed with a use permit. (Landowners interested in enrolling land in a contract should contact their local planning department for application forms and instructions). Land Conservation Act Contracts Government Code § 51200 et seq. and 51240 et seq. The Land Conservation Act consists of two primary enrollment categories—Prime and Non-Prime. Prime Agricultural Land is defined as meeting one or more of the following criteria set forth under California Government Code Section 51201: 1. Land which qualifies for rating as class I or class II in the Natural Resources Conservation Service land capability classification system.7 2. Land which qualifies for rating 80 to 100 in the Storie Index Rating system.8 3. Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit9 per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture. 4. Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than $200 per acre. 5. Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production with an annual gross value of not less than $200 per acre for three of the previous five years. 7 Land capability classification is a system of grouping soils primarily on the basis of their capability to produce common cultivated crops and pasture, http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part622.html. 8 Storie Index is a classification system to rate soils based on the land’s potential productive capacity, http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8335.pdf. 9 An animal unit is a measurement of forage needed to support livestock, http://ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/rmg/1%20rangelandmanagement/1%20aum93.pdf. Figure 2 Counties Participating in the Land Conservation Act The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Page 5 Non-Prime Land is enrolled under a California Land Conservation Act contract that does not meet any of the criteria for classification as Prime Agricultural Land. It is considered to be devoted to open space use of statewide significance under the California Open Space Subvention Act (California Government Code Section 16143), and may be identified as such in other documents. Most Non-Prime Land is in agricultural uses such as grazing or non-irrigated crops. However, Non-Prime Land may also include other open space uses that are compatible with agriculture and consistent with local general plans. Farmland Security Zones Government Code §§ 51296 et seq. In 1998, the Farmland Security zone (FSZ) provisions of the Land Conservation Act were added. An FSZ contract offers landowners greater property tax reduction in return for an initial contract term of 20 years, with renewal occurring automatically each year. Land restricted by an FSZ contract is valued for property assessment purposes at 65 percent of its Land Conservation Act valuation, or 65 percent of its Proposition 13 valuation, whichever is lower. As enacted in 1998, the FSZ provisions allowed for the creation of a FSZ contract only through the rescission of an existing Land Conservation Act contract. That requirement was changed on January 1, 2000, thus allowing non-contracted land to go directly into an FSZ contract. Cities and special districts that provide non-agricultural services are generally prohibited from annexing land enrolled under an FSZ contract. Similarly, school districts are prohibited from taking FSZ lands for school facilities. The Open Space Subvention Act Government Code § 16141 et seq. The Open Space Subvention Act was enacted in 1971 to provide partial replacement of local property tax revenues foregone as a result of participation in the Program. The first Open Space Subvention payments were made in Fiscal Year (FY) 1972. From inception until FY 2010, over $863 million was distributed by the State to counties and cities in support of the Program, averaging $55 per acre over the lifetime of the subventions, or $1.42 per acre per year. Adjusted for inflation, the value of the State’s investment in subventions to participating jurisdictions totals $1.5 billion (Appendix B). In recent years, revenue constraints have limited the ability of the State to provide subventions to local governments to backfill for the foregone property tax revenue associated with contracted land. New Challenges and Opportunities The recent economic recession has had severe impacts on both State and local government budgets. As the State’s General Fund suffered, the State’s ability to provide subventions to local governments was threatened during multiple fiscal years. Payments were reduced, and pursuant to Government Code section 16148, subvention payments were effectively eliminated beginning in FY 2010. Local governments’ goal of supporting agricultural and open space land conservation without subventions was discussed widely during this transition; the loss of tax revenue caused some jurisdictions to consider whether to continue offering the Program in the future. Enrollments were frozen in a number of counties. In 2011, Imperial County decided that all Land Conservation Act contracts would be placed in nonrenewal status. Compromise legislation that allows local governments to re-capture a portion of the foregone property tax revenue by decreasing the duration of Land Conservation Act and FSZ contracts by one- and two-years, respectively, was passed in conjunction with the FY 2010 budget. This alternative funding option is available until January 1, 2016. Counties currently participating in this alterative are listed in Table 2. Butte Merced Fresno Shasta Kings Stanislaus Lassen Sutter Madera Tulare Mendocino Yolo Counties Participating in Land Conservation Act Alternative Funding Option* *As of November 2012 Table 2 California Department of Conservation Page 6 The other trend affecting contracted land this reporting period is the interest in solar power generation. Investor- owned electric utilities in California are required to have 33 percent of their retail sales derived from renewable sources by 2020.10 This Renewable Portfolio Standard can be met with a number of energy technologies; agricultural land is of interest to photovoltaic solar developers due to its level terrain, existing land disturbance, decreased likelihood of hosting species of concern, and proximity to transmission lines or substations. The goals of maintaining a vibrant agricultural economy and resource base while meeting the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard are of concern to many participating jurisdictions and decision makers. Many stakeholders see the opportunity to locate solar facilities on land that has been compromised due to chemical, physical, or water- related limitations. As a result, legislation was passed in 2011 that would allow for such properties to have their Land Conservation Act contracts rescinded, to be replaced by Solar-Use Easements. The Department will use data provided by applicants to determine whether the land meets the criteria as established in Government Code Section 51191. Regulations to implement this legislation are in development as of the date of this report. The Land Conservation Act Status Report and Statistical Notes This biennial Land Conservation Act Status Report is a compilation of enrollment statistics for the Program, with the focus of this report being enrollment as of January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2011. Nearly all of the enrollment data were gathered from applications for payment under the Open Space Subvention Act.11 The applications are submitted annually to the Department by participating counties and cities. Enrollment data from prior years are included to provide context in certain discussions. Appendix A contains the data tables used to generate charts and graphics featured in this report. Figure 3 depicts participating counties and how data are summarized by region. Due to rounding, minor discrepancies may occur between Appendix A tables and Chapter 2 regional summaries. A small amount of non-Land Conservation Act, enforceably restricted land, is included in this report. Except for Appendix A, this ―Other Enforceable Restriction‖ is mingled with the Land Conservation Act totals and accounts for less than 1 percent of the total reported acreage. 10 Public Resources Code, starting with Section 25740. 11 Submission of enrollment information is required under Government Code Sections 16144 and 16154. Figure 3 Regions for Land Conservation Act Report Analysis The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Page 7 Chapter 2: 2010 and 2011 Land Conservation Act Enrollment Summaries and trends in enrollment by county, region, and statewide Due to State revenue issues and the elimination of subvention payments to local governments during this reporting period, a number of counties that normally would have provided enrollment data did not submit information. Table 3 depicts statewide enrollment for each year between 2008 and 2011, as well as enrollment statistics for the ten counties that did not report data in 2011. Most of the counties continued to have stable enrollment patterns during these years. The 2011 gaps are particularly prevalent in the North Coast and Mountain Region, with five of the ten nonparticipating counties. Due to the relative stability of enrollment in these counties prior to 2011, it can be inferred that the 15.0 million acre statewide total enrollment summary derived from 2011 county submissions is approximately 1.3 million acres less than actual enrollment. This places a conservative estimate of Program enrollment at 16.3 million acres. Additionally, the underreporting likely influences this chapter’s summaries and rankings relative to actual occurrences. No corrections or adjustments have been made to the data in this chapter or in the appendices. The data have been reported and analyzed as they have been reported by local governments. Location 2008 2009 2010 2011 Explanatory Notes Statewide Total Reported Acres 16,583,467 14,996,564 16,369,124 15,014,073 ND = No Data Submitted Comparison to 2008 Baseline 100.0%90.4%98.7%90.5% Lake 50,079 49,658 ND ND Mendocino 498,495 ND 486,665 ND Modoc 127,170 ND 127,629 ND Nevada 6,722 6,722 ND ND Orange 8,044 692 ND ND As of 2010 status report, 225 acres remained eligible for subvention. Plumas 82,996 82,996 ND ND Riverside 59,307 ND ND ND San Mateo ND ND ND ND Subject of 2007 audit; County has not refiled for subventions and is revamping program in 2012. Stanislaus 690,067 ND 690,110 ND Trinity 22,035 ND ND ND Acres Reported 1,544,915 140,068 1,304,404 0 Table 3 Land Conservation Act Statewide and County Reported Enrollment 2008-2011 California Department of Conservation Page 8 Statewide Enrollment The approximately 15.0 million acres reported in Land Conservation Act contracts in 2011 (Table 1) consists of approximately 62 percent Non-Prime land, 32 percent Prime land, and 6 percent Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) land. The FSZ program, based on 20-year contracts, has been adopted by 25 counties, although not all of these counties have executed contracts. Twenty-one counties reported a total of 875,604 acres of land under FSZ contract. Three counties had enrollments exceeding one million acres in 2011: Kern, Fresno, and Tulare; at 1.7, 1.5, and 1.1 million acres, respectively. Counties with the lowest enrollment included San Bernardino (just over 4,500 acres), and Orange (225 acres eligible for subventions as of the 2010 Status Report). Appendix tables A-1 and A-2 outline enrollment statistics for all counties for the two-year reporting period. Net Increases and Decreases in Enrollment Butte, Glenn, Humboldt, and Monterey counties were among the leading counties in new enrollments for both reporting years (Table 4). In total 35,579 acres entered the program statewide in 2010 and 30,432 acres in 2011 (Tables A-8 and A-9). Santa Barbara and Yolo counties had the largest enrollment decreases in 2010 and 2011, respectively (Table 5). The large drop in Yolo County enrollment was the result of a technical adjustment (see page 15). Five counties (San Benito, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and Yolo) were present on the list of top counties for enrollment decreases in both years. Statewide, the amount of land enrolled in the Land Conservation Act Program has been declining since 2005. Counties* with the Largest Enrollment Increase (Net) 2010 2011 Ranking Ranking 2009 2010 2010 2011 1 1 Lassen 9,142 2 1 Monterey 15,806 4 2 Monterey 4,226 6 2 Glenn 2,755 10 3 Butte 2,828 14 3 Calaveras 2,325 n/a 4 San Luis Obispo 1,877 n/a 4 Alameda 1,742 6 5 Siskiyou 1,807 7 5 Humboldt 982 7 6 Glenn 1,367 n/a 6 Placer 512 8 7 Humboldt 1,216 16 7 Napa 369 n/a 8 Fresno 621 n/a 8 Santa Cruz 308 16 9 Solano 545 3 9 Butte 196 11 10 Mariposa 512 18 10 Madera 178 County *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. Acres Table 4 AcresCounty Counties* with the Largest Enrollment Decrease (Net) 2010 2011 Ranking Ranking 2009 2010 2010 2011 n/a 1 Santa Barbara -3,178 5 1 Yolo -61,809 n/a 2 Kern -2,399 7 2 San Benito -2,410 21 3 Kings -1,619 4 3 San Joaquin -1,983 13 4 San Joaquin -1,485 n/a 4 Ventura 1,184 n/a 5 Yolo -1,426 11 5 Contra Costa -1,165 23 6 Alameda -1,339 1 6 Santa Barbara -1,068 20 7 San Benito -721 9 7 Tulare -911 11 8 Orange -692 12 8 Santa Clara -673 n/a 9 Tulare -670 n/a 9 Colusa -388 n/a 10 Tehama -366 n/a 10 San Luis Obispo -323 CountyCountyAcres Acres Table 5 *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Page 9 New Enrollments New enrollments12 are filed with the anticipation of maintaining the contracted land in agriculture for at least ten years. As such, new enrollments may be seen as an indicator of stability in the agricultural economy in a particular location. Changing economic circumstances, such as the recession and its impact on the potential development value of property, may make new enrollments less attractive than in periods of rapidly rising property values. Additionally, some counties froze enrollment, at least temporarily, in response to the loss of Open Space Subvention payments from the State. While new enrollments for the past decade averaged 88,762 acres annually, they have decreased in recent years. Particularly between 2010 and 2011, when new enrollments decreased from 35,579 acres to 30,432 acres, a decrease of 14.5 percent (Tables A-8 and A-9). Coastal and mountain counties have been among the most active in new enrollments, as seen in Tables 6 and 7. Since 1991, the greatest amount of new enrollment acreage occurred in 2001 (497,503 acres), and the least occurred in 2011 (30,432 acres). Farmland Security Zones – Transfers and Total Acreage A Farmland Security Zone (FSZ) transfer13 is the rescission of an existing Land Conservation Act contract with the concurrent creation of an FSZ contract on the same land. FSZ transfers do not result in a net change to the amount of contracted acreage within a county. These transfers signify a 20-year agricultural commitment. This 12 New enrollments include new Land Conservation Act contracts as well as new Farmland Security Zone contracts on land not previously under a Land Conservation Act contract, and other lands that would qualify for Open Space Subvention payments. 13 As enacted in 1998, the FSZ provisions allowed for the creation of a FSZ contract only through the rescission of an existing contract. That requirement was changed on January 1, 2000 thereafter allowing non-contracted land to go directly into an FSZ contract. Since January 2000, new FSZ contracts are either reported under new enrollments or as a transfer from a Land Conservation Act contract. 2010 2011 Ranking Ranking 2009 2010 2010 2011 14 1 Lassen 9,935 2 1 Monterey 16,017 5 2 Monterey 4,615 19 2 Calaveras 3,000 10 3 Butte 2,739 8 3 Glenn 2,755 4 4 Kern 2,400 4 4 Kern 2,113 8 5 San Luis Obispo 2,369 n/a 5 Alameda 1,621 2 6 Siskiyou 1,901 5 6 San Luis Obispo 1,080 24 7 Humboldt 1,401 7 7 Humboldt 1,040 7 8 Glenn 1,367 n/a 8 Amador 711 15 9 Tehama 1,264 11 9 Santa Barbara 478 n/a 10 Stanislaus 1,128 9 10 Tehama 445 Acres County Acres *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. County Counties* with the Greatest Amount of New Enrollments Table 6 Regional Ranking by the Amount of New Enrollments*Regional Enrollment (Acres)*† 2010 2011 Region Acres Region Acres North Coast & Mountain 13,335 Bay & Central Coast 19,068 Bay & Central Coast 7,931 Foothill & Sierra 4,065 Sacramento Valley 6,271 Sacramento Valley 3,473 San Joaquin Valley 5,854 San Joaquin Valley 2,267 South Coast & Desert 1,400 North Coast & Mountain 1,040 Foothill & Sierra 787 South Coast & Desert 518 Total 35,579 Total 30,432 Table 7 *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. California Department of Conservation Page 10 commitment is made possible only upon a deliberate action by the county in adopting the FSZ program and subsequently, by the landowner in petitioning for such a transfer. During the 2010 and 2011 reporting period, Monterey County dominated the FSZ transfers with 6,278 and 2,371 acres, respectively; comprising more than 96 percent of the transferred acres. Glenn and Ventura counties were the only other locations with FSZ transfers during this period (Tables A-3 and A-4). In both years, the amounts of FSZ transfers were well below the annual average of 26,201 acres for the past decade. Since 1991, FSZ transfers ranged from a high of 209,480 acres in 1999, to a low of 1,007 acres in 2006. As of January 1, 2011, 21 counties reported some percentage of their Land Conservation Act land under FSZ contract (Table 8 and Table A- 2). The proportion of contracted land devoted to FSZ enrollment among individual counties ranged from a high of 42.49 percent (Kings County) to 0.02 percent (Santa Barbara County), averaging 8.15 percent. Regionally, the Bay Area and Central Coast, the Sacramento Valley, and the San Joaquin Valley have greater than 2 percent of their total amount of enrolled land under FSZ contract (2.4 percent, 3.8 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively). Since 1999, the FSZ program has steadily increased the total enrolled acreage from 210,990 acres to 875,604 acres in 2011. Nonrenewal Initiations Government Code § 51245 The nonrenewal of a Land Conservation Act contract may be initiated by either the landowner or the local government. This is the preferred method for ending the contract in an orderly fashion, as the contract winds down during the remaining years of the term. Nonrenewal often occurs with the anticipation of converting farmland to other uses. 2010 2011 Ranking Ranking 2009 2010 2010 2011 5 1 Kern 8,134 n/a 1 Imperial 117,246 n/a 2 Monterey 1,649 11 2 Santa Clara 36,977 7 3 Tulare 1,598 1 3 Kern 4,205 2 4 Sacramento 1,403 3 4 Tulare 3,845 6 5 Fresno 1,144 n/a 5 Mariposa 2,945 23 6 Lassen 1,018 2 6 Monterey 1,386 n/a 7 Tuolumne 982 4 7 Sacramento 863 8 8 Madera 855 21 8 San Joaquin 474 n/a 9 Stanislaus 755 22 9 San Luis Obispo 388 n/a 10 Humboldt 368 n/a 10 Merced 362 County Acres County Acres Table 9 Counties* with the Greatest Amount of Nonrenewal Initiations *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. County FSZ Acres Enrollment Total Percent of Total Kings 287,810 677,320 42 Glenn 90,438 424,243 21 Colusa 59,388 320,060 19 Marin 17,507 103,382 17 Sierra 5,730 40,548 14 Madera 62,742 539,140 12 San Joaquin 59,998 530,985 11 Kern 158,927 1,699,132 9 Monterey 54,749 789,616 7 Lassen 19,503 334,534 6 Placer 1,696 43,519 4 Ventura 3,083 127,917 2 Fresno 29,281 1,494,558 2 Tehama 11,528 800,868 1 Tulare 11,152 1,098,168 1 Santa Cruz 123 16,083 1 El Dorado 185 34,206 1 Humboldt 697 203,143 0 San Luis Obispo 773 792,577 0 Yolo 159 355,658 0 Santa Barbara 133 545,501 0 Table 8 Farmland Security Zone Acreage and Percentage of Total Enrollment By County in 2011 The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Page 11 The impact of the economy on nonrenewal trends was evident in statewide statistics over the past decade, during which nonrenewal initiations increased each year from 2001 (16,148 acres) to 2007 (157,805 acres). Over the next three years, as the recession slowed the demand for urban expansion, nonrenewal initiation acreages fell sharply, to 19,967 acres in 2010. In 2011, other factors led to a sharp increase in nonrenewal initiations. The elimination of State Open Space Subvention payments led Imperial County to initiate nonrenewal14 on all 117,246 acres remaining under contract (Tables 9 and 10). Imperial County had entered the Land Conservation Act Program in 2000. While in Santa Clara County, nearly 37,000 acres entered nonrenewal in 2011, as the County sought to remove parcels that no longer met enrollment criteria from contract. These two factors drove the statewide nonrenewal initiation acreage to its highest level since the inception of the Land Conservation Act, at 170,605 acres. The annual average for nonrenewal initiations was 74,305 acres for the past decade. Nonrenewal Expirations Government Code § 51246 During the years when a property is in the nonrenewal process, its property tax assessment gradually increases, returning to full market value at the end of the contract’s term. Upon conclusion of the contract, also known as nonrenewal expiration, land use restrictions are removed from the property. From 2010 to 2011, nonrenewal expirations decreased by approximately 14 percent, to 15,617 acres, which is below the annual average of 20,571 acres of the past decade (Table 11). A complete list of 2010 and 2011 Nonrenewal Expirations is located in Appendix A, Table A-11. 14 Imperial County Board of Supervisors Official Proceedings, February 23, 2010; reaffirmed October12, 2010. See also articles at Imperial Valley Press Online, http://articles.ivpressonline.com/keyword/williamson-act. Counties* with the Greatest Amount of Nonrenewal Expirations 2010 2011 Ranking Ranking 2009 2010 2010 2011 10 1 Santa Barbara 5,145 3 1 San Benito 2,418 5 2 San Joaquin 2,211 2 2 San Joaquin 2,110 14 3 San Benito 1,816 10 3 Kern 1,969 8 4 Kings 1,619 1 4 Santa Barbara 1,627 n/a 5 Santa Cruz 1,340 27 5 Ventura 1,203 4 6 Placer 1,314 25 6 Contra Costa 1,043 2 7 San Luis Obispo 846 8 7 Tulare 911 13 8 Tulare 779 9 8 Tehama 744 15 9 Tehama 747 22 9 Santa Clara 699 7 10 Kern 686 n/a 10 Amador 685 *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. County Acres County Acres Table 11 Regional Ranking by the Amount of Nonrenewal Initiations* 2010 2011 Region Acres Region Acres San Joaquin Valley 12,590 South Coast & Desert 117,434 Bay & Central Coast 2,642 Bay & Central Coast 39,101 Foothill & Sierra 1,695 San Joaquin Valley 8,966 Sacramento Valley 1,655 Foothill & Sierra 3,584 North Coast & Mountain 1,385 Sacramento Valley 1,258 South Coast & Desert 0 North Coast & Mountain 263 Total 19,967 Total 170,605 *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. Table 10 California Department of Conservation Page 12 The San Joaquin Valley region experienced the largest amount of nonrenewal expirations in both reporting years (Table 12). Since 1991, the greatest amount of nonrenewal expirations occurred in 1999 (118,391 acres), and the least in 2006 (11,934 acres). Total Acreage in Nonrenewal During any calendar year, there is a cumulative total of land that is somewhere within the phased nonrenewal process. In 2010, there were 502,859 acres of 10-year contracts and 17,663 acres of FSZ land under nonrenewal (Tables A-5 and A-6). The San Joaquin Valley held the most land in this status, led by 92,564 acres in Kern County. Stanislaus, San Joaquin, and Madera counties each had in excess of 35,000 acres in cumulative nonrenewal during 2010. During 2011, cumulative nonrenewals totaled 612,583 acres in 10-year contracts and 18,843 acres of FSZ land (Tables A-5 and A-7). Imperial County’s decision to exit the Land Conservation Act Program accounted for 19 percent of land currently in nonrenewal statewide. Kern County had the second highest acreage in nonrenewal (94,801 acres), followed by Santa Clara County (51,589 acres). On a percentage basis, San Bernardino and Imperial counties led in the amount of land under nonrenewal in 2010 and 2011, respectively (Table 13). Placer County also had 20 percent or more of its total enrolled land in nonrenewal during both years. Contract Cancellations Government Code § 51280 et seq. A cancellation is the immediate termination of a contract by a landowner, which requires payment of a cancellation fee and board of supervisors or city council approval based on rigorous findings. State law limits the use of cancellation to narrow conditions. Due to the specific findings required for approval of a contract cancellation, only a small fraction of yearly contract terminations occur as a result of cancellation. Over the past decade, cancellations averaged 817 acres per year. Regional Ranking by the Amount of Nonrenewal Expirations* 2010 2011 Region Acres Region Acres San Joaquin Valley 6,314 San Joaquin Valley 5,212 South Coast & Desert 5,172 Bay & Central Coast 4,929 Bay & Central Coast 4,666 South Coast & Desert 2,830 Sacramento Valley 1,550 Foothill & Sierra 1,265 Foothill & Sierra 1,488 Sacramento Valley 1,238 North Coast & Mountain 184 North Coast & Mountain 144 Total 19,375 Total 15,617 *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. Table 12 Counties* with the Largest Percentage of Enrollment Under Nonrenewal 2010 2011 Ranking Ranking 2009 2010 2010 2011 2 1 San Bernardino 25 4 1 Imperial 100 3 2 Placer 21 2 2 San Bernardino 25 4 3 Imperial 16 3 3 Placer 20 n/a 4 Tuolumne 14 13 4 Santa Clara 17 5 5 Mariposa 10 5 5 Tuolumne 13 6 6 Santa Barbara 8 6 6 Mariposa 12 8 7 San Joaquin 7 7 7 Santa Barbara 7 n/a 8 Stanislaus 6 8 8 San Joaquin 7 9 9 Madera 6 11 9 Sacramento 6 n/a 10 Sacramento 6 10 10 Madera 6 *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. Table 13 County %County % The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Page 13 In 2010, cancellations totaled 64 acres, all located in the San Joaquin Valley; while in 2011 Calaveras County was responsible for all but one acre of the 676 acres reported as cancelled (Table 14). More than 99 percent of the land cancelled in Calaveras County was classified as Non-Prime. Since 1991, the greatest amount of cancellations occurred in 1995 (5,694 acres) and the least in 2009 (7 acres). Public Acquisitions Government Code § 51290 et seq. Public agencies may acquire Land Conservation Act contracted land for a wide range of public improvements. Common reasons for governmental acquisitions of contracted land include: transportation improvements, schools, wildlife habitat, water resource infrastructure, and public open space. Before acquiring contracted lands, a public agency must make findings that no other non-contracted land reasonably feasible for the purpose is available, and that the lower cost of contracted land is not a primary factor in its decision. A public acquisition will result in the immediate termination of a Land Conservation Act contract if the public agency meets the appropriate notification requirements as outlined in Government Code § 51290 et seq. and acquires the land via eminent domain15 or in lieu of eminent domain. From 2009 to 2010, public acquisitions increased by approximately 36 percent, from 5,156 to 8,048 acres. Kern County led in this category during 2010 (Table 15), with nearly 1,900 acres acquired by the Semitropic Water Storage District and more than 2,100 acres acquired by the North River Sanitation District. Alameda County ranked second in public acquisitions during 2010, with more than 1,150 acres purchased by the East Bay Regional Park District. Third-ranked Tehama County was primarily affected by a federal government purchase of more than 640 acres. In 2011, the number of publicly acquired acres decreased by approximately 86 percent to 1,152 acres – well below the annual average of 26,664 acres for the past decade. Kern County had the highest amount of publicly acquired acreage in 2010 and 2011 (Table 15). Regionally, the San Joaquin Valley, Bay Area, and Central Coast 15 Eminent Domain Law, Code of Civil Procedure §1230.10, et seq. Counties* with Cancellations 2010 2011 Ranking Ranking 2009 2010 2010 2011 n/a 1 Fresno 61 n/a 1 Calaveras 675 n/a 2 Stanislaus 3 n/a 2 Kern 1 Acres *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. Table 14 Acres CountyCounty Counties* with the Greatest Amount of Public Acquisitions 2010 2011 Ranking Ranking 2009 2010 2010 2011 2 1 Kern 4,102 1 1 Kern 378 8 2 Alameda 1,155 4 2 Santa Clara 260 n/a 3 Tehama 879 5 3 Monterey 183 n/a 4 Santa Clara 500 6 4 Contra Costa 121 n/a 5 Monterey 389 11 5 Sacramento 121 5 6 Contra Costa 372 9 6 San Diego 84 1 7 Fresno 258 10 7 San Benito 2 n/a 8 Stanislaus 131 16 8 Ventura 2 n/a 9 San Diego 128 12 9 Placer 1 n/a 10 San Benito 43 - - - - Table 15 County Acres County Acres *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. California Department of Conservation Page 14 had the highest amount of publicly acquired acreage in 2010 and 2011, respectively (Table 16). Complete lists of 2010 and 2011 Public Acquisitions are located in Tables A-15 and A-16. Since 1991, the greatest amount of publicly acquired acres occurred in 2005 (70,334) and the least in 2011 (1,152). City Annexations Government Code § 51243.5 A Land Conservation Act contract may be immediately terminated when the land is annexed to a city. For this termination to occur, the Local Agency Formation Commission for the area must determine that the city protested placement of the original Land Conservation Act contract in a valid manner. Certain contracts executed prior to 1991 may be terminated through city annexation only if the city filed a valid protest upon county notification at the time of contract formation. At present, the total amount of contracted acreage covered by protested contracts statewide is unknown. From 2009 to 2010, the amount of contracted land annexed by cities increased by approximately 34 percent from 539 to 818 acres (Table 17). In 2011, no contracted land was annexed by cities. The decrease in annexations may be associated with the recession, as annexations averaged 1,438 acres per year for the past decade. Since 1991, the greatest amount of annexed acreage occurred in 2000 (9,961 acres) and the least in 2011 (zero acres). Net Adjustments Local governments have the difficult task of monitoring all of the changes that affect the approximately 15.0 million reported acres contracted under the Land Conservation Act.16 Adjustments are the reconciliation of errors in records or previous reports, re-mappings or re-surveys, lot line adjustments, or parcel divisions. These adjustments are partly a result of the elimination of local government program administration errors, and those related to enrollment data input and data analysis. As seen in Tables 18 and 19, adjustments can represent an increase or a decrease in enrolled acreage. From 2009 to 2010, net adjustments made by reporting counties decreased by approximately 91 percent from a net gain of 12,487 acres to a net gain of 1,077 acres. 16 Adjusting for the ten counties that did not supply data in 2011, statewide total enrollment is estimated to be 16.3 million acres. See Chapter 1, page 7. Regional Ranking by the Amount of Public Acquisitions* 2010 2011 Region Acres Region Acres San Joaquin Valley 4,513 Bay & Central Coast 566 Bay & Central Coast 2,461 San Joaquin Valley 378 Sacramento Valley 915 Sacramento Valley 121 South Coast & Desert 132 South Coast & Desert 86 Foothill & Sierra 27 Foothill & Sierra 1 North Coast & Mountain 0 North Coast & Mountain 0 Total 8,048 Total 1,152 *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. Table 16 Counties* with Annexations of Contracted Land to Cities 2010 2011 Ranking Ranking 2009 2010 2010 2011 n/a 1 Stanislaus 675 - - - - 3 2 San Joaquin 125 - - - - n/a 3 Madera 19 - - - - Acres Table 17 *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. County Acres County The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Page 15 From 2010 to 2011, the amount of net adjustments increased by approximately 98 percent resulting in a statewide net decrease of 61,696 acres. The 2011 figure represented approximately 77 percent of the total contract terminations statewide.17 In 2011, Yolo County ranked first in the amount of adjustments. This large decrease in contracted acres is attributed to discrepancies between the Assessor’s database and actual contracted acreage, resulting in an over reporting of contracted acreage for several years. Net adjustments for all counties are outlined in Tables A-19 and A-20. Since 1994, the largest number of adjusted acres occurred in 2011 (61,696 acre decrease) and the smallest number occurred in 2007 (441 acre decrease). 17 Decreases in the total number of contracted acreage have been included with terminations for the purposes of evaluating the overall loss in contract acreage. A ―Net Adjustment‖ is not a true method of contract termination. It represents corrections and statistical adjustments by counties in reporting annual data to the Department of Conservation. These adjustments can be positive or negative. Counties* with the Greatest Amount of Adjustments (Net) 2010 2011 Ranking Ranking 2009 2010 2010 2011 5 1 Fresno 1,166 2 1 Yolo -61,859 n/a 2 Yolo -1,071 6 2 San Luis Obispo -917 4 3 Placer 1,047 3 3 Placer 775 10 4 Lassen -793 13 4 Amador -339 8 5 Merced -714 16 5 Napa 329 2 6 San Luis Obispo 500 14 6 San Joaquin 127 n/a 7 Stanislaus 479 22 7 Alameda 120 n/a 8 Mendocino -445 23 8 Mariposa -96 6 9 Sonoma 384 n/a 9 Monterey 85 26 10 Butte 338 12 10 Santa Barbara 81 Table 18 Acres County Acres County *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. Regional Ranking by the Amount of Adjustments (Net)* 2010 2011 Region Acres Region Acres North Coast & Mountain -1,332 Sacramento Valley -61,868 Sacramento Valley -594 Bay & Central Coast -433 South Coast & Desert 174 North Coast & Mountain -37 Foothill & Sierra 860 South Coast & Desert 140 San Joaquin Valley 905 San Joaquin Valley 185 Bay & Central Coast 1,063 Foothill & Sierra 317 Total 1,077 Total -61,696 *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. Table 19 California Department of Conservation Page 16 This page left intentionally blank. The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Page 17 Chapter 3: Longer-Term Trends in the Land Conservation Act How the most recent years compare with data from the past decade Longer-term trends in statewide Land Conservation Act enrollment are based on large amounts of data. For ease of understanding, this report relies on trend charts and brief interpretations. The nonreporting status of various counties (see Table 3, Chapter 1) has an unknown impact on how well these charts reflect actual statewide summaries in the most recent reporting years. A Decade of Land Conservation Act Contract Termination Trends Statutorily, there are five ways to terminate a Land Conservation Act contract: nonrenewal, cancellation, public acquisition, city annexation, and easement exchange. For reporting purposes, acres may also be removed on paper via ―Net Adjustments.‖ Contract terminations that have occurred over the past decade are depicted in Figure 4. They included, in order of magnitude: non-renewal; public acquisition; net adjustment; city annexations; easement exchanges; and cancellations. These termination methods are discussed in more detail below. Nonrenewal: The nonrenewal process is the most common (and recommended) mechanism for the termination of Land Conservation Act contracted land. Since 2000, more contracted acreage has been terminated through nonrenewal expiration than all other methods of termination combined. From 2000 to 2011, nonrenewal expirations have averaged 33,900 acres per year statewide. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Figure 4 Termination Trend Comparison, 2000-2011 (acres) Cancellations Easement Exchanges City Annexations Net Adjustments Public Acquisitions Nonrenewal Expirations California Department of Conservation Page 18 The cumulative acreage of land in the ten year nonrenewal process was relatively low in the early part of the past decade, but increased significantly beginning in 2006 (Figure 5). Approximately 630,000 acres were in nonrenewal (including FSZ nonrenewals) in 2011, about 4.2 percent of total reported enrollment. This includes the entire enrollment of Imperial County. Despite the impact of Imperial County’s acreage, land in nonrenewal remains lower than the peak year of 1993, when nearly 700,000 acres were being phased out of the program. Figure 6 depicts the acreage of cumulative nonrenewals enrolled as Prime land versus that of Non-Prime land. Non-renewals initiations (Figure 7) steadily grew to a peak in 2007, when the economy was rapidly growing, which in turn caused peak in the cumulative non-renewals the same year. While nonrenewal of Prime land has historically been lower than that of Non-Prime land, in recent years the gap has disappeared. By 2011, the amount of land in nonrenewal was relatively equal between the two enrollment classes. Finally, in Figure 7, the amount of land being initiated in the nonrenewal process is depicted along with that exiting the ten year nonrenewal process. The peaks in nonrenewal initiation in mid-decade and in 2011 represent two distinct land use and fiscal factors. Nonrenewals steadily grew to a peak in 2007, when the economy was rapidly growing, but plummeted as the recession took hold. The spike in 2011 is comprised primarily of the countywide nonrenewal by Imperial County, which was filed in response to the elimination of Open Space Subvention payments. 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 5 Statewide Cumulative Nonrenewal Acreage: 2000-2011 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 6 Statewide Cumulative Nonrenewal Acreage 2000-2011 Prime v. Nonprime Prime Nonprime 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 7 Nonrenewal Initiations v. Nonrenewal Expirations: 2000-2011 Nonrenewal Initiations Nonrenewal Expirations The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Page 19 Public Acquisition: Public acquisitions have been the second leading source of contract termination acreage over the past decade. When public entities acquire land via eminent domain, or in lieu of eminent domain, Land Conservation Act contracts are terminated. However, if acquired through a willing seller agreement or donation, the contract continues to be in place. Public acquisition resulting in contract termination was particularly common between 2002 and 2006 (Figure 8). This may have a relationship with projects funded out of various water, parks, school facilities, and transportation infrastructure bonds that were passed by California voters during that period.18 In recent years these acquisitions have declined, reaching their lowest level in 2011 (1,152 acres). From 2000 to 2011, public acquisitions have averaged 29,380 acres per year statewide. Net Adjustments: A ―Net Adjustment‖ does not reflect actual contract termination. It represents corrections and statistical adjustments by counties in reporting annual data to the Department of Conservation. These adjustments can be positive or negative. The fluctuation in Net Adjustments decreased in the latter part of the past decade, but an adjustment of nearly 62,000 acres in Yolo County resulted in a large negative net adjustment statewide (Figure 9). From 2000 to 2011, county reported adjustments led to an average shift of 13,389 acres per year in enrollment totals statewide. 18 A complete list of general obligation bonds is contained in this report from the State Treasurer’s Office: http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/publications/2011dar.pdf. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 8 Public Acquisitions: 2000-2011 -65,000 -55,000 -45,000 -35,000 -25,000 -15,000 -5,000 5,000 15,000 25,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 9 Net Adjustments to Land Conservation Act Acreage Reported by Counties California Department of Conservation Page 20 City Annexations: The actual amount of contracted land terminated through annexation is overstated since this analysis assumes that affected contracts are terminated upon annexation.19 Annexation acreage has fluctuated over the past decade. From 2000 to 2011, city annexations averaged 2,309 acres per year statewide. Easement Exchanges: This method of contract termination became available in 1998. The process to complete an exchange is detailed and exhaustive; thus as of 2011, a total of only six Land Conservation Act easement exchanges have taken place. During that time, Land Conservation Act contracts were rescinded on 835 acres in exchange for the placement of permanent agricultural conservation easements on 1,747 acres. The past decade had all but one of these transactions, comprising 802 acres of Land Conservation Act enrolled land being exchanged for 1,657 acres of permanent conservation easement land. Counties with successful easement exchanges included Alameda, Contra Costa, Riverside, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, and Sonoma. A number of other projects have been proposed for Easement Exchange but have not proceeded to completion. Cancellations: Early cancellation of Land Conservation Act contracts is the least common method of exiting the program. The cancellation process requires detailed findings by local governments to justify an early termination of the contract. Over the past decade, cancellation acreage totaled 9,424 acres, fluctuating with economic factors including the recession. Cancellations were highest in 2004 (2,933 acres) and lowest in 2009 and 2010 (7 and 64 acres, respectively, Figure 10). 19 Termination upon annexation can only occur when a city is able to make the specified findings and determinations listed in Government Code §51243.5. If all applicable findings and determinations are made the city may opt not to succeed to the contract (i.e., the city can elected not to enforce the contract) and file a certificate of contract termination. Land Conservation Act Termination Trends Summary Between 2000 and 2011, the five methods of Land Conservation Act contract termination totaled 878,986 acres, with contract nonrenewals and acquisitions by public agencies being the primary vehicles used to exit the program (Table 20). 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 10 Cancellations: 2000-2011 Method of Termination Acres Percent of Total Nonrenewal Expirations 372,903 42.42 Public Acquisitions 323,176 36.77 City Annexations 25,401 2.89 Easement Exchanges 802 0.09 Cancellations 9,424 1.07 Net Adjustments 147,280 16.76 878,986 100.00 Table 20 Cumulative Acres Terminated by Category: 2000-2011 The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Page 21 Chapter 4: Statewide Land Conservation Act Administration, Support, and Legislation Maintaining conservation values while addressing fiscal limitations The 2012 Land Conservation Act Status Report documents some of the largest challenges yet faced by the Program, at both county and State levels. Decreased tax revenues linked to the recession decreased the capacity of the State to support counties in their administration of the Program, most notably through the elimination of Open Space Subventions. Other land use concerns began to take greater precedence, and legislation was enacted to address each of these subjects during the course of the reporting period. Reported Eligible Acreage and Subvention Application Totals The Open Space Subvention Act provides for the partial replacement of local property tax revenues foregone as a result of participation in the Land Conservation Act and other enforceable restriction programs. Since the first Open Space Subvention payments in FY 1972, the State has distributed over $863 million ($1.5 billion in inflation adjusted dollars, see Appendix B) to counties and cities in support of the Land Conservation Act’s goals. In 2011, 13,581,194 acres were reported as eligible, equating to $34,391,771 in claimed subventions. In 2010, 15,330,421 acres were reported as eligible, while $37,319,384 was claimed in subventions (Tables A-23 and A-24). Actual subvention payments, which had been increasing since 1996, declined each year from 2004 to 2011. The top ten counties have remained fairly stable over the years in terms of subvention claims. The eight San Joaquin Valley counties comprised eight of the top positions in 2010, rounded out with Yolo and San Luis Obispo counties. In 2011 seven San Joaquin Valley counties comprised the top positions (Table 21), while Stanislaus County did not report. Counties* with the Largest Subvention Application Amounts 2010 2011 2009 2010 2010 2011 1 1 Fresno 5,322,505 1 1 Fresno 5,322,505 2 2 Kern 4,651,520 2 2 Kern 4,645,715 3 3 Tulare 3,437,149 3 3 Tulare 3,430,347 4 4 Kings 2,595,128 4 4 Kings 2,647,750 5 5 San Joaquin 1,880,145 5 5 San Joaquin 1,884,317 6 6 Merced 1,473,345 6 6 Merced 1,473,131 7 7 Madera 1,394,289 7 7 Madera 1,384,406 n/a 8 Stanislaus 1,354,180 10 8 San Luis Obispo 1,128,599 8 9 Yolo 1,140,246 11 9 Glenn 1,068,383 9 10 San Luis Obispo 1,099,135 12 10 Monterey 1,043,459 Ranking *Based on reporting from 42 out of 52 counties with Land Conservation Act contracts. Table 21 RankingCountyDollars County Dollars California Department of Conservation Page 22 During this reporting period (2010 and 2011) the San Joaquin Valley accounted for approximately 43 percent of the total statewide Land Conservation Act enrollment and approximately 60 percent of total subvention payment claims (Table 22 & Table 23). Farmland Security Zone Urban Non-Urban Region Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Bay & Central Coast 1,058,851 2,615,379 233,667 30,205 57,503 22,400 5,449 69 2,613 4,026,136 Foothill & Sierra 152,723 590,475 410 14,005 25 5,805 0 360 129 763,932 North Coast & Mountain 953,610 1,533,995 4,364 272 58,712 7,877 0 0 0 2,558,830 Sacramento Valley 3,622,397 1,638,197 263,567 26,718 577,715 9,179 10,692 2,932 0 6,151,396 San Joaquin Valley 15,979,499 2,899,958 753,303 5,742 2,442,596 26,332 1,639 0 686 22,109,754 South Coast & Desert 1,085,783 556,836 12,794 5,758 2,807 238 889 5,358 40,031 1,710,494 Totals 22,852,863 9,834,840 1,268,105 82,700 3,139,357 71,832 18,668 8,718 43,459 37,320,542 Table 22 2010 Open Space Subvention Act Payment Claims By Region* ($) Land Conservation Act Agricultural Conservation Easement Other Eligible Open Space Total *As a result of Government Code section 16148, the above OSSA payments were effectively eliminated. Farmland Security Zone Urban Non-Urban Region Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Bay & Central Coast 1,067,698 2,603,091 283,814 30,205 57,503 22,400 5,449 69 2,613 4,072,842 Foothill & Sierra 170,283 587,982 410 14,005 25 5,805 0 360 129 779,000 North Coast & Mountain 696,946 972,111 4,364 272 58,712 7,877 0 0 0 1,740,282 Sacramento Valley 3,310,728 1,634,951 263,606 30,720 577,715 9,179 10,692 2,932 0 5,840,522 San Joaquin Valley 15,002,427 2,555,463 753,287 5,742 2,442,596 26,332 1,639 0 686 20,788,171 South Coast & Desert 555,869 546,430 13,575 5,758 2,807 238 889 5,358 40,031 1,170,954 Totals 20,803,951 8,900,027 1,319,057 86,702 3,139,357 71,832 18,668 8,718 43,459 34,391,771 Table 23 2011 Open Space Subvention Act Payment Claims By Region* ($) *As a result of Government Code section 16148, the above OSSA payments were effectively eliminated. Land Conservation Act Agricultural Conservation Easement Other Eligible Open Space Total While prime agricultural land constitutes about one-third of the statewide enrollment, it accounted for roughly 74 percent of total subvention claims in 2011. Other enforceably restricted lands, including Open Space Easement lands that qualify for subvention payments, accounted for 0.1 percent of total subvention claims in 2011. Not all Land Conservation Act contracted lands are eligible for subvention payments. For example, local governments generally cannot claim subventions on contracted land that is under nonrenewal or valued lower for property tax purposes under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 110.1 (Proposition 13). In both 2010 and 2011, approximately 3 percent of the reported statewide enrollment was not eligible for subvention payments. Compliance Audits In 1988, audits of jurisdictions participating in the Land Conservation Act and Open Space Subvention Act program were initiated. Audits were designed to evaluate two primary issue areas: Payments of subvention claims for ineligible land. This has been the most frequent cause of subvention overpayments, either because the land was in the contract nonrenewal process, or it was valued lower under Proposition 13 than for valuation under Land Conservation Act contracts. Lack of payment of cancellation fees. These fees are paid by landowners who have cancelled contracts with local governments, which in turn must transmit the funds to the State Controller’s Office within the statutorily required timeframe. The California Land Conservation Act 2012 Status Report Page 23 The initial audit of several counties was conducted on behalf of the Department by the state Department of General Services (DGS). It resulted in the recapture of approximately $550,000. In FY 1996, the Department began an annual compliance audit program through contracts with the Department of Finance. This program resulted in a return to the General Fund of more than $2 million from the recapture of subvention overpayments and unpaid contract cancellation fees. More recent audits were conducted by the Department in-house (Table 23, next page), but these have been suspended since FY 2009 due to a lack of funding. Another major benefit of the audit process has been to ensure that local jurisdictions are using the appropriate procedures to administer the Program as required by statute. Counties have significant latitude in the uniform rules they adopt regarding the Program, but ultimately must meet statutory requirements to ensure responsible fiscal and land use decision making. A number of the audits listed in Table 24, as well as spot reviews undertaken in other fiscal years, have helped to correct procedures relating to lot line adjustments, incompatible uses, acreage reporting, and Land Conservation Act contract language. 1998-99 (1)San Luis Obispo, Riverside, Monterey, Tehama 958,497 1999-00 Colusa, San Diego, Yolo 50,406 2000-01 Contra Costa, Glenn, San Benito, Santa Barbara, Tuolumne 5,000 2001-02 Marin, Mendocino, Placer, San Bernardino, Santa Clara (2)57,980 2002-03 Sacramento, Ventura, Solano, Kern, Mariposa, Siskiyou 11,125 2003-04 none 0 Butte, Humbolt, Sonoma 289,773 Subsequent review of: Marin, Mendocino, Placer, San Bernardino, Santa Clara (2)407,885 2005-06 Sonoma 29,457 2006-07 Alameda 94,395 2007-08 Calaveras 135,689 2008-09 San Mateo (3)0 2009-10 none 0 2010-11 none 0 Total 2,040,207 (1) $911,298 of the total was for cancellation fees collected by Riverside County that were not forwarded to the State Controller's Office. 2004-05 (2) The 2004 review was a continuation of the audit initiated in 2001. (3) Audit led to county review of uniform rules; no recovered funds. Table 24 Fiscal Year Counties Audited Recaptured Subvention s Recaptured Subvention Payments From Audits Recent Legislation Affecting the Land Conservation Act New legislation during the reporting period focused on decreases in Open Space Subventions as a result of revenue issues affecting the State’s General Fund; and on locating solar power facilities on land that is marginally productive or that has become contaminated by natural or other causes. Effective January 1, 2011 Senate Bill 863 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2010): SB 863 was a budget trailer bill that replaced Assembly Bill 2530 (Nielsen, Chapter 391, Statutes of 2010). The goal of SB 863 was to provide counties with an incentive to continue their participation in the Land Conservation Act by allowing them to recapture a portion of their foregone property tax revenues due to their California Department of Conservation Page 24 participation in the Program. The recaptured funding would be derived by decreasing the duration of Land Conservation Act and FSZ contracts by one- and two-years, respectively. Additionally, SB 863 provided a one-time, $10 million subvention to counties that participated in the Program. Senate Bill 80 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 11, Statutes of 2011): While SB 863 appropriated $10 million from the General Fund to make subvention payments to counties participating in the Land Conservation Act in FY 2010, SB 80 reduced this appropriation to zero. Assembly Bill 1265 (Nielsen, Chapter 90, Statutes of 2011): AB 1265 reinstated the relevant Land Conservation Act, Revenue & Tax Code, and Open Space Subvention Act provisions found in SB 863. Similar to SB 863, AB 1265 allowed eligible counties to recapture a portion of the property tax benefits provided to their owners of Land Conservation Act lands. However, AB 1265 did not reinstate the $10 million subvention to participating counties. Effective January 1, 2012 Senate Bill 618 (Wolk, Chapter 596, Statutes of 2011): SB 618 authorized the parties to a Land Conservation Act contract (city or county and landowners), after approval by the Department of Conservation, and in consultation with the Department of Food and Agriculture, to mutually agree to rescind the contract in order to simultaneously enter into a solar-use easement. The solar-use easement would require that the land be used for solar photovoltaic facilities for a term of no less than 20 years, except as specified. One of the key circumstances is the siting of solar photovoltaic facilities on agricultural lands that are marginally productive or that have become contaminated by natural or other causes. Page 25 Appendix A 2010 and 2011 Reported Statistics by County Page 26 TA B L E A -1 T o t a l R e p o r t e d E n r o l l m e n t 2 0 1 0 Total Reported Enrollment (Acres)Total Reported Enrollment (Acres) 2010 Farmland Security Zone* Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda 2,526 131,167 - - - - - - - 133,693 Amador 5,213 87,878 - - - - - 360 - 93,451 Butte 113,686 106,293 - - - - - - - 219,979 Calaveras 448 141,245 - - - - - - - 141,693 Colusa 66,952 193,720 15,989 737 41,015 2,035 - - - 320,448 Contra Costa 9,538 36,336 - - - - - - - 45,874 El Dorado 2,334 31,795 - - 5 180 - - - 34,315 Fresno 982,032 483,245 - - 25,799 3,482 - - - 1,494,558 Glenn 63,618 267,432 14,112 500 73,600 2,226 - - - 421,488 Humboldt 5,088 196,808 - - 236 31 - - - 202,162 Imperial 133,928 4,632 - - - - - - - 138,561 Kern 628,186 912,223 25,176 133,751 - - - - - 1,699,336 Kings 279,062 110,671 28,851 227 248,090 10,642 - - - 677,543 Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen 15,063 299,968 546 34 11,239 7,684 - - 334,534 Los Angeles - - - - - - - - 40,031 40,031 Madera 201,160 274,732 13,936 362 46,334 2,111 328 - - 538,963 Marin 1,646 84,229 - - 290 17,217 - - - 103,382 Mariposa 185,501 21,676 - - - - - - - 207,177 Mendocino 35,019 451,646 - - - - - - - 486,665 Merced 258,883 209,080 - - - - - - - 467,963 Modoc 17,764 109,865 - - - - - - - 127,629 Mono 13,310 - - - - - - - - 13,310 Monterey 51,999 669,137 28,551 2,767 12,728 5,484 524 6 2,613 773,809 Napa 18,814 51,781 - - - - - - - 70,595 Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer 15,576 25,734 51 - - 1,645 - - - 43,007 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento 87,722 93,369 - - - - - - - 181,091 San Benito 51,759 530,783 - - - - - - - 582,542 San Bernardino 2,170 2,371 - - - - - - - 4,542 San Diego 4,821 56,906 - - - - - - - 61,727 San Joaquin 323,478 149,489 15,215 79 34,156 10,550 - - - 532,968 San Luis Obispo 90,630 701,496 576 79 55 64 - - - 792,900 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 74,819 466,081 - - 133 - 177 5,359 - 546,569 Santa Clara 10,132 296,105 - - - - - - - 306,237 Santa Cruz 2,724 12,865 82 32 - 10 - 63 - 15,776 Shasta 23,702 163,482 - - - - - - - 187,184 Sierra 1,918 32,901 - 1,751 - 3,980 - - - 40,549 Siskiyou 96,056 325,506 - - - - - - - 421,562 Solano 120,053 145,582 - - - - 1,939 2,888 - 270,461 Sonoma 43,331 228,742 - - - - - - - 272,072 Stanislaus 293,495 396,459 - - - - 156 - - 690,110 Sutter 51,408 13,165 - - - - - - - 64,573 Tehama 53,616 736,028 2,687 2,607 1,190 5,044 - - - 801,172 Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare 573,296 513,946 11,102 50 - - - - 686 1,099,079 Tuolumne - 120,467 - - - - - - - 120,467 Ventura 47,465 78,693 1,599 676 428 238 - - - 129,101 Yolo 240,988 176,114 158 1 - - 200 7 - 417,467 Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - 812 - - - - - - - 812 Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto 148 338 - - - - - - - 486 Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 5,300,928 10,141,845 158,630 143,652 495,298 72,624 3,323 8,682 43,330 16,368,312 Cities 148 1,150 - - - - - - - 1,297 Grand Totals 5,301,075 10,142,995 158,630 143,652 495,298 72,624 3,323 8,682 43,330 16,369,609 *Totals include both continuing term and nonrenewal contracts. Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act* Agricultural Conservation Easement Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Page 27 TA B L E A -2 T o t a l R e p o r t e d E n r o l l m e n t 2 0 1 1 Total Reported Enrollment (Acres) 2011 Farmland Security Zone* Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Alameda 2,487 132,947 - - - - - - - 135,434 Amador 5,510 87,267 - - - - - 360 - 93,137 Butte 113,808 106,367 - - - - - - - 220,175 Calaveras 450 143,568 - - - - - - - 144,018 Colusa 66,952 193,720 15,989 737 40,628 2,035 - - - 320,060 Contra Costa 9,466 35,243 - - - - - - - 44,709 El Dorado 2,334 31,686 - - 5 180 - - - 34,206 Fresno 982,032 483,245 - - 25,799 3,482 - - - 1,494,558 Glenn 63,781 270,024 14,112 500 73,600 2,226 - - - 424,243 Humboldt 5,300 197,147 - - 504 193 - - - 203,143 Imperial 133,928 4,632 - - - - - - - 138,561 Kern 628,640 911,564 25,176 - 133,751 - - - - 1,699,132 Kings 278,839 110,671 28,851 227 248,090 10,642 - - - 677,320 Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen 16,464 298,567 546 34 11,239 7,684 - - - 334,534 Los Angeles - - - - - - - - 40,031 40,031 Madera 201,457 274,613 13,936 362 46,335 2,110 328 - - 539,140 Marin 1,646 84,229 - - 290 17,217 - - - 103,382 Mariposa - 207,321 - - - - - - - 207,321 Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced 259,199 208,768 - - - - - - - 467,967 Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono 13,310 - - - - - - - 129 13,439 Monterey 50,889 680,834 34,820 3,665 11,156 5,109 524 6 2,613 789,616 Napa 18,802 52,163 - - - - - - - 70,965 Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer 15,943 25,879 51 - - 1,645 - - - 43,519 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento 87,527 93,263 - - - - - - - 180,790 San Benito 51,721 528,411 - - - - - - - 580,132 San Bernardino 2,170 2,371 - - - - - - - 4,542 San Diego 4,856 56,865 - - - - - - - 61,721 San Joaquin 322,528 148,460 15,213 79 34,608 10,098 - - - 530,985 San Luis Obispo 90,431 701,372 576 79 55 64 - - - 792,577 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 75,167 464,665 - - 133 - 178 5,358 - 545,501 Santa Clara 9,731 295,546 - - - - 286 - - 305,563 Santa Cruz 2,725 12,865 82 32 - 10 307 63 - 16,083 Shasta 23,702 163,477 - - - - - - - 187,179 Sierra 1,918 32,900 - 1,751 - 3,980 - - - 40,548 Siskiyou 96,130 325,314 - - - - - - - 421,444 Solano 119,936 145,371 - - - - 1,939 2,924 - 270,170 Sonoma 43,525 228,626 - - - - - - - 272,151 Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - - Sutter 51,408 13,165 - - - - - - - 64,573 Tehama 53,439 735,902 2,692 2,602 1,315 4,918 - - - 800,868 Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare 572,435 513,896 11,102 50 - - - - 686 1,098,168 Tuolumne 120,351 - - - - - - - 120,351 Ventura 47,337 77,497 1,697 720 428 238 - - - 127,917 Yolo 198,642 156,651 158 1 - - 200 7 - 355,658 Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - 812 - - - - - - - 812 Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto 148 338 - - - - - - - 486 Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 4,726,567 9,357,422 164,999 10,838 627,935 71,832 3,761 8,718 43,459 15,015,531 Cities 148 1,150 - - - - - - - 1,298 Grand Totals 4,726,715 9,358,572 164,999 10,838 627,935 71,832 3,761 8,718 43,459 15,016,828 *Totals include both continuing term and nonrenewal contracts. Land Conservation Act* Agricultural Conservation Easement Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Participating Local Jurisdictions Page 28 TA B L E A -3 F a r m l a n d S e c u r i t y Z o n e T r a n s f e r s 2 0 1 0 Farmland Security Zone Transfers (Acres)Farmland Security Zone Transfers (Acres) 2010 Farmland Security Zone* Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - - - - - - - - - - Amador - - - - - - - - - - Butte - - - - - - - - - - Calaveras - - - - - - - - - - Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa - - - - - - - - - - El Dorado - - - - - - - - - - Fresno - - - - - - - - - - Glenn 212 - - - - - - - - 212 Humboldt - - - - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern - - - - - - - - - - Kings - - - - - - - - - - Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera - - - - - - - - - - Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey 5,937 341 - - - - - - - 6,278 Napa - - - - - - - - - - Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer - - - - - - - - - - Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento - - - - - - - - - - San Benito - - - - - - - - - - San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin - - - - - - - - - - San Luis Obispo - - - - - - - - - - San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz - - - - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - - - Sierra - - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - - - - Solano - - - - - - - - - - Sonoma - - - - - - - - - - Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama - - - - - - - - - - Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - - - - - - - - - - Ventura - - - - - - - - - - Yolo - - - - - - - - - - Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 6,149 341 - - - - - - - 6,490 Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 6,149 341 - - - - - - - 6,490 *Totals include both continuing term and nonrenewal contracts. Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act* Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Page 29 TA B L E A -4 F a r m l a n d S e c u r i t y Z o n e T r a n s f e r s 2 0 1 1 Farmland Security Zone Transfers (Acres) 2011 Farmland Security Zone* Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - - - - - - - - - - Amador - - - - - - - - - - Butte - - - - - - - - - - Calaveras - - - - - - - - - - Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa - - - - - - - - - - El Dorado - - - - - - - - - - Fresno - - - - - - - - - - Glenn - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt - - - - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern - - - - - - - - - - Kings - - - - - - - - - - Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera - - - - - - - - - - Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey 1,988 383 - - - - - - - 2,371 Napa - - - - - - - - - - Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer - - - - - - - - - - Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento - - - - - - - - - - San Benito - - - - - - - - - - San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin - - - - - - - - - - San Luis Obispo - - - - - - - - - - San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz - - - - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - - - Sierra - - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - - - - Solano - - - - - - - - - - Sonoma - - - - - - - - - - Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama - - - - - - - - - - Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - - - - - - - - - - Ventura 98 43 - - - - - - - 141 Yolo - - - - - - - - - - Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 2,086 427 - - - - - - - 2,512 Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 2,086 427 - - - - - - - 2,512 *Totals include both continuing term and nonrenewal contracts. Land Conservation Act* Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Participating Local Jurisdictions Page 30 TA B L E A -5 C u m u l a t i v e N o n r e n e w a l A c r e a g e , L C A 2 0 1 0 & 2 0 1 1 Cumulative Nonrenewal Acreage (Land Conservation Act) Land Conservation Act Land Conservation Act Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda 8 753 760 8 981 989 Amador 20 3,047 3,067 20 2,261 2,281 Butte 1,470 11,058 12,528 1,606 11,048 12,654 Calaveras 5 6,914 6,919 5 7,212 7,217 Colusa 2,677 32 2,709 2,677 32 2,709 Contra Costa 425 1,784 2,209 353 813 1,166 El Dorado 67 1,224 1,291 67 1,116 1,182 Fresno 19,521 3,951 23,472 19,521 3,951 23,472 Glenn 1,242 1,460 2,702 1,242 1,460 2,702 Humboldt 17 3,100 3,117 14 3,230 3,244 Imperial 20,465 1,529 21,994 127,740 11,500 139,240 Kern 48,252 30,535 78,787 49,548 31,476 81,024 Kings 8,363 153 8,516 8,097 153 8,250 Lake - - - - - - Lassen 8 1,749 1,756 38 1,893 1,931 Los Angeles - - - - - - Madera 15,362 18,420 33,782 15,362 18,420 33,782 Marin 39 365 404 39 365 404 Mariposa - 21,676 21,676 - 24,621 24,621 Mendocino - 867 867 - - - Merced 5,987 215 6,202 6,281 230 6,510 Modoc - 264 264 - - - Mono - - - - - - Monterey 2,690 7,853 10,544 2,586 9,189 11,775 Napa 668 353 1,021 603 369 972 Nevada - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - Placer 4,142 4,909 9,051 4,212 4,558 8,770 Plumas - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - Sacramento 1,106 9,920 11,026 1,807 9,897 11,704 San Benito 1,008 5,497 6,505 976 3,112 4,088 San Bernardino 256 878 1,134 256 878 1,134 San Diego 151 694 845 180 558 738 San Joaquin 31,327 7,340 38,668 29,694 7,340 37,035 San Luis Obispo 3,715 13,399 17,114 3,438 13,311 16,749 San Mateo - - - - - - Santa Barbara 2,627 38,498 41,125 2,267 37,233 39,500 Santa Clara 1,436 14,136 15,572 1,198 50,390 51,589 Santa Cruz 2 - 2 2 - 2 Shasta - 76 76 - 69 69 Sierra - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - 335 2,100 2,435 Solano 1,215 1,957 3,173 1,141 1,854 2,995 Sonoma 417 4,009 4,426 420 3,929 4,349 Stanislaus 18,767 25,310 44,077 - - - Sutter 152 152 152 152 Tehama 6,694 22,770 29,465 6,469 21,826 28,295 Trinity - - - - - - Tulare 6,331 1,518 7,849 6,209 4,574 10,784 Tuolumne - 16,523 16,523 - 15,607 15,607 Ventura 574 2,070 2,644 460 1,168 1,628 Yolo 6,537 2,999 9,536 6,717 3,038 9,755 Cities Camarillo - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - Palo Alto - 70 70 - 70 70 Perris - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - Totals Counties 213,735 289,054 502,789 301,730 310,783 612,513 Cities - 70 70 - 70 70 Grand Totals 213,735 289,123 502,859 301,730 310,853 612,583 Participating Local Jurisdictions TOTAL TOTAL 2010 2011 Page 31 TA B L E A -6 Cu m u l a t i v e N o n r e n e w a l A c r e a g e , F S Z 2 0 1 0 Cumulative Nonrenewal Acreage (Farmland Security Zone)Cumulative Nonrenewal Acreage (Farmland Security Zone) 2010 Farmland Security Zone Contracts First 10-years Last 10-years Urban Non-Urban Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Counties Alameda - - - - - - - - - Amador - - - - - - - - - Butte - - - - - - - - - Calaveras - - - - - - - - - Colusa - - 474 160 - - - - 634 Contra Costa - - - - - - - - - El Dorado - - - - - - - - - Fresno - - - - - - - - - Glenn - - 16 - - - - - 16 Humboldt - - - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - Kern 13,776 - 1 - - - - - 13,777 Kings 156 - 467 - - - - - 623 Lake - - - - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - Madera 1,393 49 707 11 - - - - 2,160 Marin - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - Monterey 42 - - - - - - - 42 Napa - - - - - - - - - Nevada - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - Placer 51 - - 23 - - - - 74 Plumas - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - Sacramento - - - - - - - - - San Benito - - - - - - - - - San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin - - - - - - - - - San Luis Obispo - - - - - - - - - San Mateo - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara - - - - - - - - - Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz - - - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - - Sierra - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - - - Solano - - - - - - - - - Sonoma - - - - - - - - - Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - - - - Tehama - - 321 15 - - - - 336 Trinity - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - - - - - - - - - Ventura - - - - - - - - - Yolo - - - - - - - - - Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 15,419 49 1,987 208 - - - - 17,663 Cities - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 15,419 49 1,987 208 - - - - 17,663 Participating Local Jurisdictions TOTAL Page 32 TA B L E A -7 C u m u l a t i v e N o n r e n e w a l A c r e a g e , F S Z 2 0 1 1 Cumulative Nonrenewal Acreage (Farmland Security Zone) 2011 Farmland Security Zone Contracts First 10-years Last 10-years Urban Non-Urban Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - - - - - - - - - Amador - - - - - - - - - Butte - - - - - - - - - Calaveras - - - - - - - - - Colusa - - 474 160 - - - - 634 Contra Costa - - - - - - - - - El Dorado - - - - - - - - - Fresno - - - - - - - - - Glenn - - 16 - - - - - 16 Humboldt - - - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - Kern 13,776 - 1 - - - - - 13,777 Kings 156 - 404 - - - 63 - 623 Lake - - - - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - Madera 1,393 49 707 11 - - - - 2,160 Marin - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - Monterey 42 - - 20 - - - - 62 Napa - - - - - - - - - Nevada - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - Placer 51 - - 23 - - - - 74 Plumas - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - Sacramento - - - - - - - - - San Benito - - - - - - - - - San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin 53 - 771 177 - - - - 1,001 San Luis Obispo - - - - - - - - - San Mateo - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara - - - - - - - - - Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz - - - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - - Sierra - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - - - Solano - - - - - - - - - Sonoma - - - - - - - - - Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - - - - Tehama - - 321 15 - - - - 336 Trinity - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - - - - - - - - - Ventura - - - - - - - - - Yolo 158 1 - - - - - - 159 Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 15,630 50 2,695 405 - - 63 - 18,843 Cities - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 15,630 50 2,695 405 - - 63 - 18,843 Participating Local Jurisdictions TOTAL Page 33 TA B L E A -8 N e w E n r o l l m e n t s 2 0 1 0 New Enrollments (Acres) New Enrollments (Acres) 2010 Farmland Security Zone Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - - - - - - - - - - Amador - - - - - - - - - - Butte 2,739 - - - - - - - - 2,739 Calaveras 5 229 - - - - - - - 234 Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa 44 38 - - - - - - - 82 El Dorado 5 17 - - - - - - - 22 Fresno - - - - - - - - - - Glenn 632 384 - - 351 - - - - 1,367 Humboldt 20 1,381 - - - - - - - 1,401 Imperial 219 9 - - - - - - - 228 Kern 1,640 760 - - - - - - - 2,400 Kings - - - - - - - - - - Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen - 9,935 - - - - - - - 9,935 Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - Madera 78 222 - - - - - - - 299 Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - 527 - - - - - - - 527 Mendocino 95 4 - - - - - - - 98 Merced 969 29 - - - - - - - 998 Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey - 144 4,128 329 - - 14 - - 4,615 Napa 375 95 - - - - - - - 470 Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer - 5 - - - - - - - 5 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento - 834 - - - - - - - 834 San Benito - - - - - - - - - - San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin 577 452 - - - - - - - 1,029 San Luis Obispo 931 1,438 - - - - - - - 2,369 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 45 1,059 - - - - - - - 1,104 Santa Clara 243 - - - - - - - 243 Santa Cruz 22 22 - - - - - - - 44 Shasta - - - - - - - - - - Sierra - - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou 1,849 53 - - - - - - - 1,901 Solano 67 - - - - - - - - 67 Sonoma 12 96 - - - - - - - 108 Stanislaus 849 123 - - - - 156 - - 1,128 Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama 643 621 - - - - - - - 1,264 Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - - - - - - - - - - Ventura 26 2 25 15 - - - - - 68 Yolo - - - - - - - - - - Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 11,841 18,720 4,153 344 351 - 170 - - 35,579 Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 11,841 18,720 4,153 344 351 - 170 - - 35,579 Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Page 34 TA B L E A -9 N e w E n r o l l m e n t s 2 0 1 1 New Enrollments (Acres) 2011 Farmland Security Zone Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - 1,621 - - - - - - - 1,621 Amador 387 324 - - - - - - - 711 Butte 20 160 - - - - - - - 180 Calaveras 8 2,993 - - - - - - - 3,000 Colusa - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa - - - - - - - - - - El Dorado - - - - - - - - - - Fresno - - - - - - - - - - Glenn 163 2,592 - - - - - - - 2,755 Humboldt 259 351 - - 268 163 - - - 1,040 Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern 2,113 - - - - - - - - 2,113 Kings - - - - - - - - - - Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera 154 - - - - - - - - 154 Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - 240 - - - - - - - 240 Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey 235 12,938 2,577 267 - - - - - 16,017 Napa 72 139 - - - - - - - 212 Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer - 114 - - - - - - - 114 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento - - - - - - - - - - San Benito - - - - - - - - - - San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin - - - - - - - - - - San Luis Obispo 278 802 - - - - - - - 1,080 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 308 171 - - - - - - - 478 Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz - - - - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - - - Sierra - - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - - - - Solano - 5 - - - - - 37 - 42 Sonoma 42 97 - - - - - - - 139 Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama 28 417 - - - - - - - 445 Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - - - - - - - - - - Ventura 10 29 - - - - - - - 39 Yolo 48 3 - - - - - - - 51 Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 4,125 22,995 2,577 267 268 163 - 37 - 30,431 Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 4,125 22,995 2,577 267 268 163 - 37 - 30,431 Land Conservation Act Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Participating Local Jurisdictions Page 35 TA B L E A -10 N o n r en e w a l I n i t i a t i o n 2 0 1 0 & 2 0 1 1 Nonrenewal Initiations (Acres) 2010 2011 Farmland Security Zone Farmland Security Zone Urban Non-Urban Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda 6 127 - - - - 133 - 228 - - - - 228 Amador 14 318 - - - - 332 - - - - - - - Butte - - 145 - - - 145 23 - - - - - 23 Calaveras 5 138 - - - - 143 - 298 - - - - 298 Colusa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - El Dorado - 40 - - - - 40 - - - - - - - Fresno 754 390 - - - - 1,144 - - - - - - - Glenn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt - 368 - - - - 368 10 70 - - - - 80 Imperial - - - - - - - 107,276 9,971 - - - - 117,246 Kern 4,364 3,771 - - - - 8,134 2,626 1,579 - - - - 4,205 Kings - - - - - - - 80 - - - - - 80 Lake - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lassen - 1,018 - - - - 1,018 30 145 - - - - 175 Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Madera 479 376 - - - - 855 - - - - - - - Marin - 123 - - - - 123 - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - 2,945 - - - - 2,945 Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - 347 15 - - - - 362 Modoc - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monterey - 1,649 - - - - 1,649 - 1,366 - - - 20 1,386 Napa 124 12 - - - - 136 97 25 - - - - 122 Nevada - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Placer - 175 - - - 23 198 70 26 - - - - 95 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento 572 831 - - - - 1,403 840 23 - - - - 863 San Benito - - - - - - - - - - - - - - San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin 103 - - - - - 103 467 7 - - - - 474 San Luis Obispo - 76 - - - - 76 65 323 - - - - 388 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Santa Clara 1 339 - - - - 340 163 36,814 - - - - 36,977 Santa Cruz 2 - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - 8 - - - - 8 Sierra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Solano - 107 - - - - 107 - 132 - - - - 132 Sonoma 22 160 - - - - 182 - - - - - - - Stanislaus 409 346 - - - - 755 - - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tehama - - - - - - - - 20 - - - - 20 Trinity - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tulare 1,045 554 - - - - 1,598 739 3,106 - - - - 3,845 Tuolumne - 982 - - - - 982 - 246 - - - - 246 Ventura - - - - - - - 41 147 - - - - 188 Yolo - - - - - - - 180 39 - - - - 219 Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 7,900 11,899 145 - - 23 19,966 113,054 57,531 - - - 20 170,605 Cities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 7,900 11,899 145 - - 23 19,966 113,054 57,531 - - - 20 170,605 Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act TOTAL Land Conservation Act TOTAL Page 36 Nonrenewal Expirations (Acres) 2010 2011 Farmland Security Zone Farmland Security Zone Urban Non-Urban Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - 167 - - - - 167 - - - - - - - Amador - - - - - - - - 685 - - - - 685 Butte - 249 - - - - 249 - - - - - - - Calaveras 5 124 - - - - 129 - - - - - - - Colusa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa - 31 - - - - 31 72 971 - - - - 1,043 El Dorado - - - - - - - - 109 - - - - 109 Fresno 159 66 - - - - 225 - - - - - - - Glenn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt - 184 - - - - 184 - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Kern 569 116 - - - - 686 1,331 638 - - - - 1,969 Kings 669 950 - - - - 1,619 222 - - - - - 222 Lake - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Madera 219 - - - - - 219 - - - - - - - Marin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monterey - - - - - - - 102 10 - - - - 112 Napa 39 306 - - - - 345 162 9 - - - - 171 Nevada - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Placer 127 1,187 - - - - 1,314 - 376 - - - - 376 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento 144 - - - - - 144 139 46 - - - - 185 San Benito 343 1,473 - - - - 1,816 33 2,385 - - - - 2,418 San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - - - - - San Diego 11 7 - - - - 18 - - - - - - - San Joaquin 2,132 79 - - - - 2,211 2,107 4 - - - - 2,110 San Luis Obispo 227 618 - - - - 846 170 316 - - - - 486 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 453 4,692 - - - - 5,145 374 1,253 - - - - 1,627 Santa Clara 58 - - - - - 58 400 299 - - - - 699 Santa Cruz - 1,340 - - - - 1,340 - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - 5 - - - - 5 Sierra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - 56 83 - - - - 139 Solano 33 21 - - - - 54 75 234 - - - - 309 Sonoma 38 26 - - - - 63 - - - - - - - Stanislaus 539 37 - - - - 576 - - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tehama 44 703 - - - - 747 194 550 - - - - 744 Trinity - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tulare 757 22 - - - - 779 861 50 - - - - 911 Tuolumne 45 - - - - 45 - 95 - - - - 95 Ventura 1 9 - - - - 10 155 1,048 - - - - 1,203 Yolo 218 137 - - - - 355 - - - - - - - Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 6,785 12,590 - - - - 19,375 6,452 9,165 - - - - 15,617 Cities - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 6,785 12,590 - - - - 19,375 6,452 9,165 - - - - 15,617 Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act TOTAL Land Conservation Act TOTAL Page 37 TA B L E A -12 N o n r e n e w a l s W i t h d r a w n , L C A 2 0 1 0 & 2 0 1 1 Nonrenewals Withdrawn Acreage (Land Conservation Act) 2010 2011 Land Conservation Act Land Conservation Act Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - - - - - - Amador - - - - - - Butte - - - - - - Calaveras - - - - - - Colusa - - - - - - Contra Costa - - - - - - El Dorado - - - - - - Fresno - - - - - - Glenn - - - - - - Humboldt - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - Kern - - - - - - Kings - - - 124 - 124 Lake - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - Madera - - - - - - Marin - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - Monterey - - - - - - Napa - - - - - - Nevada - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - Placer - - - - - - Plumas - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - Sacramento - - - - - - San Benito - - - - - - San Bernardino - - - - - - San Diego - - - 11 174 185 San Joaquin 651 - 651 - - - San Luis Obispo 175 - 175 - - - San Mateo - - - - - - Santa Barbara 86 105 190 - - - Santa Clara - 93 93 - - - Santa Cruz - - - - - - Shasta - - - - 10 10 Sierra - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - Solano - - - - - - Sonoma - - - - - - Stanislaus - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - Tehama - - - 28 417 445 Trinity - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - Tuolumne - 503 503 - 1,068 1,068 Ventura - - - - - - Yolo - - - - - - Cities Camarillo - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - Totals Counties 911 700 1,612 163 1,669 1,832 Cities - - - - - - Grand Totals 911 700 1,612 163 1,669 1,832 Participating Local Jurisdictions TOTAL TOTAL Page 38 TA B L E A -13 C a n c e l l a t i o n s 2 0 1 0 Cancellations (Acres)Cancellations (Acres) 2010 Farmland Security Zone* Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - - - - - - - - - - Amador - - - - - - - - - - Butte - - - - - - - - - - Calaveras - - - - - - - - - - Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa - - - - - - - - - - El Dorado - - - - - - - - - - Fresno 19 42 - - - - - - - 61 Glenn - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt - - - - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern - - - - - - - - - - Kings - - - - - - - - - - Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera - - - - - - - - - - Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey - - - - - - - - - - Napa - - - - - - - - - - Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer - - - - - - - - - - Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento - - - - - - - - - - San Benito - - - - - - - - - - San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin - - - - - - - - - - San Luis Obispo - - - - - - - - - - San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz - - - - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - - - Sierra - - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - - - - Solano - - - - - - - - - - Sonoma - - - - - - - - - - Stanislaus - 3 - - - - - - - 3 Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama - - - - - - - - - - Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - - - - - - - - - - Ventura - - - - - - - - - - Yolo - - - - - - - - - - Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 19 45 - - - - - - - 64 Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 19 45 - - - - - - - 64 *Includes both continuing term and nonrenewal contracts. Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act* Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Page 39 TA B L E A -14 C a n c e l l a t i o n s 2 0 1 1 Cancellations (Acres) 2011 Farmland Security Zone* Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - - - - - - - - - - Amador - - - - - - - - - - Butte - - - - - - - - - - Calaveras 5 670 - - - - - - - 675 Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa - - - - - - - - - - El Dorado - - - - - - - - - - Fresno - - - - - - - - - - Glenn - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt - - - - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern 1 1 Kings - - - - - - - - - - Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera - - - - - - - - - - Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey - - - - - - - - - - Napa - - - - - - - - - - Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer - - - - - - - - - - Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento - - - - - - - - - - San Benito - - - - - - - - - - San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin - - - - - - - - - - San Luis Obispo - - - - - - - - - - San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz - - - - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - - - Sierra - - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - - - - Solano - - - - - - - - - - Sonoma - - - - - - - - - - Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama - - - - - - - - - - Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - - - - - - - - - - Ventura - - - - - - - - - - Yolo - - - - - - - - - - Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 6 670 - - - - - - - 676 Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 6 670 - - - - - - - 676 *Includes both continuing term and nonrenewal contracts. Land Conservation Act* Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Participating Local Jurisdictions Page 40 TA B L E A -15 P u b l i c A c q u i s i t i o n s 2 0 1 0 Public Acquisitions (Acres)Public Acquisitions (Acres) 2010 Farmland Security Zone* Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - 1,155 - - - - - - - 1,155 Amador - - - - - - - - - - Butte - - - - - - - - - - Calaveras - - - - - - - - - - Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa - 372 - - - - - - - 372 El Dorado - 11 - - - - - - - 11 Fresno 186 72 - - - - - - - 258 Glenn - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt - - - - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern 1,193 2,910 - - - - - - - 4,102 Kings - - - - - - - - - - Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera - - - - - - - - - - Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced - 1 - - - - - - - 1 Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey - 389 - - - - - - - 389 Napa - - - - - - - - - - Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer 2 14 - - - - - - - 16 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento 33 3 - - - - - - - 36 San Benito - 43 - - - - - - - 43 San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego 8 120 - - - - - - - 128 San Joaquin 13 - - - - - - - - 13 San Luis Obispo 3 - - - - - - - - 3 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Clara - 500 - - - - - - - 500 Santa Cruz - - - - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - - - Sierra - - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - - - - Solano - - - - - - - - - - Sonoma - - - - - - - - - - Stanislaus 122 9 - - - - - - - 131 Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama - 879 - - - - - - - 879 Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare 8 - - - - - - - - 8 Tuolumne - - - - - - - - - - Ventura 4 - - - - - - - - 4 Yolo - - - - - - - - - - Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 1,573 6,475 - - - - - - - 8,048 Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 1,573 6,475 - - - - - - - 8,048 *Includes both continuing term and nonrenewal contracts. Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act* Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Page 41 TA B L E A -16 P u b l i c A c q u i s i t i o n s 2 0 1 1 Public Acquisitions (Acres) 2011 Farmland Security Zone* Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - - - - - - - - - - Amador - - - - - - - - - - Butte - - - - - - - - - - Calaveras - - - - - - - - - - Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa - 121 - - - - - - - 121 El Dorado - - - - - - - - - - Fresno - - - - - - - - - - Glenn - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt - - - - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern 357 21 - - - - - - - 378 Kings - - - - - - - - - - Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera - - - - - - - - - - Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey 2 181 - - - - - - - 183 Napa - - - - - - - - - - Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer - 1 - - - - - - - 1 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento 48 73 - - - - - - - 121 San Benito - 2 - - - - - - - 2 San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego 5 79 - - - - - - - 84 San Joaquin - - - - - - - - - - San Luis Obispo - - - - - - - - - - San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Clara - 260 - - - - - - - 260 Santa Cruz - - - - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - - - Sierra - - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - - - - Solano - - - - - - - - - Sonoma - - - - - - - - - - Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama - - - - - - - - - - Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - - - - - - - - - - Ventura 2 - - - - - - - - 2 Yolo - - - - - - - - - - Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 414 738 - - - - - - - 1,152 Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 414 738 - - - - - - - 1,152 *Includes both continuing term and nonrenewal contracts. Land Conservation Act* Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Participating Local Jurisdictions Page 42 TA B L E A -17 C i t y A n n e x a t i o n s 2 0 1 0 City Annexations (Acres) City Annexations (Acres) 2010 Farmland Security Zone* Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - - - - - - - - - - Amador - - - - - - - - - - Butte - - - - - - - - - - Calaveras - - - - - - - - - - Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa - - - - - - - - - - El Dorado - - - - - - - - - - Fresno - - - - - - - - - - Glenn - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt - - - - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern - - - - - - - - - - Kings - - - - - - - - - - Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera 19 - - - - - - - - 19 Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey - - - - - - - - - - Napa - - - - - - - - - - Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer - - - - - - - - - - Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento - - - - - - - - - - San Benito - - - - - - - - - - San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin 125 - - - - - - - - 125 San Luis Obispo - - - - - - - - - - San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz - - - - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - - - Sierra - - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - - - - Solano - - - - - - - - - - Sonoma - - - - - - - - - - Stanislaus 665 10 - - - - - - - 675 Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama - - - - - - - - - - Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - - - - - - - - - - Ventura - - - - - - - - - - Yolo - - - - - - - - - - Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 809 10 - - - - - - - 818 Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 809 10 - - - - - - - 818 *Includes both continuing term and nonrenewal contracts. Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act* Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Page 43 TA B L E A -18 C i t y A n n e x a t i o n s 2 0 1 1 City Annexations (Acres) 2011 Farmland Security Zone* Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda - - - - - - - - - - Amador - - - - - - - - - - Butte - - - - - - - - - - Calaveras - - - - - - - - - - Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa - - - - - - - - - - El Dorado - - - - - - - - - - Fresno - - - - - - - - - - Glenn - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt - - - - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern - - - - - - - - - - Kings - - - - - - - - - - Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen - - - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera - - - - - - - - - - Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey - - - - - - - - - - Napa - - - - - - - - - - Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer - - - - - - - - - - Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento - - - - - - - - - - San Benito - - - - - - - - - - San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin - - - - - - - - - - San Luis Obispo - - - - - - - - - - San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz - - - - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - - - Sierra - - - - - - - - - - Siskiyou - - - - - - - - - - Solano - - - - - - - - - - Sonoma - - - - - - - - - - Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama - - - - - - - - - - Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - - - - - - - - - - Ventura - - - - - - - - - - Yolo - - - - - - - - - - Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties - - - - - - - - - - Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals - - - - - - - - - - Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL *Includes both continuing term and nonrenewal contracts. Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act* Agricultural Conservation Page 44 TA B L E A -19 N e t A d j u s t m e n t s 2 0 1 0 Net Adjustments (Acres)Net Adjustments (Acres) 2010 Farmland Security Zone* Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda 33 (51) - - - - - - - (17) Amador (6) (166) - - - - - - - (172) Butte 258 81 - - - - - - - 338 Calaveras - (8) - - - - - - - (8) Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa 1 - - - - - - - - 1 El Dorado 14 (11) - - - - - - - 3 Fresno 915 403 - - (152) - - - - 1,166 Glenn - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt - (1) - - - - - - - (1) Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern - - - - - - - - - - Kings - - - - - - - - - - Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen 473 (1,266) - - - - - - - (793) Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera 142 (119) - - - - - - - 23 Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa (5) (9) - - - - - - - (14) Mendocino (35) (410) - - - - - - - (445) Merced 1,715 (2,428) - - - - - - - (714) Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey - - - - - - - - - - Napa (19) (89) - - - - - - (108) Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer 235 761 51 - - - - - - 1,047 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento 282 (182) - - - - - - - 100 San Benito (60) 364 - - - - - - - 304 San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin 563 (671) (2) - 28 (84) - - - (166) San Luis Obispo 428 71 - - - - - - - 500 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 307 (95) - - - - (0) (0) - 211 Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz - - - - - - - - - - Shasta - - - - - - - - - - Sierra (1) 4 - - - (0) - - - 3 Siskiyou 351 (445) - - - - - - - (94) Solano (68) 110 - - - - - - - 43 Sonoma 416 (32) - - - - - - - 384 Stanislaus 2,503 (2,024) - - - - - - - 479 Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama 1,523 (1,527) (123) 123 - - - - - (4) Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare 58 59 - - - - - - - 117 Tuolumne - 1 - - - - - - - 1 Ventura (1) (58) 25 (3) - - - - - (37) Yolo (2,844) 1,774 - - - - - - - (1,071) Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 7,180 (5,966) (48) 119 (124) (85) (0) (0) - 1,077 Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 7,180 (5,966) (48) 119 (124) (85) (0) (0) - 1,077 (#) is for negative adjustments Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act* Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Page 45 TA B L E A -20 N e t A d j u s t m e n t s 2 0 1 1 Net Adjustments (Acres) 2011 Farmland Security Zone* Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda (39) 159 - - - - - - - 120 Amador (91) (249) - - - - - - - (339) Butte 101 (86) - - - - - - - 16 Calaveras - - - - - - - - - - Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa - (1) - - - - - - - (1) El Dorado - - - - - - - - - - Fresno - - - - - - - - - - Glenn - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt (47) (11) - - - - - - - (58) Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern 31 - - - - - - - - 31 Kings - - - - - - - - - - Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen 1,401 (1,401) - - - - - - - - Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera 142 (119) - - 1 (1) - - - 23 Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - (96) - - - - - - - (96) Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced 317 (312) - - - - - - - 4 Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey 748 (667) 1,704 248 (1,573) (375) - - - 85 Napa 77 251 - - - - - - - 329 Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer 367 408 - - - - - - - 775 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento (8) 13 - - - - - - - 5 San Benito (5) 15 - - - - - - - 10 San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego 40 38 - - - - - - - 78 San Joaquin 1,156 (1,026) (2) - 452 (453) - - - 127 San Luis Obispo (307) (610) - - - - - - - (917) San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 415 (334) - - - - 1 (1) - 81 Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz 1 - - - - - - - - 1 Shasta - - - - - - - - - - Sierra - (1) - - - - - - - (1) Siskiyou 131 (109) - - - - - - - 22 Solano (42) 18 - - - - - (0) - (24) Sonoma 153 (213) - - - - - - - (60) Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama (11) 6 5 (5) 125 (125) - - - (5) Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - (22) - - - - - - - (22) Ventura 116 (135) - - - - - - - (18) Yolo (42,394) (19,465) - - - - - - - (61,859) Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties (37,748) (23,948) 1,707 243 (995) (954) 1 (1) - (61,696) Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals (37,748) (23,948) 1,707 243 (995) (954) 1 (1) - (61,696) (#) is for negative adjustments *Includes both continuing term and nonrenewal contracts. Land Conservation Act* Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Participating Local Jurisdictions Page 46 TA B L E A -21 C o n t r a c t e d L a n d N o t R e c e i v i n g T a x R e l i e f B e n e f i t s 2 0 1 0 Contracted Land not Receiving Tax Relief Benefits (Acres)*Contracted Land not Receiving Tax Relief Benefits (Acres)* 2010 Farmland Security Zone Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda 120 22,736 - - - - - - - 22,855 Amador 185 504 - - - - - - - 689 Butte - - - - - - - - - - Calaveras - - - - - - - - - - Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa 2,432 1,119 - - - - - - - 3,551 El Dorado 158 131 - - - - - - - 289 Fresno 20,364 - - - - - - - - 20,364 Glenn - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt - - - - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern - - - - - - - - - - Kings 67,971 12,740 - - - - - - - 80,711 Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen 1,544 4,520 - - - - - - - 6,064 Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera 27,141 3,978 - - - - - - - 31,119 Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey 41,415 34,092 - - - - - - - 75,506 Napa 7,873 10,317 - - - - - - - 18,190 Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer 3,581 730 - - - - - - - 4,311 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento - - - - - - - - - - San Benito 3,679 3,999 - - - - - - - 7,678 San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin 3,153 10,677 - - - - - - - 13,830 San Luis Obispo 4,347 7,375 - - - - - - - 11,722 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 21,975 8,179 - - - - - - - 30,153 Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz 1,211 1,307 - - - - - - - 2,517 Shasta - 53 - - - - - - - 53 Sierra 97 1,064 - - - - - - - 1,161 Siskiyou 12 467 - - - - - - - 479 Solano 3,283 22,803 - - - - - - - 26,085 Sonoma - - - - - - - - - - Stanislaus 52,189 9,742 - - - - - - - 61,931 Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama 14,935 6,102 - - - - - - - 21,037 Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - 16,523 - - - - - - - 16,523 Ventura - - - - - - - - - - Yolo 38,228 16,259 - - - - - - - 54,487 Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 315,891 195,415 - - - - - - - 511,306 Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 315,891 195,415 - - - - - - - 511,306 *Land assessed at a lower value for property taxes under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 110.1 (Proposition 13 provisions) than under Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 423, 423.3, or 423.5 (Williamson Act valuation provisions). Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Page 47 TA B L E A -22 C o n t r a c t e d L a n d N o t Re c e i v i n g T a x R e l i e f B e n e f i t s 2 0 1 1 Contracted Land not Receiving Tax Relief Benefits (Acres)* 2011 Farmland Security Zone Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda 170 20,263 - - - - - - - 20,433 Amador - - - - - - - - - - Butte - - - - - - - - - - Calaveras - - - - - - - - - - Colusa - - - - - - - - - - Contra Costa 2,432 799 - - - - - - - 3,231 El Dorado 208 212 - - - - - - - 420 Fresno 20,364 - - - - - - - - 20,364 Glenn - - - - - - - - - - Humboldt - - - - - - - - - - Imperial - - - - - - - - - - Kern - - - - - - - - - - Kings 57,148 14,136 - - - - - - - 71,285 Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen 1,800 4,503 - - - - - - - 6,303 Los Angeles - - - - - - - - - - Madera 29,227 4,797 - - - - - - - 34,024 Marin - - - - - - - - - - Mariposa - - - - - - - - - - Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced - - - - - - - - - - Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono - - - - - - - - - - Monterey 41,661 35,403 - - - - - - - 77,064 Napa 9,240 9,003 - - - - - - - 18,243 Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer 665 3,280 - - - - - - - 3,945 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento - - - - - - - - - - San Benito 3,798 1,937 - - - - - - - 5,735 San Bernardino - - - - - - - - - - San Diego - - - - - - - - - - San Joaquin 3,153 10,677 - - - - - - - 13,830 San Luis Obispo - - - - - - - - - - San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 21,382 8,262 - - - - - - - 29,644 Santa Clara - - - - - - - - - - Santa Cruz 1,109 360 - - - - - - - 1,470 Shasta 131 - - - - - - - 131 Sierra 232 2,124 - - - - - - - 2,356 Siskiyou 21 467 - - - - - - - 488 Solano 4,244 22,752 - - - - - - - 26,996 Sonoma - - - - - - - - - - Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - - Sutter - - - - - - - - - - Tehama 13,751 5,355 - - - - - - - 19,106 Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare - - - - - - - - - - Tuolumne - 15,607 - - - - - - - 15,607 Ventura - - - - - - - - - - Yolo 57,234 4,000 - - - - - - - 61,234 Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - - - - - - - - - - Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto - - - - - - - - - - Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 267,839 164,070 - - - - - - - 431,909 Cities - - - - - - - - - - Grand Totals 267,839 164,070 - - - - - - - 431,909 Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL *Land assessed at a lower value for property taxes under Revenue and Taxation Code Section 110.1 (Proposition 13 provisions) than under Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 423, 423.3, or 423.5 (Williamson Act valuation provisions). Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act Agricultural Conservation Page 48 TA B L E A -23 A c r e s E l i g i b l e f o r O p e n S p a c e S u b v e n t i o n P a y m e n t s 2 0 1 0 Acres Eligible for Open Space Subvention Payment Acres Eligible for Open Space Subvention Payment 2010 Farmland Security Zone Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda 2,406 108,431 - - - - - - - 110,837 Amador 5,008 84,327 - - - - - 360 - 89,695 Butte 112,216 95,235 - - - - - - - 207,452 Calaveras 442 134,331 - - - - - - - 134,773 Colusa 64,275 193,689 15,989 737 41,015 2,035 - - - 317,739 Contra Costa 6,681 33,433 - - - - - - - 40,114 El Dorado 2,110 30,440 - - 5 180 - - - 32,735 Fresno 942,147 479,294 - - 25,799 3,482 - - - 1,450,722 Glenn 62,375 265,972 14,112 500 73,600 2,226 - - - 418,786 Humboldt 5,072 193,708 - - 236 31 - - - 199,045 Imperial 113,463 3,103 - - - - - - - 116,567 Kern 579,933 881,688 25,176 - 133,751 - - - - 1,620,549 Kings 202,727 97,778 28,851 227 248,090 10,642 - - - 588,315 Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen 13,512 293,699 546 34 11,229 7,694 - - - 326,714 Los Angeles - - - - - - - - 40,031 40,031 Madera 158,618 252,334 13,819 362 46,334 2,111 328 - - 473,905 Marin 1,607 83,864 - - 290 17,217 - - - 102,979 Mariposa - 185,501 - - - - - - - 185,501 Mendocino 35,019 450,779 - - - - - - - 485,798 Merced 252,896 208,866 - - - - - - - 461,761 Modoc 17,764 109,601 - - - - - - - 127,365 Mono 13,310 - - - - - - - - 13,310 Monterey 7,894 627,192 28,551 2,767 12,728 5,484 524 6 2,613 687,759 Napa 10,273 41,111 - - - - - - - 51,385 Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer 7,853 20,095 51 - - 1,645 - - - 29,645 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento 86,616 83,449 - - - - - - - 170,065 San Benito 47,072 521,287 - - - - - - - 568,359 San Bernardino 1,915 1,493 - - - - - - - 3,408 San Diego 4,670 56,212 - - - - - - - 60,882 San Joaquin 288,998 131,472 15,215 79 34,156 10,550 - - - 480,470 San Luis Obispo 82,568 680,722 576 79 55 64 - - - 764,064 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 50,217 419,404 - - 133 - 177 5,359 - 475,291 Santa Clara 8,696 281,969 - - - - - - - 290,665 Santa Cruz 1,511 11,558 82 32 - 10 - 63 - 13,256 Shasta 23,702 163,353 - - - - - - - 187,054 Sierra 1,821 31,837 - 1,751 - 3,980 - - - 39,388 Siskiyou 95,653 322,855 - - - - - - - 418,508 Solano 115,555 120,822 - - - - 1,939 2,888 - 241,203 Sonoma 42,914 224,732 - - - - - - - 267,646 Stanislaus 203,616 336,098 - - - - - - - 539,714 Sutter 51,256 13,165 - - - - - - - 64,420 Tehama 36,007 709,010 2,687 2,607 1,133 4,799 - - - 756,243 Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare 566,964 512,428 11,102 50 - - - - 686 1,091,230 Tuolumne - 103,944 - - - - - - - 103,944 Ventura 46,891 76,624 1,599 676 428 238 - - - 126,457 Yolo 196,223 156,855 158 1 - - 200 7 - 353,444 Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - 812 - - - - - - - 812 Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto 148 268 - - - - - - - 416 Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 4,570,468 9,833,760 158,513 9,901 628,982 72,390 3,168 8,682 43,330 15,329,193 Cities 148 1,080 - - - - - - - 1,228 Grand Totals 4,570,616 9,834,840 158,513 9,901 628,982 72,390 3,168 8,682 43,330 15,330,421 Participating Local Jurisdictions Land Conservation Act Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Page 49 TA B L E A -24 A c r e s E l i g i b l e f o r O p e n S p a c e S u b v e n t i o n P a y m e n t s 2 0 1 1 Acres Eligible for Open Space Subvention Payment 2011 Farmland Security Zone Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda 2,309 111,703 - - - - - - - 114,012 Amador 5,490 85,007 - - - - - 360 - 90,857 Butte 112,201 95,319 - - - - - - - 207,521 Calaveras 445 136,356 - - - - - - - 136,801 Colusa 64,275 193,689 15,989 737 40,628 2,035 - - - 317,352 Contra Costa 6,681 33,631 - - - - - - - 40,312 El Dorado 2,060 30,359 - - 5 180 - - - 32,604 Fresno 942,147 479,294 - - 25,799 3,482 - - - 1,450,722 Glenn 62,539 268,564 14,112 500 73,600 2,226 - - - 421,541 Humboldt 5,287 193,917 - - 504 193 - - - 199,900 Imperial 6,188 (6,868) - - - - - - - (680) Kern 579,092 880,088 25,176 - 133,751 - - - - 1,618,108 Kings 213,594 96,382 28,851 227 248 10,642 - - - 349,944 Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen 14,626 292,171 546 34 11,239 7,684 - - - 326,300 Los Angeles - - - - - - - - 40,031 40,031 Madera 156,828 251,396 13,819 362 46,335 2,110 328 - - 471,177 Marin 1,607 83,864 - - 290 17,217 - - - 102,979 Mariposa - 182,700 - - - - - - - 182,700 Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced 252,919 208,538 - - - - - - - 461,457 Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono 13,310 - - - - - - - 129 13,439 Monterey 6,643 636,242 34,820 3,665 11,156 5,109 524 6 2,613 700,777 Napa 8,960 42,790 - - - - - - - 51,750 Nevada - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer 11,066 18,041 51 - - 1,645 - - - 30,804 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento 85,720 83,366 - - - - - - - 169,086 San Benito 46,947 523,362 - - - - - - - 570,309 San Bernardino 1,914 1,493 - - - - - - - 3,407 San Diego 4,676 56,307 - - - - - - - 60,983 San Joaquin 289,680 130,443 15,213 79 34,608 10,098 - - - 480,121 San Luis Obispo 86,993 688,062 576 79 55 64 - - - 775,828 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 51,518 419,169 - - 133 - 178 5,358 - 476,356 Santa Clara 8,533 245,155 - - - - 286 - - 253,975 Santa Cruz 1,614 12,505 82 32 - 10 279 63 - 14,584 Shasta 23,702 163.277.15 - - - - - - - 23,702 Sierra 1,686 30,775 - 1,751 - 3,980 - - - 38,192 Siskiyou 95,775 322,746 - - - - - - - 418,521 Solano 114,551 120,764 - - - - 1,939 2,924 - 240,178 Sonoma 43,105 224,697 - - - - - - - 267,803 Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - Sutter 51,256 13,165 - - - - - - - 64,420 Tehama 36,912 710,472 2,692 2,602 1,315 4,918 - - - 758,912 Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare 566,325 509,322 11,102 50 - - - - 686 1,087,484 Tuolumne 104,744 - - - - - - - 104,744 Ventura 46,877 76,329 1,697 720 428 238 - - - 126,289 Yolo 134,691 149,613 158 1 - - 200 7 - 284,669 Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - 812 - - - - - - - 812 Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto 148 268 - - - - - - - 416 Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 4,160,742 8,735,669 164,882 10,838 380,093 71,832 3,734 8,718 43,459 13,579,967 Cities 148 1,080 - - - - - - - 1,228 Grand Totals 4,160,890 8,736,750 164,882 10,838 380,093 71,832 3,734 8,718 43,459 13,581,194 Land Conservation Act Agricultural Conservation Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Participating Local Jurisdictions Page 50 TA B L E A -25 O p e n S p a c e S u b v e n t i o n A c t P a y m e n t C l a i m s 2 0 1 0 2010 Farmland Security Zone Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda 12,032 108,431 - - - - - - - 120,463 Amador 25,040 84,327 - - - - - 360 - 109,727 Butte 561,082 95,235 - - - - - - - 656,317 Calaveras 2,213 134,331 - - - - - - - 136,544 Colusa 321,375 193,689 127,911 5,893 205,077 2,035 - - - 855,979 Contra Costa 33,405 33,433 - - - - - - - 66,838 El Dorado 10,550 30,440 - - 25 180 - - - 41,195 Fresno 4,710,735 479,294 - - 128,993 3,482 - - - 5,322,505 Glenn 311,877 265,972 112,898 4,003 367,998 2,226 - - - 1,064,974 Humboldt 25,358 193,708 - - 1,178 31 - - - 220,273 Imperial 567,317 3,103 - - - - - - - 570,420 Kern 2,899,666 881,688 201,411 - 668,755 - - - - 4,651,520 Kings 1,013,636 97,778 230,805 1,817 1,240,451 10,642 - - - 2,595,128 Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen 67,560 293,699 4,364 272 56,145 7,694 - - - 429,734 Los Angeles - - - - - - - - 40,031 40,031 Madera 793,089 252,334 110,553 2,893 231,671 2,111 1,639 - - 1,394,289 Marin 8,037 83,864 - - 1,450 17,217 - - - 110,568 Mariposa - 185,501 - - - - - - - 185,501 Mendocino 175,096 450,779 - - - - - - - 625,875 Merced 1,264,479 208,866 - - - - - - - 1,473,345 Modoc 88,820 109,601 - - - - - - - 198,420 Mono 66,548 - - - - - - - - 66,548 Monterey 39,469 627,192 228,409 22,134 63,642 5,484 2,622 6 2,613 991,571 Napa 51,367 41,111 - - - - - - - 92,478 Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer 39,267 20,095 410 - - 1,645 - - - 61,418 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento 433,080 83,449 - - - - - - - 516,529 San Benito 235,360 521,287 - - - - - - - 756,647 San Bernardino 9,573 1,493 - - - - - - - 11,067 San Diego 23,350 56,212 - - - - - - - 79,562 San Joaquin 1,444,990 131,472 121,721 632 170,780 10,550 - - - 1,880,145 San Luis Obispo 412,840 680,722 4,605 628 275 64 - - - 1,099,135 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 251,087 419,404 - - 666 - 885 5,359 - 677,401 Santa Clara 43,480 281,969 - - - - - - - 325,449 Santa Cruz 7,555 11,558 653 258 - 10 - 63 - 20,097 Shasta 118,509 163,353 - - - - - - - 281,861 Sierra 9,105 31,837 - 14,005 - 3,980 - - - 58,927 Siskiyou 478,267 322,855 - - - - - - - 801,122 Solano 577,773 120,822 - - - - 9,694 2,888 - 711,176 Sonoma 214,568 224,732 - - - - - - - 439,301 Stanislaus 1,018,082 336,098 - - - - - - - 1,354,180 Sutter 256,280 13,165 - - - - - - - 269,444 Tehama 180,037 709,010 21,493 20,858 5,663 4,799 - - - 941,860 Trinity - - - - - - - - - Tulare 2,834,822 512,428 88,813 400 - - - - 686 3,437,149 Tuolumne - 103,944 - - - - - - - 103,944 Ventura 234,456 76,624 12,794 5,411 2,140 238 - - - 331,664 Yolo 981,113 156,855 1,265 8 - - 998 7 - 1,140,246 Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - 812 - - - - - - - 812 Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto 738 268 - - - - - - - 1,006 Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 22,852,343 9,833,760 1,268,103 79,211 3,144,909 72,390 15,838 8,682 43,330 37,318,566 Cities 738 1,080 - - - - - - - 1,818 Grand Totals 22,853,081 9,834,840 1,268,103 79,211 3,144,909 72,390 15,838 8,682 43,330 37,320,384 Land Conservation Act Agricultural Conservation Easement Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Open Space Subvention Act Payment Claims ($) Participating Local Jurisdictions Page 51 TA B L E A -26 O p e n S p a c e S u b v e n t i o n A c t P a y m e n t C l a i m s 2 0 1 1 2011 Farmland Security Zone Urban Non-Urban Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Prime Nonprime Counties Alameda 11,547 111,703 - - - - - - - 123,250 Amador 27,449 85,007 - - - - - 360 - 112,816 Butte 561,006 95,319 - - - - - - - 656,326 Calaveras 2,226 136,356 - - - - - - - 138,582 Colusa 321,375 193,689 127,911 5,893 203,139 2,035 - - - 854,041 Contra Costa 33,405 33,631 - - - - - - - 67,036 El Dorado 10,298 30,359 - - 25 180 - - - 40,862 Fresno 4,710,735 479,294 - - 128,993 3,482 - - - 5,322,505 Glenn 312,694 268,564 112,898 4,003 367,998 2,226 - - - 1,068,383 Humboldt 26,433 193,917 - - 2,518 193 - - - 223,061 Imperial 30,939 (6,868) - - - - - - - 24,071 Kern 2,895,462 880,088 201,411 - 668,755 - - - - 4,645,715 Kings 1,067,971 96,382 230,805 1,817 1,240,134 10,642 - - - 2,647,750 Lake - - - - - - - - - - Lassen 73,129 292,171 4,364 272 56,195 7,684 - - - 433,815 Los Angeles - - - - - - - - 40,031 40,031 Madera 784,140 251,396 110,553 2,893 231,676 2,110 1,639 - - 1,384,406 Marin 8,037 83,864 - - 1,450 17,217 - - - 110,568 Mariposa - 182,700 - - - - - - - 182,700 Mendocino - - - - - - - - - - Merced 1,264,593 208,538 - - - - - - - 1,473,131 Modoc - - - - - - - - - - Mono 66,548 - - - - - - 129 66,677 Monterey 33,213 636,242 278,557 29,320 55,778 5,109 2,622 6 2,613 1,043,459 Napa 44,798 42,790 - - - - - - - 87,588 Nevada - - - - - - - - - - Orange - - - - - - - - - - Placer 55,332 18,041 410 - - 1,645 - - - 75,428 Plumas - - - - - - - - - - Riverside - - - - - - - - - - Sacramento 428,600 83,366 - - - - - - - 511,966 San Benito 234,735 523,362 - - - - - - - 758,097 San Bernardino 9,573 1,493 - - - - - - - 11,067 San Diego 23,380 56,307 - - - - - - - 79,687 San Joaquin 1,448,401 130,443 121,705 632 173,038 10,098 - - - 1,884,317 San Luis Obispo 434,965 688,062 4,605 628 275 64 - - - 1,128,599 San Mateo - - - - - - - - - - Santa Barbara 257,591 419,169 - - 666 - 889 5,358 - 683,673 Santa Clara 42,665 245,155 - - - - 1,431 - - 289,251 Santa Cruz 8,068 12,505 653 258 - 10 1,396 63 - 22,951 Shasta 118,509 163,277 - - - - - - - 281,786 Sierra 8,430 30,775 - 14,005 - 3,980 - - - 57,191 Siskiyou 478,875 322,746 - - - - - - - 801,621 Solano 572,757 120,764 - - - - 9,694 2,924 - 706,139 Sonoma 215,527 224,697 - - - - - - - 440,224 Stanislaus - - - - - - - - - - Sutter 256,280 13,165 - - - - - - - 269,444 Tehama 184,562 710,472 21,533 20,817 6,577 4,918 - - - 948,880 Trinity - - - - - - - - - - Tulare 2,831,126 509,322 88,813 400 - - - - 686 3,430,347 Tuolumne - 104,744 - - - - - - - 104,744 Ventura 234,386 76,329 13,575 5,758 2,140 238 - - - 332,425 Yolo 673,455 149,613 1,265 8 - - 998 7 - 825,345 Cities Camarillo - - - - - - - - - - Hayward - 812 - - - - - - - 812 Menlo Park - - - - - - - - - - Newark - - - - - - - - - - Palo Alto 738 268 - - - - - - - 1,006 Perris - - - - - - - - - - Redlands - - - - - - - - - - Totals Counties 20,803,213 8,898,947 1,319,057 86,702 3,139,357 71,832 18,668 8,718 43,459 34,389,952 Cities 738 1,080 - - - - - - - 1,818 Grand Totals 20,803,951 8,900,027 1,319,057 86,702 3,139,357 71,832 18,668 8,718 43,459 34,391,770 Open Space Subvention Act Payment Claims ($) Land Conservation Act Agricultural Conservation Easement Other Enforceable Restriction TOTAL Participating Local Jurisdictions Page 52 Appendix B Open Space Subvention Act Inflation-Adjusted Expenditures 1971-2010 Page 53 California Fiscal Year Annual Open Space Subvention Expenditures Consumer Price Index Annual Inflation- Adjusted Open Space Subvention Expenditures Cumulative Open Space Subvention Expenditures Cumulative Inflation- Adjusted Open Space Subvention Expenditures Notes ($ millions)(1)($ millions)($ millions)($ millions) 1971 0.00 5.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 1972 8.80 5.22 45.95 8.80 45.95 1973 9.68 4.91 47.55 18.49 93.50 1974 10.54 4.42 46.58 29.03 140.08 1975 11.37 4.05 46.06 40.40 186.14 1976 12.17 3.83 46.60 52.56 232.74 1977 12.60 3.60 45.38 65.17 278.11 1978 12.91 3.34 43.10 78.07 321.22 1979 13.21 3.00 39.64 91.29 360.86 1980 13.24 2.65 35.08 104.53 395.94 1981 13.72 2.40 32.93 118.25 428.87 1982 13.47 2.26 30.45 131.72 459.33 1983 13.53 2.19 29.62 145.25 488.95 1984 13.97 2.10 29.34 159.22 518.29 1985 13.82 2.03 28.06 173.05 546.35 1986 14.90 1.99 29.65 187.94 576.00 1987 14.05 1.92 26.97 201.99 602.97 1988 14.47 1.84 26.62 216.46 629.59 1989 19.42 1.76 34.17 235.88 663.76 In FY 1989, $5 million in additional subvention funds were appropriated to participating jurisdictions to support agricultural land conservation in light of other demands on these jurisdictions' general purpose revenues. 1990 13.56 1.67 22.65 249.44 686.42 1991 14.14 1.60 22.63 263.58 709.05 1992 13.85 1.55 21.47 277.44 730.52 1993 35.06 1.51 52.94 312.50 783.46 In 1993, subvention payments for prime agricultural land were increased from $1 per acre to $5 per acre. Subvention payments for non-prime agricultural land were increased from 40 cents per acre to $1 per acre; $21 M in additional subvention funds were appropriated to fund these changes. 1994 34.70 1.47 51.00 347.19 834.46 1995 33.80 1.43 48.34 381.00 882.80 1996 34.84 1.39 48.43 415.84 931.23 1997 34.94 1.36 47.51 450.77 978.74 1998 35.30 1.34 47.30 486.07 1,026.05 1999 36.58 1.31 47.92 522.66 1,073.97 2000 36.59 1.27 46.47 559.24 1,120.44 2001 38.67 1.23 47.57 597.92 1,168.00 2002 39.00 1.21 47.19 636.91 1,215.19 2003 39.23 1.19 46.69 676.15 1,261.88 2004 39.21 1.15 45.09 715.36 1,306.97 2005 38.68 1.12 43.32 754.03 1,350.29 2006 38.07 1.08 41.12 792.11 1,391.41 2007 37.65 1.05 39.53 829.76 1,430.94 2008 33.85 1.01 34.19 863.60 1,465.12 2009 0.00 1.02 0.00 863.60 1,465.12 Subvention payments were reduced to $1,000 in 2009. No subvention payments were appropriated in subsequent years. 2010 0.00 1.00 0.00 863.60 1,465.12 Totals 863.60 1,465.12 863.60 1,465.12 Averages 22.73 2.09 38.56 Averages are over 38 payment years. Open Space Subvention Act Inflation-Adjusted Expenditures 1971-2010 TABLE B-1 Page 54 $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 Figure B-1 Annual Open Space Subvention Act Expenditures 1971-2010 (millions) Annual Open Space Subvention Expenditures Annual Inflation-Adjusted Open Space Subvention Expenditures $0.00 $200.00 $400.00 $600.00 $800.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,400.00 $1,600.00 Figure B-2 Cumulative Open Space Subvention Act Expenditures 1971-2010 (millions) Cumulative Open Space Subvention Expenditures Cumulative Inflation-Adjusted Open Space Subvention Expenditures THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION MAKES NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE SUITABILITY OF THIS PRODUCT FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5146) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Business Registry Title: Adoption of an Ordinance Creating a Business Registry in the City of Palo Alto and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2015 for Costs Related to the Implementation of a Business Registration Program for all Businesses Occupying Commercial Space Within the City and Amendment to the Municipal Fee Schedule and Administrative Penalty Schedule From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council: 1. Approve an Ordinance (Attachment A) creating a business registry for the City of Palo Alto. 2. Review the updated BRC Questionnaire (Attachment D), and authorize staff to finalize the questions with input from the Transportation Management Association consultant. 3. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment B) for Fiscal Year 2015 to increase General Fund revenue estimates for permits and fees in the amount of $250,000 and increase the Development Services Department appropriation by $250,000 for the Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Program and amend the Fiscal Year 2015 Adopted Municipal Fee Schedule to add the Business Registry Certificate Fee in the amount of $50 per business and amend the Administrative Penalty Schedule to include a 50% ($25) penalty upon 30 days late and 100% penalty ($50) upon 60 days late. Background Council Direction On February 24, 2014, the Council unanimously approved a Council Colleague’s Memo directing staff to return to Council in short order with a plan for a business registry program that is online, simple to use, and cost recovery in nature (i.e. not meant to generate additional revenue for the City). The Council specifically pointed out the need for the information City of Palo Alto Page 2 especially as it relates to “number of employees, types of businesses, and other information that would be valuable for effective planning purpose.” On April 29, 2014, Council directed Staff to move forward with a two phase framework to implement an annual Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Ordinance & Fee Program as a full cost-recovery program with a focus on businesses occupying or planning to occupy commercial spaces within Palo Alto. Staff was further directed (in phase one) to create an online-based BRC program through technology incorporated within the City’s existing Permit Management System (Accela), to develop an outreach and marketing plan including stakeholders from multiple types of businesses, and to return to Council for approval of the BRC ordinance and program implementation and launch by 12/31/14, including a plan for initial enforcement. On September 22, 2014, the Council approved the staff’s approach to developing and launching a BRC, and directed staff to return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for Fiscal Year 2015 for the BRC start-up costs, including program development and outreach for the remainder of the fiscal year. The Council also provided guidance and input on a draft ordinance and a draft questionnaire. The staff report from September, which includes the additional minutes and reports from February and April are included as Attachment E. Although the verbatim minutes were not yet available at the time this report was written, the action minutes for 9/22 are included as Attachment F. Discussion Ordinance Staff recommends that the Council adopt the ordinance establishing a Business Registry (Attachment A), which has been updated to include Council feedback and input on 9/22/14. This ordinance requires all businesses operating in a fixed place of business in the City to obtain a business registration certification. To obtain a certificate, businesses must complete a City questionnaire (Attachment D). Home-based businesses and transitory businesses (such as general contractors whose corporate office is located outside of the city) are exempt from the ordinance. Based on Council feedback in September, non- profit corporations will not be exempted from the BRC and businesses will not be required to display their certificates. Further Council policy direction will be incorporated into the administrative rules regarding the BRC. Companies that have multiple business entities essentially incorporating the same people at the same location shall only be required to file one business registry certificate listing all such entities. Additionally, companies that hire contract (or “1099”) employees (such as Real Estate Brokers) and employment groups (such as Physicians/Dental Groups) shall only be required to file one business registry certificate (e.g. not every real estate agent or physician would be required to file a BRC, their information would be included in one general BRC for the business). Both the Council and the public noted that the City should prioritize implementing the basic structure of the program and over time make refinements as needed. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Questionnaire Other Cities Staff analyzed business license and registry questionnaires from many cities in our region and beyond, including cities in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. The questions addressed in the updated questionnaire (Attachment D) are consistent with standard questions asked within most city business licenses and registries. Staff has heard concerns regarding company privacy regarding certain information, and certain types of companies (e.g., start-ups in “stealth” mode). Staff will investigate what other cities are doing in terms of privacy and explore mechanisms for keeping certain data confidential. Staff will continue to have conversations with businesses and other cities regarding what information will be collected and published by the City. Transportation-Related Questions To date, staff has not found any examples of a business license or registry with a robust transportation-related focus. However, staff was able to find a number of transportation- related questions in Transportation Management Association (TMA)-driven surveys from cities known to have strong TMAs (Boulder, Portland, Austin, etc). On September 22, 2014, many Council members expressed their desire to have more granular questions included in the BRC (e.g. where employees in Palo Alto are commuting from, and by which modes of transportation). The City’s TMA consultant recommends including some high- level transportation-related questions within the business registry itself, and delivering more detailed questions as part of a follow-up market research survey overseen by the TMA. Staff is working with the TMA consultant to properly pose such questions so as to gather key data points (i.e. the proximity of employees to public transit options), while minimizing the number of questions posed by the BRC itself to streamline the application process. Staff anticipates finalizing the questionnaire in October/November prior to the launch of the BRC. More specific transportation-related data gathering will be a focus of the TMA in 2015. Budget Amendment Ordinance Staff recommends that Council approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for Fiscal Year 2015 (Attachment B) to cover the administration costs related to the creation of a BRC program. For the first year of the program, the costs are estimated at approximately $250,000, which includes the ongoing support of the Business Registry database and online interface, outreach, temporary staffing, letter and postage, as well as reimbursement for department and citywide overhead. Initially, for this program, staff recommends a conservative estimate that 5,000 businesses will register. Therefore, the Business Registration Certificate program fee is recommended to be established at $50 for Fiscal Year 2015. As staff gains experience with the program, the program will be reviewed and costs assessed as part of future budget cycles. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Based on the program costs, the BRC fee may be amended as part of the annual budget process. It is important to note that start-up costs for the initial configuration and set-up of the database and online interface estimated at approximately $35,000 are not included in the Business Registry Certificate Fee. These costs are expected to be covered through a reappropriation request from Fiscal Year 2014 scheduled for City Council approval on October 20, 2014. The Finance Committee reviewed and recommended approval for this request at the September 16 Finance Committee meeting. Municipal Fee Schedule Based on Council direction, staff worked with the City’s consultant to further refine the estimate of businesses in Palo Alto subject to the BRC. Our final estimate includes nearly 10,000 individual business listings, addresses, and (in many cases) phone numbers. Given these numbers and the assumption of 50% participation in the first year (accounting for businesses that have closed, moved, are not subject to the BRC or do not comply), the proposed Business Registry Certificate fee is $50 per business for the first program year, and staff recommends an Amendment to the Municipal Fee Schedule (Attachment C) to reflect this addition. As participation in the program grows and costs are refined, the fee will be reviewed as part of the annual budget process. Administrative Penalty Schedule Although enforcement would not be the focus for Phase 1, staff recommends that the Council establish penalties in the form of late fees for non-compliance. Staff recommends that these fees be straight line and be subject to collection activities. Staff would focus on communicating these penalties to businesses in Phase 1 in hopes that the severity of the penalties would induce more compliance to the BRC. Staff recommends that the council approve an amendment to the Administrative Penalty Schedule as outlined in Attachment B. For being 30 days late, a business would have to pay the original registration fee of $50 plus $25 in penalties, which is equivalent to 50% of the annual registration fee. For being 60 days late with the payment of the business registration fee, a business would have to pay the original registration fee of $50 plus another $50 in penalties, which is equivalent to 100% of the $50 registration fee. It is anticipated that businesses more than 60 days late would be sent to a collection agency. Timeline/Next Steps Stakeholder outreach/marketing and development of the tool and program will commence immediately and be ongoing. The ordinance will return for a second reading in November of 2014 and go into effect 31 days after second reading. After working with the TMA consultant and business community, the questionnaire will be finalized by November of 2014. The BRC program will launch beginning in January of 2015, with a 90-day grace period for businesses to City of Palo Alto Page 5 comply (e.g. business registration due March 31, 2015). The BRC will renew annually beginning on March 31, 2016. In late 2015, staff anticipates that Phase Two will launch, including exploration of an enhanced enforcement plan, and integration with the Use and Occupancy Certificate and other processes. Staff has begun the preliminary examination/clean up work of other related processes and will begin the process of integrating them with the business registry and return to Council with an update/next steps during Phase Two. Resource Impact Staff anticipates a new contract with Accela in an amount not to exceed $42,290 for FY 2015, and a contract with TruePoint Solutions in an amount not to exceed $25,000 in FY 2015. Contract staffing costs for program development are anticipated at $80,000 for FY 2015. Staff will return to Council with ongoing maintenance for Accela and Truepoint as part of the FY 2016 budget process with related adjustment to the annual fee in order to achieve full cost-recovery of the BRC fee. As discussed in the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance, staff recommends recognizing $250,000 in revenue based on the assumption that 5,000 business will initially particiapte in the program and pay a $50 annual Business Registration Fee. This revenue will cover the first year cost of administration, including the ongoing support of the Business Registry database and online interface, outreach, temporary staffing, letter and postage, as well as reimbursement for department and citywide overhead. As staff gains experience with the program, the program will be reviewed and costs assessed as part of future budget cycles. Based on the program costs, the BRC fee may be amended as part of the annual budget process. Policy Implications This is consistent with Council direction on 2/24/14, 4/29/14, and 9/22/14, and will be developed to be cost recovery. The data made available through this business registry will be helpful in achieving many of the programs outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Attachments:  Attachment A: Ordinance Creating a Business Registry (PDF)  Attachment B: BAO XXXX - Business Registry (DOCX)  Attachment C: Amended Municipal Fee Schedule (XLS)  Attachment D BRC-Draft Questionnaire_Oct 2014 (PDF)  Attachment E 9-22-14 Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment F 09-22-14 MOTIONS (PDF) Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 4.60 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Business Registration Program The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 4.60 (Business Registration) is hereby added to Title 4 (Business Licenses and Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: BUSINESS REGISTRATION PROGRAM 4.60.010 Purpose 4.60.020 Definitions 4.60.030 Business Registration Requirement 4.60.040 Exceptions from Business Registration 4.60.050 Fee Required 4.60.060 Application Procedures 4.60.070 Contents of Business Registration Certificate 4.60.080 Term and Annual Renewal of Business Registration 4.60.090 Refunds 4.60.100 Rules and Regulations 4.60.120 Penalties and Remedies 4.60.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to establish a regulatory mechanism to maintain an accurate record of businesses conducting business in the city in order (1) to develop recommendations on land uses; (2) to better coordinate transportation programs; (3) to assist in zoning compliance and (4) to gather statistical information for other city purposes. This chapter is not intended to apply to home based or transitory businesses. 4.60.020 Definitions The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings set forth in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (a) “Business” means any commercial enterprise, trade, calling, vocation, profession, occupation, or means of livelihood, whether or not carried on for gain or profit. (b) “Business registration certificate” means a written statement issued by the city to a business owner as evidence of registering a business in the city. 1 140930 jb 0131258 Rev. September 30, 2014 Not Yet Approved (c) “Fixed place of business” means a place of business located in the city boundaries and occupied for the particular purpose of conducting business. (d) “Home based business” means a home occupation as defined in Section 18.04.030. (e) “Person” means and includes any business owner, individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, estate, business trust, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. (f) “Transitory business” means a business that is carried on for a short duration (such as pumpkin sales, special events, and filming) or a business that does not have a fixed place of business within Palo Alto (such as landscaping or construction contractors based in other cities). 4.60.030 Business Registration Requirement (a) No person shall conduct any business in a fixed place of business without first having obtained a business registration certificate, paid the applicable business registration fee and complied with all applicable provisions of this chapter. (b) The issuance of a business registration certificate under this chapter shall not excuse the business from complying with other applicable Code requirements. (c) A business registration certificate shall not be transferable. 4.60.040 Exemptions from Business Registration The following types of businesses are exempt from this chapter; (a) Home based business (b) Transitory business. 4.60.050 Fee Required (a) Every person engaging in business in the city shall pay a business registration fee as prescribed by resolution adopted by the city council. (b) The business registration fee is not a revenue raising device, but shall bear a reasonable relationship to the service to be performed by the city and the costs incurred by the city in reviewing, processing and acting upon the application. (c) The city council shall, from time to time, review the resolution fixing the business registration fee and may revoke, modify, adjust, add or determine any amount or rate of such business registration fee. 2 140930 jb 0131258 Rev. September 30, 2014 Not Yet Approved 4.60.060 Application Procedures Every person operating a business in the city shall apply to obtain a business registration certificate on a form prescribed by the city. Upon receipt of a completed application and any fee required, the city shall process the application and issue a business registration certificate. The application may be reviewed by other city departments or governmental agencies to determine if the business premises to be occupied meet the requirements of federal, state, and local laws. 4.60.070 Contents of Business Registration Certificate Upon receipt of a completed application and payment of the prescribed business registration fee, the city shall issue to the applicant a business registration certificate which shall contain the following: (1) Name of business; (2) Business location; (3) Expiration date; (4) Certificate Number; and (5) Such other information as deemed necessary by the city. A separate certificate may be obtained for each and every branch establishment or separate place of business in which a business is carried on. 4.60.080 Term and Annual Renewal of Business Registration (a) Term. A business registration certificate shall be effective for no more than one year. Unless otherwise specified, all certificates shall expire on March 31st. Business registration fees shall be due and payable annually in advance. (b) Renewal. Business registration certificates shall be renewed annually on a form prescribed by the City. Every application for the renewal of a certificate shall be made at least fifteen days prior to the expiration date of such license. Any person applying to renew a business registration shall submit to the city a completed renewal application and pay the renewal fee. (c) Alternative Periods. If deemed necessary, the city may establish alternative registration periods for businesses. 4.60.090 Refunds No business registration fees or penalties collected shall be refundable. 3 140930 jb 0131258 Rev. September 30, 2014 Not Yet Approved 4.60.100 Rules and Regulations The City Manager may adopt rules and regulations from time to time to implement this chapter. Implementing rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter. 4.60.120 Penalties and Remedies (a) Penalties for delinquency. Any person engaging in business in the city that fails to secure a business registration certificate before commencing business in the city or fails to timely renew their license shall pay, in addition to the amount of the license fee, a penalty in an amount to be determined by ordinance or resolution. (b) Action to collect. If a business fails to comply with the fee requirements of this action, the City may refer the matter to a collection agency and/or the city attorney may file a civil action against any business. Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, should court action be required to collect any business registration fee and/or penalties, an additional penalty shall be charged equal to the cost incurred by the city for court action, including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees. All penalties shall be added to the business registration fee and shall become due and payable along with the delinquent business registration fee. (c) Remedies Cumulative. All remedies prescribed under this Chapter shall be cumulative and the use of one or more remedies by the City shall not bar the use of any other remedy for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Chapter. SECTION 2. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this chapter. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this chapter and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the chapter would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this chapter is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15061 because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and section 15378(b) (3) in that it involves creation of a governmental funding mechanism or other governmental fiscal activity that does not involve commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. 4 140930 jb 0131258 Rev. September 30, 2014 Not Yet Approved SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ________________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ________________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager 5 140930 jb 0131258 Rev. September 30, 2014 ORDINANCE NO. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 TO INCREASE REVENUE ESTIMATES FROM PERMITS AND FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000 IN RECOGNITION OF NEW REVENUE GENERATED FROM THE BUSINESS REGISTRY CERTIFICATE FEE, INCREASE THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPRORIATION BY $250,000 FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO BUSIENSS REGISTRY CERTIFICATE PROGRAM, AND AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADOPTED MUNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISH THE BUSINESS REGISTRY CERTIFICATE FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $50.00 PER BUSINESS. 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. On February 24, 2014, the City Council unanimously approved a Council Colleague’s Memo directing staff to develop a Business Registry Certificate Program; and B. On April 29, 2014, the City Council directed staff to move forward with a two-phase framework to implement an annual Business Registry Certificate Ordinance and Fee Program as a full-cost recovery program; and C. On April 29, 2014, the Palo Alto City Council approved staff’s recommendation to transfer $35,000 from the City Council Contingency to the City Manager’s budget for initial start-up costs for program and technology development, and due to timing between fiscal years, on September 16, 2014, the Finance Committee approved that the FY 2014 start-up funds in the amount of $35,000 be reappropriated to the City Manager’s FY 2015 budget; and D. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2015; and SECTION 2. The revenue estimate for Permits & Fees in the General Fund is increased by Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000) in recognition of new revenue generated by the Business Registry Certificate Fee. SECTION 3. The Development Services Department budget is hereby increased by Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000) for the administration of the City of Palo Alto Business Registry Certificate Program. SECTION 4. The Fiscal Year 2015 Municipal Fee Schedule is hereby amended to include the Business Registry Certificate Fee in the amount of $50.00 per business. SECTION 5. Section 1 of City Council Resolution 9410 (Administrative Penalty Schedule) adopted on May 4, 2014 is hereby amended to add the following penalties/fines: A. 4.60.120: Failure to pay within 30 days Registration fee plus 50%; and B. 4.60.120: Failure to pay within 60 days Registration fee plus 100%. SECTION 6. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 7. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager City Attorney Director of Development Services Director of Administrative Services Protected Tree Removal Record Management Fee (Optical disk record)** Records Retention** Technology Enhancements** Business Registry Certificate Fee Director's Approval Development Services Planning* FY 2014 FEE FY 2015 FEE Not Applicable Multiple fees below may apply to a single development project; however, when this fee schedule requires a deposit, only the deposit shall be collected. Processing costs for all permits will be billed against that deposit. If the project requires an environmental impact report or other study requiring outside consultants, a deposit equal to 100%of consultant costs shall be collected in addition to any other deposit or fee required. $270.00 plus Other Application Fees on page 21-6 $270.00 plus Other Application Fees on page 21-6 Other Application Fees $50.00 per business * Fees are moved from or shared with the Planning and Community Environment's (PCE) Planning Division to the newly created Development Services Department in FY 2015. FY 2014 Fees shown here were located in the PCE in FY 2014 ** Fees shared with Planning and Community Environment as of FY 2015 $25.00 per file $25.00 per file $4.00/plan sheet $4.00/plan sheet $20.00 per application or permit $20.00 per application or permit City of Palo Alto FY 2015 Municipal Fee Schedule 13-1 Business Registry Certificate Sample Questions Business Name, Owner, Address, Mailing Address (if different), email, phone Does your business have multiple buildings/addresses within Palo Alto? If yes, list (simple pull down with address, square footage, # of employees on site, etc) Business type (choose one)  Office, General  Office, Medical  School, Private  Theater  Retail/ Service  Manufacturing  Wholesale/ Distribution  Restaurant  Software Development  Financial Institution  Church  Other______________ Does your business have multiple business entities/ names associated with your location? If yes, list them all* *The City only requires one Business Registry Certificate for businesses that essentially employ the same people at the same location. Such businesses must list all the associated entities here. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code (link) Federal Tax ID # Sellers Permit # Total square footage of business location** **This is the total square footage actively used for business purposes. If you rent space, this number is typically found on your lease. Number of workers onsite (including part time, full time, and contractors) on a typical business day Does your company provide on-site employee parking? If so, how many spaces? Do you lease any off-site parking spaces? If so, how many? What are your business hours? (Fill out simple chart) Does your company offer commuter benefits? (check all that apply)  Pre-tax payroll deduction for transit passes  Subsidize transit  Provide shuttle service  Offer flexible work hours  Provide car-share and/or bike-share for employees  Other Would you like more information about available transportation programs? (check all that apply)  Palo Alto Free Shuttle  Bike Boulevard program  Bay Area bike share  Zipcar  Caltrain  VTA  SamTrans City of Palo Alto (ID # 5098) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/22/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Business Registry Title: Council Review of Draft Ordinance Creating a Business Registry; Policy Direction Regarding Business Registry Questionnaire and Update on Staff's Implementation Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Review and provide comments on the draft Ordinance creating a business registry for the City of Palo Alto; 2. Approve the staff approach to engage our software vendor, Accela, for set-up, licensing and implementation costs related to the creation of a business registry certificate program (BRC) and for the City to engage Truepoint Solutions for pre and post go-live software staffing augmentation needs; 3. Direct staff to return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for Fiscal Year 2015 for the BRC software start-up costs, including program development and outreach for the remainder of the fiscal year. 4. Review and provide policy direction on the BRC Questionnaire. Background Essential Data The need for the City to obtain real data behind employment in Palo Alto business districts is clear. With such data, the City can begin to measure employment trends, business growth and activity throughout the City in a cohesive and coordinated manner. Its availability is vital for developing and measuring the effectiveness of transportation demand management programs, and other transportation planning efforts. There are several other potentially valuable uses for the data including:  Land use decisions/ planning City of Palo Alto Page 2  Economic development  Public safety/ emergency response  Emergency/ disaster preparedness  Regional Water Quality Control Plant compliance  Business outreach  Integration with other city data  Coordination of staff processes/ improvements to business experiences Council Direction On February 24, 2014, the Council unanimously approved a Council Colleague’s Memo (See Attachment D) directing staff to return to Council in short order with a plan for a business registry program that is online, simple to use, and cost recovery in nature (i.e. not meant to generate additional revenue for the City). The Council specifically pointed out the need for the information especially as it relates to “number of employees, types of businesses, and other information that would be valuable for effective planning purpose”. On April 29, 2014, Council directed Staff to move forward with a two phase framework to implement an annual Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Ordinance & Fee Program as a full cost-recovery program with a focus on businesses occupying or planning to occupy commercial spaces within Palo Alto. Staff was further directed (in phase one) to create an online-based BRC program through technology incorporated within the City’s existing Permit Management System (Accela), to develop an outreach and marketing plan including stakeholders from multiple types of businesses, and to return to Council for approval of the BRC ordinance and program implementation and launch by 12/31/14, including a plan for initial enforcement. Excerpt minutes are available as Attachment C. Discussion Business Registry Framework Staff has prepared a draft Business Registry ordinance for Council’s consideration (See Attachment A). The ordinance requires all businesses operating in a fixed place of business in the City to obtain a business registration certificate. To obtain a certificate, businesses must complete a city questionnaire (See Attachment B). Home based businesses and transitory businesses (such as general contractors whose corporate office is located outside of the city) are exempt from the ordinance. The business certificate shall last for one year and must be renewed annually. Businesses must post the certificate in a conspicuous place. The ordinance authorizes the City to impose penalties for failing to secure a certificate. The ordinance also allows the Director of Administrative Services to adopt rules and regulations to further implement the program. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Web-Based Tool Based on Council Direction, The Palo Alto BRC will be an internet-based program. The interface needs to be easy to understand and use, and to seamlessly integrate with the City’s existing permit management system (Accela). This will ensure that the process is as simple as possible for businesses and should prevent an influx of thousands of business people into the Development Center. Companies will be able to complete the entire BRC process online. This includes creating a business profile, answering the BRC questionnaire, completing an affidavit stating the facts presented are true, making payment, and generating a BRC certificate. Staff is planning for 2 “virtual kiosks” to be made available at the Development Center to allow businesses the ability to sign up online. Fee Structure As a cost-recovery program, the proposed business registry certificate fee structure will be a flat annual fee for each business required to register. The fee amount will depend on the actual number of businesses targeted (subject to refinement of staff’s current list and to further Council consideration), and based on preliminary staff estimates. At this time, the fee will most likely be on the lower end of the $35-$75 range previously stated depending on the number of expected businesses to register with the program. Staffing Pending Council action outlined in this report, staff will partner with Accela to implement, license, and integrate the BRC tool into our permit management system. Accela is currently used as the City’s Permit Management System and will be able to host the data in a form that is able to incorporate with numerous other City processes. This is especially important in Phase One of the BRC as it relates to payments and data reporting and in Phase Two for integration with other City processes (including Planning, Building, and Fire Department). In order to also meet the City’s requirement to have a web-based front end that is simple, user- friendly and integrates with Accela as the back end, Accela partnered with another firm, OpenCounter. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Beyond the software implementation and integration in phase one, staff will also be needed for several key tasks as it relates to the development of the BRC. Although many of these efforts will be conducted with existing staff resources, staff does anticipate the need for one 12-month contract employee at the Management Analyst level to manage the development of the BRC program implementation. These tasks included, but are not limited to:  Develop a program centered around registering new and existing businesses in the City of Palo Alto  Develop streamlined processes that enable the ongoing administration of this new program  Coordinate marketing campaigns to help facilitate registration of new and existing companies.  Work collaboratively with other staff and external consultants at the Development Center to ensure the process integrates with other processes and management and all personnel are well informed about the program and process.  Develop reports and run queries that track the program’s effectiveness, reach, and efficiency  Track fees to ensure the program is cost recoverable.  Prepare for integration with other processes (including Use & Occupancy Permitting)  Train and deploy staff to run the program once the system has been established.  Plan and prepare all processes for operational hand-over to Development Center staff Once implemented, staffing needs will shift to program management, which is anticipated to add one staff member to the Development Center, likely at the Program Assistant III level, to manage such things as:  New business outreach  Kiosk Assistance  Customer Support  Report generation/ publishing  Annual Billing o Largely automated  Collections activities Staff outlines these costs for Fiscal Year 2015 in the resource impacts section below and will return to Council as part of the annual budget process for future years’ costs. Enforcement City of Palo Alto Page 5 Phase one would be focused mainly on developing/ launching the system, outreach, and stakeholder engagement. Initial enforcement will rely mainly on staff visitations and mailed reminders. Existing staff such as the Fire Department (as they conduct their regular fire-safety system inspections) as well as on the coordination of other city permits (e.g. staff would require a BRC to be completed as part of any application for an encroachment, tenant improvement, or other permit, as appropriate). Businesses would be required to post their BRC in plain sight, so a simple system could be developed to create spot-checks for businesses in Phase 1 without additional resources needed. Although enforcement would not be the focus for Phase 1, staff recommends that the Council adopt an initial plan including establishing penalties in the form of late fees for non-compliance. Staff recommends that these fees be cumulative and be subject to collection activities. Staff would focus on communicating these penalties to businesses in Phase 1 in hopes that the severity of the penalties would induce more compliance to the BRC. Additional enforcement tools, techniques, and penalties would be explored during phase two. Database of Existing Businesses In collaboration with Muni Services, the City’s sales and property tax consultant, over 260,000 available business records were compiled using numerous sources. These sources included internal sources such as Palo Alto Utility, Police and Fire Department records, as well as external sources such as sales tax, property tax, publicly and privately available business listings, and other records. In scrubbing the database to meet the criteria outline by Council, the list currently includes over 11,500 individual business listings, addresses, and (in many cases) phone numbers. Staff will continue to develop this list prior to finalizing estimates. As the list is further refined, and subject to Council policy direction in this report, the number is expected to decrease further. For example, many dentists and MDs are listed individually, but would be considered a “medical group” for purposes of the BRC based on the staff recommendation. Initial Outreach Although the focus of staff has primarily been on creation of the software and systems to host a working BRC, staff has been able to interface with several stakeholders regarding the creation of a BRC. The fact that the BRC concept only focuses on businesses operating in commercial spaces, is a nominal (cost recovered) fee, and will be very simple to use has been generally well received. City of Palo Alto Page 6 It was noted on several occasions that the key to success of the BRC will be in informing and educating the business community about the BRC using all available channels of communication. It has also been noted that the questions recorded and the quality of information are integral to the success of the program. There were some concerns from the business community about what information collected by the City would be public. In general, staff’s goal is to collect data that would not only be used by the City, but could also be made publicly available for third party use. However, in recognition that some businesses have raised privacy concerns regarding certain information, staff intends to do more outreach with businesses to better understand their concerns. Staff has committed to having continued conversations with businesses to explore mechanisms for keeping certain data confidential. Other concerns expressed were that it would be difficult to enforce the BRC because of a rapid rate of change in commercial properties. Also, there is some concern that the BRC would set the stage for a revenue generating Business License Tax. Additional Outreach Staff is committed to conducting significantly more outreach to include as part of the development and eventual implementation of the BRC. Tactics will include, but not be limited to:  Direct Mail  Online/ advertising and website/ FAQ  Social Media  Phone/ email contacts  Business Organizations  Sentiment surveys via Survey Monkey  In person meetings  Regular email updates Policy Decisions for Council Questionnaire Staff requests that the Council give input regarding the attached questionnaire (Attachment B), which is an attempt to focus the range of possible questions into a core list to derive the key information from companies in Palo Alto. Staff worked across departments to develop the list, and special attention was given to input from the transportation department and the City’s Transportation Management Association (TMA) consultant to ensure that the questions provide data necessary for the development of a successful TMA. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Based on council feedback, staff would like to further develop the questionnaire and engage stakeholders through outreach meetings for additional comments. Exemptions The types of businesses that are exempt from a business license tax by the US Constitution, or Federal or State statutes (such as banks, insurance companies, and non-profit organizations) are not necessarily exempt from a BRC. Other California cities with a business registry do not exempt any types of businesses: businesses doing business but not based in the City, non-profit organizations, and home based businesses are all subject to the fee. Per Council direction, in Phase One of the BRC businesses not occupying or planning to occupy commercial space in Palo Alto would not be subject to the BRC. This includes transitory businesses, home-based businesses, virtual offices and other businesses that do not today require a Certificate of Use per the City’s Municipal Code. Staff recommends that businesses that employ contract or “1099” employees or agents, such as real estate brokerage firms, as well as dental and physicians groups only be required to complete one BRC per location. Staff recommends that all types of businesses be evaluated for potential inclusion/ expansion into the BRC during Phase 2. A key policy question is whether or not non-profit corporations should be exempted from the BRC or from payment of the BRC. Previous iterations of a business registry in Palo Alto have proposed that non-profit organizations be required to register but be exempt from the registry fee. It must be noted that to the extent any specific types of businesses or organizations are included in the registry but exempted from the registry fee, the operating cost associated with such a fee exemption must be borne by the General Fund rather than by other businesses in the BRC. Based on current estimates, this exemption is estimated to cost between $7,000- $31,500 per year. Companies with Multiple Locations Another policy question is how to deal with companies that have multiple locations within Palo Alto. Since a major intent of the business registry is to derive data regarding how many people are travelling to jobs in Palo Alto, staff sees an argument for having only one BRC form filled out for each company, listing the number and address of each location, answering the questions for the company in a largely amalgamated manner, but breaking down some data points on a site- specific basis. However, the Council could decide that one BRC should be filled out for each location. Timeline/ Next Steps Stakeholder outreach/ marketing and development of the tool and program will commence immediately and be ongoing. The ordinance will return for a first/ second reading in October/ November of 2014. The BRC program will launch beginning in January of 2015, with a 90 day grace period for businesses to comply (e.g. business registration due March 31, 2015). The BRC will renew annually beginning on March 31, 2016. City of Palo Alto Page 8 In late 2015, staff anticipates that Phase Two will launch, including exploration of an enhanced enforcement plan, and integration with the Use and Occupancy Certificate and other processes. Staff has begun the preliminary examination/ clean up work of other related processes and will begin the process of integrating them with the business registry and return to Council with an update/ next steps during Phase Two. Resource Impact Staff anticipates a new contract with Accela in an amount not to exceed $42,290 for FY 2015, and a contract with Truepoint Solutions in an amount not to exceed $25,000 in FY 2015. Contract staffing costs for program development are anticipated at $80,000 for FY 2015. Staff would return to Council with ongoing maintenance for Accela and TrPoint as part of the FY 2016 budget process with related adjustment to the annual fee in order to achieve full cost- recovery of the BRC fee. In addition, staff will be seeking either an extension to the contract position or an additional FTE at the Program Assistant III level. Based on the current estimated range of businesses, the FY 2015 costs for a 6-month period beginning January 1, 2015 is estimated between $170,000 and $190,000 which includes approximately $35,000 in one-time start-up costs. On April 29, 2014, the Palo Alto City Council approved staff’s recommendation to transfer $35,000 from the City Council Contingency to the City Manager’s budget for initial start-up costs for program and technology development (CMR# 4619). Due to timing between fiscal years, on September 16, 2014, the Finance Committee approved that the FY 2014 start-up funds in the amount of $35,000 be re- appropriated to the City Manager’s FY 2015 budget (CMR# 5043). Start-up cost estimates depend on the number of businesses to be targeted. However, because the tool is web-based, most of the variable expenses are related only to printing and mailing expenses. Staff will return with refined costs, including a business registry fee based on the final estimate of businesses, as part of a Budget Amendment Ordinance once the policy issues have been finalized in October. In addition to the re-appropriated start-up funds, staff intends to bring forward a recommendation with this Budget Amendment Ordinance, which would cover the one-time start-up costs from the City Council Contingency and the ongoing costs from the fee revenue. Staff would also return with an update to the Municipal Fee Schedule and Administrative Penalty Schedule at that time. Further, staff proposes an annual increase in the BRC fee equal to the Consumer Price Index- All Urban Consumers for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Metropolitan Areas. Policy Implications This is consistent with Council Direction on 2/24/14 and 4/29/14, and will be developed to be cost recovery. The data made available through this business registry will be helpful in achieving many of the programs outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Environmental Review Implementation of a BRC is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments:  Attachment A: Draft Ordinance: Business Registry (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft BRC Questionnaire (PDF)  Attachment C: BRC Excerpt Minutes 4-29-14 (PDF)  Attachment D: Colleagues Memo - Business Registry (2-24-14) (PDF) Not Yet Approved 1 140910 jb 0131258 Rev. September 9, 2014 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 4.60 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Business Registration Program The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: (A) A business registry database will provide data to develop recommendations on land use trends and to better coordinate transportation programs such as activities related to a Transportation Management Association, and transportation demand management. (B) A business registry database will assist City businesses and residents in locating goods and services closer to home, promoting retail, business-to-business sales, and e-commerce. (C) A business registry database will help the City to better understand its business community, and help make the City's planning, fire, public safety, and security assistance activities more responsive to business needs. (D) A business registry database is needed to support economic development planning between businesses and the City. (E) A business registry database will provide the Regional Water Quality Control Plant with updated information to identify all facilities that must comply with the sewer use ordinance. (F) A business registry database will allow the City to make available to businesses and residents valuable business profile information through a centralized database on the City’s web site thereby increasing e-commerce within the City. (G) A business registry database will allow the City to integrate sales tax information with other measures of business activity (e.g. transient occupancy tax generators) in Palo Alto. (H) A business registry database will provide data to help update GIS information thereby improving the information available to the City’s emergency response teams and Public Works and Utilities staff for informed, timely, and accurate decision- making. Not Yet Approved 2 140910 jb 0131261 Rev. September 15, 2014 (I) A business registry database will encourage businesses to obtain appropriate permits and to comply with applicable codes, zoning and safety requirements. (J) A business registry database will help protect the interests of legitimate Palo Alto businesses in the City from unfair competition from businesses operating in violation of federal, state, and local laws. (K) On October ___, 2014, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the addition of Chapter 4.60, Business Registration; and (L) The City Council, after due consideration of the recommendation and a duly noticed public hearing held on _____, 2014, finds that the proposed addition is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety, and welfare. SECTION 2. Chapter 4.60 (Business Registration) is hereby added to Title 4 (Business Licenses and Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: BUSINESS REGISTRATION PROGRAM 4.60.010 Definitions 4.60.020 Purpose 4.60.030 Business Registration Requirement 4.60.040 Exceptions from Business Registration 4.60.050 Fee Required 4.60.060 Exemption from Fee 4.60.070 Application Procedures 4.60.080 Contents of Business Registration Certificate 4.60.090 Term and Annual Renewal of Business Registration 4.60.100 Refunds 4.60.110 Duplicate Copies, Modification and Transfer of Business License Certificates 4.60.120 Posting and Keeping Business Registration Certificate 4.60.130 Entry to Inspect 4.60.140 Rules and Regulations 4.60.150 Penalties and Remedies 4.60.160 Appeal 4.60.010 Definitions The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings set forth in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (a) “Business” means any commercial enterprise, trade, calling, vocation, profession, occupation, or means of livelihood, whether or not carried on for gain or profit. (b) “Business registration certificate” means a written statement issued by the city to a business owner as evidence of registering a business in the city. Not Yet Approved 3 140910 jb 0131261 Rev. September 15, 2014 (c) “Charitable nonprofit organization” means an institution or organization which is conducted, managed or carried on wholly for the benefit of charitable purposes and from which profit or income is not derived, either directly or indirectly, by an employee, officer or director of the organization. (d) “Fixed place of business” means a place of business located in the city boundaries and occupied for the particular purpose of conducting business. (e) “Home based business” means a business conducted within a residential dwelling unit, with the business activity being subordinate to the residential use of the property. For the purpose of this chapter home based business includes but is not limited to construction contractors, gardeners, babysitter and tutors. (f) “Person” means and includes any business owner, individual, firm, co- partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, estate, business trust, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. (g) “Transitory business” means a business which is carried on for a short duration (such as pumpkin sales, special events, and filming) or a business that does not have a fixed place of business within Palo Alto (such as landscaping or construction contractors based in other cities). 4.60.020 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to establish a regulatory mechanism to maintain an accurate record of businesses conducting business in the city for statistical purposes and to assist in zoning compliance. 4.60.030 Business Registration Requirement (a) No person shall conduct any business in a fixed place of business without first having obtained a business registration certificate, paid the applicable business registration fee and complied with all applicable provisions of this chapter. (b) A separate business registration certificate shall be obtained for each separate type of business at the same location. (c) The issuance of a business registration certificate under this chapter shall not excuse the business from complying with other applicable Code requirements. 4.60.040 Exemptions from Business Registration The following types of businesses shall be exempt from this chapter. (a) Home Based Business. (b) Transitory Business. Not Yet Approved 4 140910 jb 0131261 Rev. September 15, 2014 (c) Any business otherwise exempt from this Chapter’s requirements by virtue of the Constitution or applicable federal or state statutes. 4.60.050 Fee Required (a) Every person engaging in business in the city shall pay a business registration fee as prescribed by resolution adopted by the city council. (b) The business registration fee is not a revenue raising device, but shall bear a reasonable relationship to the service to be performed by the city and the costs incurred by the city in reviewing, processing and acting upon the application. (c) The city council shall, from time to time, review the resolution fixing the business registration fee and shall revoke, modify, adjust, add or determine any amount or rate of such business registration fee. 4.60.060 Exemption from Fee (a) The following businesses shall be exempt from payment of fees pursuant to this chapter: (1) Charitable nonprofit organizations. (2) Any business otherwise exempt from payment of fees required by this Chapter by virtue of the Constitution or applicable federal or state statutes. (b) Any person claiming a fee exemption pursuant to this section shall file a sworn statement, on a form prescribed by the City, stating the facts upon which the exemption is claimed and shall furnish such information and verification as may be required. In absence of such statement substantiating the claim, such person shall be liable for the payment of the registry fee imposed by this chapter. 4.60.070 Application Procedures Every person operating a business in the city shall apply to obtain a business registration certificate on a form prescribed by the city. Upon receipt of a completed application and any fee required, the city shall process the application and issue a business registration certificate. The application may be reviewed by other city departments or governmental agencies to determine if the business premises to be occupied meet the requirements of federal, state, and local laws. 4.60.080 Contents of Business Registration Certificate Upon the payment for business registration, the city shall issue to the applicant a business registration certificate which shall contain the following: (1) Name of business; Not Yet Approved 5 140910 jb 0131261 Rev. September 15, 2014 (2) Business location; (3) Expiration date; (4) Certificate Number; and (5) Such other information as deemed necessary by the city. A separate certificate may be obtained for each and every branch establishment or separate place of business in which a business is carried on. 4.60.090. Term and Annual Renewal of Business Registration (a) Term. A business registration certificate shall be no more than one year. Unless otherwise specified, all certificates shall expire on March 31st. Business registration fees shall be due and payable annually in advance. (b) Renewal. Business registration certificates shall be renewed annually on a form prescribed by the City. Every application for the renewal of a certificate shall be made at least fifteen days prior to the expiration date of such license. Any person applying to renew a business registration shall submit to the city a completed renewal application and pay the renewal fee. (c) Alternative Periods. If deemed necessary, the city may establish alternative registration periods for businesses. 4.60.100. Refunds No business registration fees or penalties collected shall be refundable. 4.60.110. Duplicate Copies, Modification and Transfer of Business License Certificates (a) Duplicate business registration. Upon filing a statement indicating that a business registration certificate has been lost or destroyed, and after paying a fee, a duplicate business registration certificate shall be issued by the city. (b) Modification to business registration. A business registration certificate may be amended to reflect a modification after paying the business registration fee. (c) Transfer of business registration certificate. A business registration certificate shall not be transferable. 4.60.120. Posting and Keeping Business Registration Certificate Any person engaging in business subject to this Chapter shall keep a business registration certificate posted in a conspicuous place upon the premises where the business is conducted. Not Yet Approved 6 140910 jb 0131261 Rev. September 15, 2014 4.60.130. Entry to Inspect The city shall have the power and authority to enter into a business, free of charge and at any reasonable time, and require to inspect the business registration certificate posted in a conspicuous place upon the premises. 4.60.140. Rules and Regulations The Director of Administrative Services may adopt rules and regulations from time to time to implement this Chapter. 4.60.150. Penalties and Remedies (a) Penalties for delinquency. Any person engaging in business in the city that fails to secure a business registration certificate before commencing business in the city or fails to timely renew their license shall pay, in addition to the amount of the license fee, a penalty in an amount to be determined by resolution. (b) Action to collect. If a business fails to comply with the fee requirements of this action, the City may refer the matter to a collection agency and/or the city attorney may file a civil action against any business. Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, should court action be required to collect any business registration fee and/or penalties, an additional penalty shall be charged equal to the cost incurred by the city for court action, including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees. All penalties shall be added to the business registration fee and shall become due and payable along with the delinquent business registration fee. (c) Remedies Cumulative. All remedies prescribed under this Chapter shall be cumulative and the use of one or more remedies by the City shall no bar the use of any other remedy for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Chapter. 4.60.160. Appeal Any person aggrieved by any decision of the city with respect to the issuance or denial of a business registration certificate shall have the right to appeal to the Director of Administrative Services or his or her designee by filing an appeal with the city clerk within ten days of the date of the action being appealed and paying any appeal fee determined by resolution of the city council. The decision of the Director of Administrative Services or his or her designee shall not be appealable. SECTION 3. Any provision of the Palo Alto Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court Not Yet Approved 7 140910 jb 0131261 Rev. September 15, 2014 of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15061 because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and section 15378(b) (3) in that it involves creation of a governmental funding mechanism or other governmental fiscal activity which do not involve commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ________________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ________________________________ Sr. Assistant City Attorney City Manager ________________________________ Director of Administrative Services     Business Registry Certificate  Sample Questions  Business Name, Owner, Address, Mailing Address (if different), email, phone  Emergency Contact Info  Type of Ownership  Business type North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code  Federal Tax ID #  Sellers Permit # Square footage occupied on site   Start date in Palo Alto Number of workers onsite (including part time, full time, and contractors ) on a typical business day  Does your company provide on‐site employee parking? If so, how many spaces?  Do you lease any off‐site parking spaces?  If so, how many?  What are your business hours? (Fill out simple chart)   Does your company offer commuter benefits? (check all that apply)   Pre‐tax payroll deduction for transit passes   Subsidize transit   Provide shuttle service   Offer flexible work hours   Provide car‐share and/or bike‐share for employees   Other    Would you like more information about the City’s transportation programs?   Palo Alto Free Shuttle  Bike Boulevard program  Bay Area bike share  Zipcar  Caltrain  VTA  SamTrans  Mayor Shepherd understood stakeholder groups disagreed about the use of Measure E property. She inquired whether there was any consensus from stakeholder groups regarding how the land was considered now that the City could utilize it for these facilities. Mr. Bobel indicated there were several stakeholder groups, and he met with each individually. Mayor Shepherd asked if stakeholder groups had come to terms with use of the 10 acres. Mr. Bobel did not see consensus yet. Staff drafted the alternative recommendations when they realized there was no consensus. People opposed to use of Measure E land in any form were vehemently opposed to alternative recommendations. The Staff recommendation was the best chance for a compromise. Mayor Shepherd asked if the Council should discuss that and provide direction to Staff. Mr. Bobel did not have a suggestion for the Council. Mr. Keene advised that the 10 acres was never a certainty. There seemed to be some agreement about not using the slope portion of the 10 acres. The current discussion seemed to focus on limiting the use of the 10 acres to the 3.8-acres portion. Mr. Bobel noted the leadership of proponents stated that alternate recommendations were acceptable. He had seen progress on narrowing the use of the 10 acres. Mayor Shepherd remarked that accepting proposals would determine the Council's view of the 10 acres. Mr. Keene indicated Staff's practice had been to reclaim and return different portions of the 10 acres to the park. Staff would share an interest in defining boundaries as soon as possible in order to complete park components. 12. Approval of Staff Recommended Framework for Development of a Business Registry Certificate Ordinance & Fee Program as a Replacement/Enhancement of the City’s Current Use Certificate Program to be Implemented by December 31, 2014. 04/29/2014 114- 536 MINUTES Thomas Fehrenbach, Economic Development Manager, reported the City lacked basic and essential data regarding businesses and employees. Such data could be utilized for transportation and land use planning, economic development planning, and emergency preparedness. The Council directed Staff to create a simple online registry to obtain data and to recover costs. A Use and Occupancy (U&O) Certificate was required for all businesses operating from a commercial space. Enforcement was limited to businesses that needed other permits from the Development Center or that needed random inspections. The objective for the Staff recommendation was to replace or enhance the current U&O Certificate to include the data component. Staff recommended a phased approach. Staff proposed delivering the registry by the end of 2014, enhancing enforcement later, and extending the business registry beyond businesses occupying commercial spaces. Staff would return to the Council in the fall of 2014 with a draft Ordinance and a plan for enforcing the Ordinance. Staff performed initial outreach with the business community and recommended additional outreach in the development and implementation stages. Martin Bernstein, speaking as an individual, requested the Council clarify and specify that no fee would be required for any home-based business owner with no employees. Hal Mickelson, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, indicated there was no need for a business registry within the business community. If a business registry was deemed necessary for efficient City administration, the Chamber believed it should be revenue neutral, simple, further simplified for small business, and exempt home businesses. He urged the Council and Staff to consider confidentiality, complicatedness, and enforcement. Council Member Klein commented that virtually every other city in California had a business registry. Businesses in every community had grappled with the problems Mr. Mickelson mentioned. Mr. Mickelson suggested the Council obtain advice from the City Attorney regarding actions taken by other cities with respect to confidentiality. Some companies might prefer to pay a fine rather than submit sensitive information. Council Member Klein hoped the Chamber would provide ideas. Mr. Mickelson would continue to work with the City. 04/29/2014 114- 537 Robert Moss felt a business registry would provide a great deal of important information, including an accurate number of jobs. Businesses should be required to report periodically. Businesses should report the number of sites they occupied and how many employees were located at each site. Eventually home offices should be included. Dave Lanferman recalled the Colleague's Memorandum directed Staff to provide an exemption for home-based businesses. Yet, Staff recommended the City consider expanding the business registry to include businesses not occupying commercial spaces. Phase 2 would consider enhanced enforcement. It appeared Staff was asking businesses to pay for the red tape that would be used to further regulate and tax businesses. He was unsure whether calling the proposal a business registry circumvented the requirement for a ballot measure. Lynn Chiapella referenced parking problems resulting from small business expansions. The City would never obtain a valid number of employees without a business registry. Jon Kiya, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Board Chair, reported the Chamber recognized the value of collecting data. Enforcement on large corporations would be critical to obtaining valid data. Chamber members were concerned about the use of information, specifically that information not be used to assess further taxes or fees. Mr. Fehrenbach advised that the Council's direction to Staff was clear that home-based businesses would be exempt. The language "businesses not occupying commercial space" was intended to explore transitory businesses. Staff would explore actions taken by other cities regarding confidentiality. The questionnaire was meant to provide a sense of the spectrum of interest from City Departments. A U&O Permit was required for each separate building. The business registry would address the number of workers located in each building. A registry with cost recovery only was not considered a tax. This was an opportunity for proactive outreach and to convert a paper process to an electronic process. Council Member Holman recommended Staff revise the recommendation to reflect information provided in the presentation. Use Certificate and Occupancy Permits were used interchangeably, which could be confusing. She inquired about the SIC Code mentioned in the questionnaire. Mr. Fehrenbach indicated SIC was an acronym for Standard Industry Code. It was a standard set of numeric codes that segregated types of businesses. 04/29/2014 114- 538 MINUTES James Keene, City Manager, added that the SIC separated businesses into categories. Council Member Holman asked if the SIC identified specific types of commercial businesses. Mr. Fehrenbach responded yes. Council Member Holman noted the questionnaire asked about the number of workers onsite, but did not address whether employees were part-time or full-time. The Staff presentation addressed mode of transportation to reach work, but that was not in the sample questionnaire. The questionnaire asked about onsite employee parking, but it did not ask specific questions. She inquired whether the $413 Use Fee was applied to businesses regardless of size. Mr. Fehrenbach answered yes. The fee included components for zoning use compliance and building and fire inspections. Council Member Holman understood the City could not charge more than the amount to process it, and questioned whether the $413 fee was equitable for small and large businesses. The Staff Report indicated 3,000-5,000 businesses complied with U&O Certificate requirements. She inquired about methods to track businesses that complied with the business registry. Mr. Fehrenbach reported electronic records extended back to 2004. Records prior to 2004 were paper-based and located in different places. Staff would need to review all current U&O Certificates and identify other databases to compile an initial outreach list of businesses located in commercial spaces. Staff intended to return to the Council in the fall of 2014 with refined data. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Klein 1) approve the transfer of $35,000 from the City Council Contingency Fund to the City Manager’s budget for initial start-up costs including outreach, training, and program/technology development, and 2) to direct Staff to move forward with a two phase framework to implement a Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Ordinance & Fee Program as a full cost-recovery through redesign of the use and occupancy certificate process including: Phase One 1. A focus on businesses occupying or planning to occupy commercial spaces within Palo Alto. 04/29/2014 114- 539 2. Creating a new online-based BRC program through technology incorporated within the City’s existing Permit Management System. 3. Developing/implementing an outreach and marketing plan including stakeholders from multiple types of businesses. 4. Return to Council for approval of BRC ordinance and program implementation and launch by 12/31/14, including plan for initial enforcement. 4a.Incorporate sample questions including: how employees get to work, where do employees not accommodated with onsite parking, park. Phase Two 5. Options for enhanced enforcement, including fiscal impacts, for Council consideration. 6. An analysis of options to expand the BRC program to include businesses not occupying/planning to operate from commercial spaces within Palo Alto. Council Member Holman felt it was important to utilize a business registry to the best intentions of the Colleague's Memorandum. The sample questionnaire should include the types of data the Council wanted. The business registry should not replace the U&O Certificate process. Council Member Klein was surprised to read that as demand for commercial spaces increased, the density of commercial space also increased generally. He seemed to recall a study from the Planning Department indicated that information could not be verified. A business registry was different from a tax. Many business people's concerns were protected under Proposition 218. The $413 fee needed review. It was illogical for a large employer to pay the same fee as a small employer. The number that 3,000-5,000 businesses had paid User Fees was nonsense. He hoped the business community would agree to work with the City to build a business registry. The questions Council Member Holman suggested for Item 4a would be onerous for many employers to answer. AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Mayor Shepherd to eliminate the new 4a, “Incorporate sample questions including: how employees get to work, where do employees not accommodated with onsite parking, park.” Mayor Shepherd shared Council Member Klein's concerns. Those types of questions should be asked after a business registry was developed. 04/29/2014 114- 540 MINUTES AMENDMENT PASSED: 6-1 Holman no, Kniss, Scharff absent Council Member Price inquired whether findings from transportation surveys had been useful in providing profiles of parking and commuting options. Mr. Fehrenbach indicated the surveys provided a glimpse into parking options. Council Member Price asked if survey results were tracked to a specific location. Mr. Fehrenbach did not believe so. Council Member Price recalled that much of the U&O Fee structure was based on cost recovery and fees in other communities. She asked if that remained an operating practice. Peter Pirnejad, Development Services Director, reported Staff would perform a fee study and would determine if fees were cost neutral. Council Member Price wondered whether a flat fee was common within the U&O arena. Mr. Pirnejad indicated a business license tax was based on gross receipts, a sliding scale dependent upon the size and success of a business. A business registry fee should be based on some equivalent non-tax, total receipts based variable. Council Member Price understood the current structure was a flat fee of $413 regardless of the size of the operation. She asked if Staff believed utilization of a flat fee was common in other communities. Mr. Pirnejad did not believe a flat fee was common for a business registry. A business license tax was typically a flat fee for most businesses. After a certain size or amount of gross receipts, then the business license tax utilized a sliding scale. Council Member Schmid felt voluntary compliance was essential to obtaining data. He favored separating the business registry from the U&O Certificate process, having only a few questions, obtaining data annually, and utilizing a flat fee. Comparing City data with an external data source would be beneficial. 04/29/2014 114- 541 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to restate the first paragraph in the Motion to: “to direct Staff to move forward with a two phase framework to implement an (annual) Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Ordinance & Fee Program as a full cost-recovery.” Mr. Keene reported Staff wanted to have an integrated program linking different requirements in one place. Otherwise, enforcement of a voluntary business license program could be less effective. Council Member Burt believed it was logical to have the two programs linked. However, the business registry would be constructed on what appeared to be a broken system. The Use Permit program had to be corrected first. He inquired if the Use Permit covered subtenants. Mr. Fehrenbach advised that the business occupying the space was required to have a Use Permit. Council Member Burt recalled another area of opposition in the previous business license election concerned sole proprietorships. He asked if Staff knew how many businesses held Use Permits. Mr. Fehrenbach responded yes. Council Member Burt asked if there was a method to handle expired Use Permits. Mr. Pirnejad agreed the Use Permit program needed corrections. Council Member Burt wanted to know the number of expired Use Permits. Mr. Pirnejad indicated the number was difficult to determine because the Use Permit program was paper based. Council Member Burt asked if anyone counted the number of businesses. Mr. Pirnejad reported Staff had difficulty dealing with the paper-based system. Staff did not have a number. Council Member Burt inquired whether Staff removed a business from the Use Permit list once it went out of business or left Palo Alto. Mr. Pirnejad advised there was not a permit retention process to remove businesses. A new U&O process would replace the former process. Council Member Burt asked if Google and Facebook remained listed as Palo Alto businesses according to Use Permits. 04/29/2014 114- 542 MINUTES Mr. Pirnejad answered yes. Mr. Keene understood part of the system was automated. Mr. Pirnejad explained that Staff's proposal was to completely automate the system. Council Member Burt recognized that Staff was attempting to fix the process. He wanted to have an objective and realistic baseline for building a business registry. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to direct Staff to return with this item with a revised structure to use permit so that the business registry can piggyback on the business registry structure. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Mayor Shepherd understood a Use Permit was charged only once; yet, fire inspections occurred annually. She asked if the Motion was a different program from Staff's recommendation. Mr. Fehrenbach believed the Motion created a business registry separate from the U&O Permit program. Businesses would be enticed to update their information for the business registry. Mayor Shepherd wanted a business registry that was updated yearly. She inquired whether businesses obtained Use Permits only once. Mr. Fehrenbach indicated businesses were required to obtain a new U&O Certificate when they refurbished a building or had a tenant improvement. A U&O Certificate was obtained only once. Staff proposed to continue the elements of the U&O Certificate and to add a questionnaire which had to be updated regularly. Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the proposal was for businesses to complete a questionnaire annually and to remit a fee. Mr. Fehrenbach reported that was the Staff recommendation. Mayor Shepherd did not find a recommendation for an annual questionnaire and fee. She asked if Staff would propose those items in phase two. 04/29/2014 114- 543 Mr. Fehrenbach understood Staff's recommendation combined the one-time U&O Certificate with the annual business registry. Staff would automate the U&O component as well as the questionnaire component. Mayor Shepherd asked if there was an annual fee. Mr. Fehrenbach answered yes. It would be an annual, nominal fee in the range of $35 to $75. Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the problem was sorting through paper files to determine which businesses should receive notice of an annual registry. Mr. Fehrenbach indicated Staff needed to focus on adding businesses with and without existing U&O Permits and new businesses to the new online system. Staff would need to build outreach systems and a backend to support each of those different types of businesses. Once businesses were in the system, then the process would be simpler with automatic renewal notices. Mayor Shepherd did not see an annual fee or an annual update of business information in the Motion. Mr. Fehrenbach stated Staff's intent was to receive Council direction and build that into the Ordinance. Mayor Shepherd reiterated that that was not contained in the Motion. She asked how Staff would handle the Motion. Mr. Fehrenbach would take direction from the Council to explore a separate system and attempt to create tools to entice/enforce businesses to update information annually. Council Member Klein noted the Staff Report referred to the Business Registry Certificate (BRC) as being updated annually. It was clear Staff intended an annual update of information. Perhaps the interaction between the U&O Certificate and the BRC should be reversed from Staff's proposal. Staff should build backward from the business registry to the U&O Certificate. There would be no benefit to building a business registry from the U&O Certificate process. Somehow Staff needed to notify landlords and others that a new business had to apply for a Certificate of Occupancy. If compliance with a business registry was easy, then the City would receive needed data. The City could waive the fee for the first year to entice businesses to provide information. 04/29/2014 114- 544 MINUTES Council Member Price thought the Staff recommendation of associating the two systems was logical. She inquired whether improving U&O data was part of the work plan. Mr. Pirnejad reported the work plan was to clean up the U&O process as part of the business registry effort. This was an opportunity to combine all efforts, streamline the U&O process, and create an automated system. Council Member Price felt setting a new baseline would be valuable. She asked if costs reported in the Staff Report remained applicable given the elements of the Motion. Mr. Fehrenbach preferred to perform some calculations before answering. Council Member Holman did not understand the actions Staff proposed with respect to notifying the business community about the business registry. She asked if notification could occur by address. Mr. Fehrenbach would need to look at a number of sources including address and suite number, tax records, and Santa Clara County records to determine the number of businesses and their locations. Staff needed to build a solid outreach plan to drive businesses to the web site tool. Council Member Holman suggested any new U&O Permit require completion of a business registry form. The Council was not discouraging work on the U&O process; rather, the Council was decoupling the two efforts. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to restate the first paragraph in the Motion to: “to direct Staff to move forward with a two phase framework to implement an annual Business Registry Certificate (BRC) Ordinance & Fee Program as a full cost-recovery.” Mayor Shepherd wanted Staff to launch the business registry while revising U&O Permits. Mr. Keene noted the Motion did not define phase one and phase two with respect to time. The Council wanted to implement the business registry component with the understanding that work on the U&O component would continue. Ultimately the two processes could be merged. Mayor Shepherd felt incorporating that into a recommendation after Staff worked on the U&O system would be useful. She inquired whether the Council needed to provide specific direction to Staff. 04/29/2014 114- 545 Mr. Keene indicated the Council could give Staff general direction without a particular timeframe. Staff would have to work on the outreach process. At a later time, Staff could provide specific recommendations. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 Kniss, Scharff absent 13. Public Hearing - Council Adoption of an Ordinance Modifying: (1) Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to: (a) Address Sidewalk Width and Building Setbacks (Setback and “Build-to” Line Standards, and Context Based Design Criteria) Along El Camino Real, and (b) Reduce the Allowable Floor Area Ratio on CN Zoned Sites Where Dwelling Units are Permitted at 20 Units Per Acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to Adjust the Definition of Lot Area and Add a Definition for “Effective Sidewalk”. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) (THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED BY COUNCIL MOTION ON APRIL 21, 2014 TO JUNE 2, 2014) INTER-GOVERNMENTAL LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS 14. Discussion and Direction to City Manager Regarding City of Palo Alto Response to the FAA Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) Regarding the Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (NorCal OAPM). James Keene, City Manager, reported Staff wanted to share the issue with the Council in case the Council wished to submit a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Andrew Swanson, Airport Manager, indicated comments were limited to the Metroplex Environmental Assessment (EA). Staff questioned the lack of altitudes in the EA. The FAA felt extra information was not necessary and the document met requirements. The impacts of the report were difficult to understand because altitudes were missing and noise contours resembled flight paths. The FAA modeled noise impacts under conditions of tower staff handling aircraft. Mr. Keene advised the EA was unrelated to the Surf Air issue. Apparently airports around the country were attempting to move more airplanes in and out of airports more efficiently. Flight paths did not appear to be changing in ways that would be problematic for Palo Alto. 04/29/2014 114- 546 City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO February 24, 2014 Page 1 of 2 (ID # 4493) DATE: February 24, 2014 SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS BERMAN, BURT, HOLMAN, AND KLEIN REGARDING CREATION OF A PALO ALTO BUSINESS REGISTRY Goal: Palo Alto needs a Business Registry as soon as possible to answer such basic questions as how many people work in Palo Alto and for what types of businesses. We should implement a Registry in 2014. Background and Discussion: Impacts of commercial development and activity, such as traffic and parking impacts, are at the forefront of community concerns. The City Council made addressing these issues a council priority in 2013 and again in 2014. However, the City lacks adequate, reliable, and updated data to analyze the issues, structure best policies or programs and to measure their effects. Palo Alto is one of the few cities in the region without a business registry or a business license. Most cities rely on these tools for obtaining and analyzing critical information about the characteristics of businesses in their communities for purposes such as informing zoning decisions and public safety planning and service response. In addition, the Council has committed to developing a strong Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program in 2014 to reduce the traffic and parking impacts in our community. Good data is essential to design a sound program, establish baselines and monitor progress. Recommendation: We recommend that Council direct Staff to return to Council not later than the end of March with a proposal for a business registry which would include:  An online registry to reduce costs, accelerate implementation and provide for efficient data analysis.  Fees limited to cost recovery. February 24, 2014 Page 2 of 2 (ID # 4493)  A simplified, low cost questionnaire for very small businesses and exemption from registration for home based businesses.  Questions designed to obtain information on the number of employees, types of businesses and other information that would be valuable for effective planning purposes. Staff Impact: The City Manager and the City Attorney have reviewed this Memorandum and have the following comments: Effective implementation and enforcement methods for collecting and updating data will be important. Staff will evaluate using existing software programs first as means to keep implementation costs down. MOTIONS    Page 3 of 5  City Council Meeting  Draft Action Minutes:  09/22/14  7. Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of Municipal Code Changes Eliminating Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.145, titled “Consultation with City Auditor” and Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.150 Titled “Department of Administrative Services” and Section 2.28.090, titled “Lapse of Appropriations” to Clarify Roles for Reviewing Fiscal Procedures and Roles of City Auditor and Administrative Services Department and Lapse of Appropriations. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 8. Council Review of Draft Ordinance Creating a Business Registry; Policy Direction Regarding Business Registry Questionnaire and Update on Staff’s Implementation Plan. MOTION: Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to: 1) approve the Staff approach to engage our software vendor, Accela, for set-up, licensing and implementation costs related to the creation of a Business Registry Certificate Program (BRC) and for the City to engage Truepoint Solutions for pre and post go-live software staffing augmentation needs; 2) direct Staff to return to Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for Fiscal Year 2015 for the BRC software start-up costs, including program development and outreach for the remainder of the fiscal year; and 3) direct Staff to return to Council in October with the ordinance creating a business registry for Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 9. Rejection of Construction Bids for the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5271 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in the Amount of $708,495 in Revenues and $168,036 in Expenses to Operate the Golf Course From September 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015, and Establish an FY 2016 Golf Course Operating Loss Reserve from the Net Revenue of Golf Course Operations in the Amount of $540,459 (Continued from September 8, 2014).” MOTION: Vice Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to: 1. Reject all construction bids received on April 15, 2014 for construction of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Reconfiguration Project (Project), Capital Improvement Program Project PG-13003; and City of Palo Alto (ID # 5079) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Public Hearing for Underground District No. 46 Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing Underground Utility District No. 46 (Arastradero Road/ El Camino Real/ W. Charleston Road) by amending Section 12.16.02 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Ordinance to create Underground Utility District No. 46 and thereby amend section 12.16.02 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Exhibit A). Background At its meeting on June 23, 2014, Council passed Resolution of Intent No. 9439 (Exhibit B) to establish Underground Utility District No. 46 [Staff Report ID# 4829]. The Council meeting of October 6, 2014 has been set as the date of the Public Hearing on the matter. Notices announcing the meeting with a description of the project and a copy of the Resolution were mailed to all property owners in the proposed district on September 3, 2014. The Electric Utility’s undergrounding project areas are selected and recommended to AT&T and Comcast based on the age and maintainability of the existing overhead electric system. AT&T and Comcast determine whether the recommended area meets their criteria for undergrounding, based on the guidelines established by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The boundaries of Underground Utility District No. 46 run along Arastradero Road, El Camino Real and W. Charleston Road, as described more particularly in the map attached to this Staff Report as Exhibit C. Underground Utility District No. 46 (UUD 46) meets the City’s and CPUC’s guidelines for undergrounding overhead utility lines. Discussion The formation of UUD 46 will result in the removal of three poles and placement of existing overhead electric distribution lines and communication lines (telephone, cable TV, City of Palo Alto (CPA) fiber) within the boundaries of UUD 46 in underground conduits. UUD 46 will require underground service to eight properties at the intersection of El Camino Real and Arastradero/West Charleston Road. The overhead 60kV transmission line (as exempted in City of Palo Alto Page 2 PAMC 12.16.050(a)(3)), and poles necessary to support them will remain. Completion of UUD 46 will enhance reliability of the electric distribution system while improving the aesthetics of this heavily traveled thoroughfare. If an underground district is created, staff will design and obtain bids for the installation of the underground substructures required prior to placing the electric, telephone, cable TV (CATV), fiber, street light and City communication facilities underground. After the new underground electric system (cable, transformers, switches, etc.) has been installed, tested and energized, the property owners will be notified that they have 60 days to connect to the new system. Upon completion of the new connections, City crews will then remove the overhead distribution power lines. Telephone and CATV crews will complete their conversion work following removal of power lines and will remove their respective overhead facilities and the poles, as necessary. Timeline Once the Public Hearing is completed and if Council decides to proceed with the project, the following scheduled is proposed: Action Date 1. Public Hearing and first reading of Ordinance October 6, 2014* 2. Second reading of Ordinance November 3, 2014* 3. Letters to property owners with approved Ordinance, Chapter 12.16 of Municipal Code, and update December 2014 4. Award of construction contract and Joint Construction Agreement with AT&T/Comcast March 2015* 5. Substructure (conduits, vaults, etc.) installation by Contractor April 2015 through May 2015 6. Installation of underground facilities (cable, switches, etc.) June 2015 through September 2015 7. Resolution determining properties electing to pay service conversion cost over a period of 10 years September 2015* 8. Service conversion work by property owners October 2015 through November 2015 9. Installation by other utilities, service conversion work, removal of overhead distribution facilities, and project completion November 2015 through June 2016 * Denotes Council Action City of Palo Alto Page 3 Resource Impact The total cost of the project is estimated at $700,000. An estimated $150,000 will be for the installation of telephone and CATV conduit and boxes for which the City will be reimbursed by AT&T and Comcast. To date, $500,000 has been approved by the City Council for the UUD 46 – Charleston/El Camino Real (EL-12001) project. An additional $200,000 will be requested for FY 2016 to complete the electric conversion work. In addition to the requirements set forth in Chapter 12.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the cost of the required service conversions on private property is to be borne by the individual owners in accordance with Utility Rule and Regulation No. 17. The total cost for the property owners requiring service conversions (three of the eight properties require conversion) from overhead to underground has been estimated at $28,000, with individual costs ranging from $7,000 to $13,000. The property owners have been offered the option of financing their service conversion costs over a period of ten years in accordance with the procedure given in Sections 12.16.090 through 12.16.096 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Policy Implications This recommendation is consistent with the Council approved Utilities Strategic Plan to invest in utility infrastructure to deliver reliable service. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15302(d) of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (conversion of overhead electric utility distribution system facilities underground). Attachments:  Exhibit A: Ordinance Underground Utility District No 46 (PDF)  Exhibit B: Resolution No. 9439 (PDF)  Exhibit C: Underground District No. 46 Boundary Map (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. __________ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Underground Utility District No. 46 (portions of Arastadero, El Camino, W. Charleston) by Amending Section 12.16.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code R E C I T A L S A. This Council, on June 23, 2014, adopted Resolution No. 9439 declaring its intention to establish Underground Utility District No. 46 in the City by amending Section 12.16.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and by such Resolution appointed Monday, October 6, 2014, at the hour of 6:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, as the time and place of hearing protests and receiving evidence for and against the proposed action and notice of direction; and B. Notice was given of the time and place for the public hearing stated in the manner provided by law, as appears from the affidavits on file in the office of the City Clerk; and C. Said matter came on regularly for hearing at the time fixed; and D. All written protests and other written communications were publicly read at said meeting and evidence duly taken and all persons desiring to be heard were fully heard. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The public necessity, health and safety require the removal of poles and overhead lines and associated overhead structures from that certain area described in Resolution No. 9439. SECTION 2. Section 12.16.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended by amending Subsection (46) thereof to read: “(46) District No. 46. All of the area in the County of Santa Clara, City of Palo Alto, encompassing portions of the following avenues, roads, and streets: Arastadero Rd., El Camino, W. Charleston all as more particularly described on that certain map entitled “Underground District No. 46 Boundary Map” on file in the office of the City Clerk.” SECTION 3. The "Underground Utility District Maps" referred to in Section 12.16.020 shall be amended to add to the areas shown on the map those referred to in Resolu- tion No. 9439. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this ordinance is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15302 1 140918 jrm 0180071 EXHIBIT A NOT YET APPROVED of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (conversion of overhead electric distribution facilities to underground). SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective upon the expiration of thirty (30) days from its passage. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor ______________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager __________________________ ______________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney Director of Utilities 2 140918 jrm 0180071 Resolution No. 9439 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Its Intention to Amend Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District Number 46 RECITALS. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. In its opinion, the public necessity, health and safety require, and it is the intention of the Council, pursuant to Section 12.16.040 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code {"Code"), to amend Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of the Code, by ordering the establishment of an Underground Utility District ("District") and to prohibit the construction in and require the removal from the proposed District of all poles and overhead lines and associated overhead structures used or useful in supplying electric, communication or similar and associated services with the exception ofthe City's sixty kilovolts transmission lines and associated poles pursuant to Section 12.16.050 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code ("Code"). SECTION 2. The number of the proposed Distri~t is Underground Utility District Number 46 of the City of Palo Alto, commonly known as Colorado Avenue/Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway/Cowper Street. SECTION 3. The description of the area comprising the District is as follows: "All of the area in the County of Santa Clara, City of Palo Alto, encompassing the areas contiguous with portions of Arastradero Road/West Charleston Road/EI Camino Real. Underground Utility District Number 46," on file in the office of the City Clerk." SECTION 4. From and after the effective date of the establishment of the prop~sed District, no person or utility shall erect or construct within the District any pole, overhead lines or associated overhead structure used or useful in supplying electric, communication or similar associated services. SECTION 5. Within ninety {90) days from the date of the completion and acceptance of the proposed underground facilities within the District to be constructed by the City of Palo Alto, Pacific Bell Telephone Company doing business as AT&T California, and Comcast of California IX, Inc., all poles and overhead lines and associated structures used or useful in supplying electric, communication or similar and associated services in the proposed District shall be removed, and from and after the date no person or utility shall use or maintain 1 140722 jb 0180046 EXHIBIT B such facilities within the proposed District. Additional notice shall be given after the completion date has been precisely determined. SECTION 6. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Monday, the 6th day of October, 2014, at the hour of 7:00p.m., in the regular meeting place of its City Council, Civic Center, Palo Alto, California, is hereby fixed as the time and place when and where the Council shall hear all protests and receive evidence for and against the action herein proposed, and when and where the Council shall consider and finally determine whether the public necessity, health and safety require the establishment of the District and the removal of poles, overhead wires, and associated overhead structures, and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication and similar or associated services in the District hereinabove described. SECTION 7. At the public hearing, all persons interested shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The hearing may be continued from time to time as determined by the Council. SECTION 8. The Electrical Engineering Manager, Department of Utilities, City of Palo Alto, is hereby designated as the person to answer inquiries regarding the protest proceedings, to be had herein and may be contacted during regular office hours at 1007 Elwell Court, Palo Alto, California, 94303, or by calling (650) 566-4548. SECTION 9. The Clerk of the City shall give notice of the public hearing by publishing notice of the public hearing and the director of utilities shall mail copies of this resolution to all property owners within the proposed District as shown on the last equalized tax roll of the City, and to all utilities supplying electric, communication or similar or associated services within the proposed District, the mailing to be completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the public hearing. The Clerk is authorized to include in the notice to be mailed a statement to the effect that any affected property owner has the option of paying the cost of converting his or her or their service connection to underground locations over a period of years. Such notice shall conform to Section 12.16.092 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 ofthe Code. II II II II II II 2 140722 jb 0180046 SECTION 10. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15302{d) of Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ofthe California Code of Regulations (conversion of overhead electric utility distribution system facilities to underground). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: June 23, 2014 AYES: BERMAN, BURT, HOLMAN, KLEIN, KNISS, PRICE, SCHARFF, SCHMID, SHEPHERD NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: 7i!lw -~ CityCierk 9 APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ~~ Se · r~1ty Attorney ~ c7J::.?51 f ~ Itt 3 140722 jb 0180046 El Ca m i n o R e a l Pena Ct McKe l l a r L n I r v e n C t Ma y b e l l A v e Alta Mesa Av e Thain Way 531 535 539 4175 4170 W. C h a r l e s t o n R d . 4195 4191-4 1 9 3 473 474 471 476 4211 535 540 541 551 556 562 557 554 4170 544 548 536 550 4222-4 2 2 4 4220 4214-4 2 1 6 4218 Ar a s t r a d e r o R d . 550 544 549 553 566 5604174 529 4185 565 4200 530 570 4180 550 531 538 532 4190 496 488 470 4173 464 468 El Ca m i n o R e a l Boundary Map Underground District No. 46 California UTILITIES, ELECTRIC ENGINEERING City of Palo Alto LEGEND Project Boundary Feb 2014 Tom Ting SR. ENGINEER / MANAGER CHKD. APPROVED DRWN ENGR.JV SHEET MAP #CKT # REV.DATE NTS SCALE APPR. 11OF W.O.# / DRAWING # DESCRIPTION City of Palo Alto (ID # 4622) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: CPI Risk Assessment Report and Zoning Direction Title: Council Review and Direction to Staff Regarding the Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials at 607-811 Hansen Way (CPI) and Possible Zoning Ordinance Amendments From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommended Motion “Direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance for review by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and consideration by the City Council in early 2015. The ordinance should amend the list of uses in the zoning code to explicitly identify plating shops, prohibit plating shop uses within a specific distance of residential uses and residential zoning districts, and incorporate an amortization schedule based on updated information on the value of affected investments.” Recommendation Staff recommends that Council review the January 2014 Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials at Communication & Power Industries, LLC (CPI) and supplemental materials related to an “extreme event” scenario involving an earthquake, review the Fire Department’s response to the Risk Assessment recommendations, review information regarding zoning practices and potential zoning ordinance amendments, and provide direction to staff regarding next steps, including parameters of an ordinance regarding plating shop uses in proximity to residential zoning districts. Executive Summary After several years of considering issues between neighbors and the operation of a plating shop at CPI, 607-811 Hansen Way, at a Special Meeting on amortization on April 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to hire a third party consultant to evaluate existing off-site hazardous assessments, compare the study results to current zoning CPI practices, review zoning practices used by other jurisdictions, recommend definitions and hazardous materials thresholds for zoning proximate to residential areas, and initiate zoning ordinance amendments to address plating shops and facilities using similar hazardous materials without appropriate separation City of Palo Alto Page 2 from residential areas. Council noted that the goal for this work would be 6 months. Minutes of the April Council meeting are included as Attachment D. The City hired AECOM Technical Services, Inc. to prepare the risk assessment and consult with the City regarding possible zoning responses to the findings. In January 2014, the Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials at CPI (Risk Assessment) was completed and made available to the neighbors and the public on the City’s web site (www.cityofpaloalto.org/CPI). The Risk Assessment is included as Attachment A. AECOM considered five potential scenarios for study. Based on an analysis of harm and likelihood of occurrence, which are standard criteria in the risk assessment field, AECOM selected two of the scenarios to study through air dispersion modeling. AECOM’s air dispersal modeling suggested one of the hypothetical scenarios showed no potential for off-site consequence. The other scenario showed potential off-site consequences, extending a total of 92 feet from the source. The Risk Assessment notes that CPI reduced the quantities of acutely hazardous materials on site in 2012 and thus is no longer required to comply with the CalARP (Title 19) program. (Also as a result of reduced quantities of acutely hazardous materials, CPI is currently compliant with the requirements of the Palo Alto Zoning Code.) Nonetheless, the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) has the responsibility for regular inspections, including chemical storage and preventative maintenance programs. The risk assessment made a number of recommendations for implementation by CPI with oversight by PAFD as discussed further below. Neighbors in the Barron Park Neighborhood, adjacent to CPI were involved at the inception of the Risk Assessment and received the results at a meeting in February 2014 attended by 31 neighbors, AECOM representatives, the City Manager, and representatives of the Fire and Planning Departments. Neighborhood questions about the Risk Assessment posed prior to, during, and after the meeting were collected and responded to in writing in the “FAQ CPI Risk Assessment” included as Attachment C. At the February 2014 meeting, neighbors requested that the consultant evaluate an additional “extreme event” scenario, in which the CPI building sustained damage in a major earthquake in a manner to cause mixing of hazardous chemicals used in the plating shop. This supplemental analysis was competed in August 2014, and is included as Attachment B. The memo evaluates a hypothetical scenario with conservative assumptions about the nature of the earthquake damage to the building, and assumptions that AECOM identified as “highly unrealistic” about the mixing of chemicals. The memo concludes that the hypothetical scenario has the potential to affect residential uses up to a distance of 616 feet from the plating shop. City of Palo Alto Page 3 “Cal ARP” is the California Accidential Release Prevention Program (also referred to as “Title 19”), and contains State regulations that require Risk Management Plans (RMPs) to be prepared for local review when the use of hazardous materials exceeds certain thresholds. The City added requirements to its Municipal Code regarding uses that exceed the CalARP thresholds in 2007 and CPI modified its operations to be below the thresholds in 2012. Representatives of CPI commented that the earthquake scenario should be considered in the context of the building’s seismic strengthening and the likelihood of an earthquake occurring that would cause damage sufficient to result in the mixing of chemicals in the plating shop. AECOM’s analysis did not include these components. CPI’s consultant (Albus-Keefe & Associates) conducted a probabilistic assessment of the likelihood of ground shaking sufficient to cause structural failure of the second floor, and concluded that the probability of ground shaking would be 0.75% over 50 years, or less than the current Building Code requirements. (Attachment J) The City’s consultants at AECOM are currently reviewing this report. To assess relevant zoning issues, staff surveyed a number of local jurisdictions (Attachment G) that use a variety of approaches to zoning and regulating users of hazardous materials in close proximity to residential land uses. There is no single model ordinance that is directly applicable. Staff has concluded that Palo Alto could regulate plating shops as envisioned in April 2012, requiring a buffer between the plating shops and residential zoning districts on the grounds that such a regulation would promote and protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The City could also adopt an amortization ordinance using a process similar to the one used by Mountain View to transition an industrial area to residential development. The courts have ruled that “zoning legislation may validly provide for the eventual termination of nonconforming uses without compensation if it provides for a reasonable amortization period commensurate with the investment involved” (Metromedia Inc. v. the City of San Diego). Staff is seeking public input and Council’s review of the Risk Assessment and supplemental materials, including the discussion of conceptual approaches to zoning, below. Based on Council’s direction, staff will prepare an ordinance with changes to the zoning regulations for review by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and consideration for adoption by the City Council. Background CPI is located at 607-811 Hansen Way in the Stanford Research Park and manufactures microwave and radio frequency products for defense, communications, and medical scientific and other applications. Once a part of Varian, but now independent, CPI has been at this location since the 1950’s. CPI is headquartered in Palo Alto and employs 1,600 people in five manufacturing facilities: four in California, including Palo Alto, and one in Canada. According to the company, there are about 660 people employed at the Palo Alto site. City of Palo Alto Page 4 In 2005 CPI was the only plating shop in Palo Alto using and storing hazardous materials at or above the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) threshold levels. In 2005- 2006, CPI consolidated its San Carlos operations into Palo Alto and made some upgrades to the plating facility, storage, and processing and safety equipment, and continued to use and store hazardous materials in amounts over the CalARP thresholds. As explained further below, CPI reduced their use and storage of hazardous materials below the CalARP thresholds in 2012. Hazardous Materials Releases at CPI Between 2006 and 2008 there were three hazardous materials releases from the CPI site that raised the concerns of nearby residents in the Barron Park neighborhood. In February 2005 residents on Chimalus Drive reported a noxious odor, which turned out to be caused by a nitric acid gas release from CPI. In March 2008, about 20 gallons of 31% hydrochloirc acid was released in the rear driveway and about 60 gallons of less than 31% mixture of hydrochloric acid and water were released inside the basement of Building 2 during a chemical delivery because of an improper overfill and disconnect procedure by the delivery driver. In May 2008, approximately 50 gallons of dilute wastewater contining copper and nickel was released to Matadero Creek as the result of improper weekend shudown of process equipment and improper opening of a containment valve that discharges to the creek. City and CPI Responses to Hazardous Materials Concerns In response to concerns expressed by Barron Park residents, in 2007 the City Council enacted zoning code amendments to address hazardous materials. Section 18.23.100 (Hazardous Materials) of the Municipal Code was intended to prevent further intensifying of such hazardous materials use and to provide more notification for residents throughout the city when adjacent facilities increased or modified hazardous materal use and storage. Provisions were added to the Zoning Ordinance to require uses such as CPI to comply with the California Accedential Release Prevention Program (CalARP) regulations and provide regularly prepared Risk Management Plans (RMP) for local review. In addition the zoning required a conditional use permit for any new facility and for conversion or reconstruction of any existing facilities subject to CalARP regulations. New and reconstructed facilities with RMPs were prohibited within 300 feet of a residential zone or existing residential uses. These zoning changes made CPI a noncomforming use until March 2012 when CPI reduced the amount of Potasssium Cyanide and Nitric Acid on site below the CalARP threshold quantities and was no longer required to comply with the CalARP regulations. Current zoning code section 18.23.100 (Hazardous Materals) is included as Attachment F. CPI is in conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Code as it exists today. Amortization Discussion and Study At a May 2010 community meeting, Barron Park residents and City staff discussed the process by which a use can be amortized and what the possible outcomes of such a study could be. An amortization study for the CPI plating shop was completed in October 2011. At a Special City of Palo Alto Page 5 “extreme events” or “worst-case release scenarios” must be evaluated as part of Risk Management Plans (RMPs) prepared for businesses above the CalARP threhsolds. The City’s consultant identified and evaluated the “most likely” potential extreme release events of acutely hazardous materials at CPI even though the company’s operations are now below the CalARP thresholds. An additional extreme event which assumed damage to the plating shop in an earthquake was subsequently evaluated at the neighbors’ request. Meeting on April 23, 2012, the Council discussed the amortization study and options related to CPI. Minutes from the April 23, 2012 meeting are included in Attachment D. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Council gave staff the following direction (a table presenting the status of these items is included at the end of this staff report):  Return in 30 days with a budgetary proposal to hire an independent third party expert to evaluate off-site hazardous assessments under several models and compare to current zoning, best zoning practices, and CPI practices;  Recommend definitions and thresholds of hazardous material facilties that would be considered for a Zoning Ordinance proximate to residential areas;  Initiate a Zoning Ordinance amendment to prohibit plating shops, or facilities using similar hazardous materials without appropriate separation from residential areas.  Request staff to present to Council recommendations on potential amortization options to be reviewed in the context of the information provided by the third-party consultant.  Direct staff to return with the results of the consultant study and the subsequent City action with a goal of six months or less. There was some difficulty in finding an impartial technical consultant to prepare the risk assessment study, and it was not until March 2013 that a contract was signed with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM). There were two tasks described in the scope of work: (1), preparation of a technical risk assessment of CPI’s plating shop including air dispersal modeling to evaluate previous work and events not previously considered and (2), a review of the current zoning regulations to see how the technical assessment might inform changes. The level of effort required for the first task exceeded original expections, and the consultant advised staff on zoning issues, rather than authoring an additional report on zoning regulations. In July 2014, another contract was signed with AECOM so that they could further assist staff on the review of zoning options and peer review a structural evaluation of CPI’s building prepared by engineers working for CPI. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials The January 2014 Risk Assessment was prepared by AECOM and focused on document review, site visit to the plating shop and cryogenic liquid storage area, review of CPI’s Chemical Management Program, which is required by U.S. EPA for compliance with the Clean Air Act and City of Palo Alto Page 6 under the California Code of Regulations where health issues are addressed by Cal-OSHA requirements that oblige employers to implement an Injury and Illness Prevention Program. AECOM also undertook validation of prior CPI air dispersion modeling (from the 2008 RMP), identified five potential ‘extreme events’ and preformed air dispersion modeling to estimate potential off-site health effects from the two extreme events determined to be ‘most likely’ to occur. A comprehensive executive summary of the Risk Assessment is provided on pages ES-1 –ES 10 of Attachment A. The Executive Summary also includes a list of conclusions and recommendations (pages ES-8 –ES-10) which provides a good overview of the issues identified in the study and suggested actions for CPI, some of which fall into the inspection purview of the Palo Alto Fire Department. The Fire Department has provided a response and update to the report recommendations (Attachment I), describing the finding of recent inspections and indicating the one recommendation under their purview that remains to be implemented, which is the sprinkler retrofit of Building 4. This recommendation must be completed by November 1, 2014. Air dispersal modeling for the hypothetical nitric acid release event could result in health effects up to 92 feet or to the first row of residences in the Barron Park neighborhood, south from Building 2.1 Air dispersal modeling of the cryogenic hydrogen release showed that the toxic end point would terminate within CPI’s property boundaries and would not reach the adjacent residences. On February 20, 2014, the City held a community meeting at the Creekside Inn. Several Barron Park neighbors submitted questions to the consultants and City before the meeting. At the meeting, AECOM representatives presented the Risk Assessment report, addressed the written questions which had been submitted, and responded to additional questions from the floor. City staff, including staff from the Planning and Fire Departments and the City Manager, attended the meeting and also responded to questions. All the questions were compiled with written responses in the FAQ CPI Risk Assessment included as Attachment C. The questions from the neighbors focused on the following topics: the credentials of the consultants, the scope of thedocument review and site visit, adequacy of engineering controls at CPI, release scenario assumptions, the ‘extreme’ events analysis, and the next steps in the review process which included both zoning and amortization. CPI representatives were present at the meeting and submitted their comments in a letter to the City Manager on February 25, 2014. The letter withCity Manager’s March 20, 2014, response are included as Attachment E. At the community meeting, the neighbors expressed the concern that the ‘extreme events’ modelled in the Risk Assessment did not address a major earthquake, which might affect the 1 This distance reflects the distance to the toxic endpoint for nitric acid, which is defined as the air concentration of an acutely hazardous substance above which there may be a serious acute health effect following a single short-term exposure. City of Palo Alto Page 7 wider community and cause a delay in public safety response. To address the neighbors’ concern, another airdispersion model was developed to examine the impact if a major earthquake compromised the containment of chemicals in the plating shop and the building housing it. (Attachment B) The supplemental evaluation examines a hypothetical scenario with assumptions about the nature of the earthquake damage to the building and the resulting mixing of chemicals. This supplemental evaluation concludes that the hypothetical scenario could result in a hydrogen cyanide release that has the potential to affect residential uses up to a distance of 616 feet from the plating shop. Representatives of CPI have commented that this scenario, which assumes substantial building damage from a major earthquake, should be evaluated in the context of the building’s seismic strengthening and the likelihood of an earthquake occurring that would cause damage sufficient to result in the mixing of chemicals in the plating shop. AECOM did not consider these components. CPI retained a consultant (Albus-Keefe & Associates) (AKA), conducted a probabilistic assessment of the likelihood of ground shaking sufficient to cause structural failure of the second floor, and concluded that the probability of this level of ground shaking would be 0.75% over 50 years, or less than the current Building Code requirements (Attachment J) The City’s consultants at AECOM are currently reviewing this report. Discussion The Risk Assessment study at CPI lays the ground work for consideration of zoning revisons and further discussion of amortization. The zoning revisions and discussion can also be informed by an understanding of how other jurisdictions approach these issues and other land uses and facilities in Palo Alto that might potentially be affected by any such change in zoning regulations. In April 2012, the City Council requested that staff survey of other jurisdictions regulations (“best practices”), review the City’s regulations, and consider how the Risk Assessment could inform changes to Palo Alto’s zoning requirements. Survey of Other Jurisdictions Staff surveyed how 18 jurisdictions regulate hazardous materials in their Municipal Codes. The survey focused on how the codes addressed plating shops as a use, whether they imposed threshold limits lower than CalARP (Title 19), whether they regulate outdoor storage areas and on-site hazardous materials loading locations, whether they regulate the distance between residential uses and/or sensitive receptors and whether they establish buffer zones between uses that employ hazardous materials and residential districts and uses. A summary of the survey is included as Attachment G . The data collected indicates:  Some jurisdictions list plating shops as a separate use subject to specific regulation;  Hazardous materials are generally defined by using Federal lists and quantities citing EPA, Title 22, and Title 40, Hazardous Substances Information Training Act,as well as the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA). A few jurisdictions have general clauses in their local ordinances which allow broad definition of nuisances;  Standards for outdoor storage generally focus on volumes not on location; however one city requires hazardous material loading facilities to be 300 feet from any residential City of Palo Alto Page 8 building;  Six of the cities surveyed regulated the distance between hazardous materials uses and residential uses. These distances typically range from 300 feet (Palo Alto, Newark) to 500 feet (Los Angeles, San Francisco).  Half the jurisdictions address separation between industrial zones and residential uses. They typically require buffer zones in the range of 20 to 100 feet and require on site development setbacks in the range of 10 to 150 feet. It’s important to note that these conclusions are based on a relatively small sample size (18 jurisdictions), and a cursory review of each local ordinance. Staff did not find a local ordinance directly applicable to the current set of circumstances in Palo Alto. Current Palo Alto Regulations: Zoning Regulations affecting the location and operation of facilities that store, use, or handle hazardous materials in Palo Alto include those in the zoning ordinance (Attachment F), as well as the Fire and Building Codes. In 1978 a Landscape (L) Combining District was created as described in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(E) to ensure the provision of landscaped open space as a physical and visual separation between residential districts and intensive commerical or industrial uses. These landscaped or buffer areas are designated on the zoning map and range from 50 to 210 feet. The buffer between CPI and Barron Park is currently mapped at 50 feet and the code allows a limited number of uses in this area including landscaping, fencing, and (with a use permit) non- commercial recreation, trails, and “vehicular access drives, when serving uses listed as permitted or conditional uses.” Land use regulations affecting the Office, Research and Manufacturing (MOR, ROLM, RP, and GM) zoning districts are listed in Chapter 18.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and include the uses allowed in each of the component parts of the district (CS 18.20.030 Land Use) and the site development criteria (CS 18.20.040 Site Development Standards). Plating shops are not called out as a separate use, but fall within “manufacturing.” Specific uses that pose potential hazards are further regulated by performance criteria established in Code Section 18.23.100 (Hazardous Materials) which were added to the code in 2007. (See Attachment F.) The performance requirements in Section 18.23.100(B) apply to all uses that involve the storage, use, or handling of hazardous materials in excess of exempt quantities established in the California Health and Safety Code, which contains minimum statewide standards for Hazardous Materials Business plans and is generally enforced at the County level. The performance requirements presently include: (i) compliance with all safety building and fire code requirments for storage, use and handling of hazardoumaterials; (ii) structure compliance with applicable ‘H’ Occupancy requirements, which are described further below; and (iii) an approved emergency contingency plan if the building or storage of hazardous materials is within 150 feet of a residential zoning district. The provisions also require (iv) City of Palo Alto Page 9 “Legal Non- Conforming Uses” are uses that were legally permitted at the time they were established, but that would no longer be allowed if they were proposed under today’s zoning standards. If desired, legal non- conforming uses can be phased- out over a reasonable amortization period based on the value of the property owner’s investment in the uses or facilities proposed for removal. written notice to all residential property within 150 feet in the event of any building permit for improvements that would result in changes in the types or quantities of hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on site. In addition, the provisions of 18.23.100(B) (v) require public review of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) for new structures or modifications of existing structures where uses entail the storage, use, or handling of mateirals above the CalARP threshold; and (vi) that a conditional use permit (CUP) I for any ‘H’ Occupancy portion of a facility/building designed for storage, use or handling of materials above the CalARP threshold that is added to or if an existing facility/building storing or handling hazardous materials is converted or reconstructed, with the additional requirement that no such construction can be allowed within 300 feet of existing resdiential uses. A CUP is also required if a facility whose use of hazardous material is less than the CalARP threshold limits increases such use to exceed the CalARP limits or, where CalARP thresholds are exceeded, and the users increase a hazardous material by 10% or more. Finally, (vii) any facility like CPI that reduces its hazardous materials use to less than the CalARP threshold levels may not increase its use above those levels without meeting the 300 foot setback from residential districts and the CUP requirements. The provisions of Chapter 18.70 address nonconforming uses and facilities that do not meet the allowable or conditionally permitted uses for a given zoning district. The code section defines the extent of changes allowed to nonconforming uses and facilities as well as the penalties for violation. The code section addresses termination of certain uses and/or structures. (Attachment F) In addition to the code requirements, termination of a specific use must also be consistent with legal standards regarding amortization, as discussed below. Current Palo Alto Regulations: Building & Fire Buildings and facilities that use or contain hazardous materials are regulated by the Fire and Building Codes. The building division assigns a building occupancy for the building consistent with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which is then used by the Fire Department. The Uniform Fire Code (UFC), administered by the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD), requires that all businesses using Toxic and Highly Toxic hazardous material must have a permit from the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD). These structures must also be identified on the outside with a special placard and are required to be built to the appropriate UBC standards for H Occupancies. There are five classifications of H-Occupancy. These classifications are based on storing and City of Palo Alto Page 10 “H” Occupancies refers to a class of buildings as they are regulated by the Building Code. Some buildings in this class contain uses that involve toxic and highly toxic materials as defined by the Fire Code and range from the pool at Gunn High School to the City’s major medical facilities. There are three plating shops among the list of 51 structures on 20 properties classified as having toxic or highly toxic materials in Palo Alto. using different hazardous materials above a regulated quantity within a building. There is no listing of plating shops within these classifications. However, based on the H classifications, plating shops best fit the occupancy classification of H-3 (materials that readily suport combustion or that pose a physical hazard) and H-4 (materials that are a health hazard) if the quantities of the hazardous materials exceed the allowable limits. According to the Fire Department, there are currently 51 structures in Palo Alto on about 20 properties that are classified under the UFC as having toxic or highly toxic materials because of the presence of certain amounts of defined hazardous materials. These properties are located in many different areas of the City, including areas adjacent to residential uses. While staff has not analyzed each use on this list in detail, these uses generally pose a level of risk that is viewed as acceptible in the context of a developed area like Palo Alto, particularly given the oversight of the PAFD. UBC and UFC requirements are the primary means for authorizing and enforcing procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public heath and safety and are also intended to ensure that first responders have the basic information they need. The permit process allows the PAFD to review preventive maintenance programs for the facilties with identified toxic or highly toxic materials, including physical protections and volumes of hazardous materials used and stored on site, and to conduct regular site inspections. The “CUPA” program requires facilities which store, use or handle more than 55 gallons, 500 pounds, or 200 cubic feet of regulated material (i.e. quantities that are below CalARP threhold levels), to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the PAFD that reports the on site chemical inventory.2 According to the Fire Department, there are 419 facilities with hazardous materials in Palo Alto, and 268 of them require HMBPs. Ideally, submittal and review of the HMBP is coordinated with the annual fire inspection to facilitate the site evaluation and to 2 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health's Hazardous Materials Compliance Division is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and administers the Hazardous Waste Generator Program and Tiered Permitting (California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.5), Underground Storage Tank Program (California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.7) and the Risk Management Program (California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95). As a Participating Agency, the Palo Alto Fire Department administers the Hazardous Materials Business Plans requirement (California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95) and Aboveground Storage Tank (California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.67). City of Palo Alto Page 11 identify any needed corrections in a timely manner. Current Plating Shop Uses in Palo Alto Staff believes there are currently three plating shops located in Palo Alto, including CPI. CPI’s plating shop is located within 50 feet of a residential zoning district. The other two plating shops are in the south Palo Alto industrial area on Commercial Street and Industrial Way. They are within approximately 500 and 936 feet of the nearest residential use and are 724 and 896 feet from a pre-school located on Commercial Street. Zoning Options (Perspectives Gained from the Risk Assessment) From the Risk Assessment, human error is the most probable cause of a hazardous material spill or release at CPI, and the associated risks of a related “extreme event” could be addressed by enhanced employee training, administrative and engineering controls, emergency response protocols, and a physical separation of around 100 feet. Specifically, the risk assessment suggests that there are some functions which more stringent site development and location/siting reguations would reduce the risk from hazardous materials accidential releases on nearby residential land uses. Regulating the locations of these functions would decrease the probablility that any toxic endpoint or thermal impacts associated with the incident would extend off site. In the case of CPI, the operation of the plating shop is dependent upon these functions, including the off-loading area for hazardous materials, the location of storage and enclosure of contamniated wastes awaiting pick up, and the location of outdoor cyrogenic (gases) storage areas. The supplemental earthquake scenario indicates that a physical separation of around 100 feet would not be sufficient to completely avoid health risks in a hypothetical scenario in which there is substantial damage to Building 2 (which houses the plating shop), rupture and failure of the containment barriers occurs, and hazardous materials mix to creat hydrogen cyanide. Under this scenario, a physical separation of about 616 feet would be needed to assure no off site impacts under the assumptions in the model. To evaluate the likelihood of such a failure, CPI retained a consultant (AKA) to assess the likelihood of such a failure. the review concluded that there is a less than 1% (i.e. 0.75%) probability over 50 years that an earthquake genereating the force needed to trigger collapse of Building 2 would occur. (Attachment J) The City’s consultant AECOM is currently reviewing the AKA report. Staff evaluated several possible approaches to amending the City’s zoning regulations: increasing the landscape buffer, further regulating H occupancies, and regulating plating shops as a land use.  Increase Landscape Buffer The first approach, increasing the landscape buffer, would increase the size of the landscape buffer between CPI and the residential neighborhood by changing the zoning map to increase the width of the buffer from 50 feet to 100 feet or more. As noted above, buffer zones in the City of Palo Alto Page 12 Research Park District (RP) zoned properties adjacent to residential uses currently range from 50 to 210 feet and the buffer between CPI and the adjacent residential district to the south is 50 feet. Revising this buffer zone would require adoption of an ordinance amending the City’s zoning map. The same ordinance could establish additional standards for the landscape combining district in 18.30(E), ensuring that they do not allow the use, storage, or handling of hazardous materials. If combined with amortization (discussed further below), this approach of increasing the landscape buffer could address the specific issue of CPI’s proximity to residential uses, but it would not address other plating shops in Palo Alto or prevent another plating shop or similar use from locating within proximity to another neighborhood. It would also not address and fully meet the distances estimated by the supplemental earthquake scenario.  Use H Occupancy and UFC Toxic/Highly Toxic Requirments The second approach staff evaluated involved further regulating H occupancies or using the Fire Code requirements for toxic and highly toxic materials as a way to address the location of plating shops close to residential development. Such regulations would have to be adopted by ordinance, and the ordinance would need to contain specific findings establishing a basis for adapting these regulations to address the relationship between land uses. The disadvantage of this approach is that while H Occupancies and toxic and highly toxic materials and their quantities are defined in the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes, the City would be introducing a complicated set of new regulations, potentially affecting all the uses designated with the same occupancy and Fire Permit classification as plating shops. Currently the H Occupancy and toxic and highly toxic requirements affect at least 20 or more properties and more than 50 buildings thoughout the city that have the potential to cause physical or health hazards. Also, H Occupancy and toxic and highly toxic standards are intended to provide the community with structural protection from health hazards and toxic and highly toxic materials, and it’s unclear whether they could provide an effecitve basis for regulating land uses.  Regulate Plating Shops Close to Residential Uses As discussed in April 2012, the simplest aproach to address the risk associated with hazardous materials use at facilities like CPI would be to regulate plating shop uses. This approach would call out plating shops as a specific land use similar, for example, to the way in which automotive sales businesses are addressed in other places in the zoning code. A specific set of requirements for plating shops could then be added requiring a buffer zone for uses and structures located within proximity to residential districts or requiring specific setbacks for components of the use, such as cyrogenic storage areas and off-loading areas for hazardous materials deliveries. City of Palo Alto Page 13 To make plating shops a specific use would require an amendment to the zoning code Office/Research and Manufacturing District regulations in Section 18.20. These regulations could prohibit or require a conditional use permit when plating businesses using hazardous materials are located in close proximity to residential districts. Criteria for a condtional use permit could include concepts derived from the Risk Assessment such as required buffer separation from specific uses, setback requirements for outdoor storage and for locations of on-site off-loading of hazardous materials. Regulating plating shops by use would ensure that new plating shops uses would not be located in proximity to residential neighborhoods and that they would address concepts derived from the Risk Assessment. Such regulation could make CPI and the other two existing plating shop businesses in Palo Alto legal nonconforming uses if it established a separation requirment greater than the distance between them and the nearest residential zoning district, or if the business did not meet the new on-site location requirements for outdoor storage or off-loading areas for hazardous materials deliveries. Amortization: Background As discussed in April 2012, amortization is one means by which a city can terminate a nonconforming use. Amortization can phase-out a use that is either incompatible with adjacent uses or where a change in use is desired as part of an orderly transition to other uses, for example, the conversion of an area from light industrial uses to residential. In the past, the City of Palo Alto has provided amortization periods from five years to 30 years and has terminated uses including a nonprofit molecular research activity, a dance studio, art studio, gero- psychaitric skilled nursing facility, and tire sales and installation. (See Section 18.70.070(b)(2) in Attachment F.) The California Supreme Court has held that “zoning legislation may validly provide for the eventual termination of nonconforming uses without compensation if [the legislation] provides a reasonable amortization period commensurate with the investment involved.” Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1980) 435 Cal.3d.848. The City would look to a number of factors in determining a reasonable amortization period. Where the elimination of the use would require the removal of physical improvements, “the reasonableness of the amortization period depends on the interplay of many factors, including the depreciated value of the structures to be removed, their remaining useful life, and the hardship to the public if they are left standing.” City of Salinas v. Ryan Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (1987) 189 Cal.App. 3d 416. In 2011, in response to the Barron Park neighborhood concerns, the City commissioned an amortization study to determine a reasonable amortization period for CPI to come into compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance. The study prepared by CB Richard Ellis (economic real estate consultants), concluded that a reasonable amortization period is 20 years from the date that the most significant improvements occurred on the CPI site. Thus the City’s current study would support an ordinance eliminating the nonconforming use in 2026, twelve (12) years from now. It should be noted, however, that CPI submitted its own amortization City of Palo Alto Page 14 study, which concluded that a reasonable amortization period should be 40 years, extending to the year 2046. If it adopts an amortization ordinance, the City Council will have to weigh the analysis and conclusions of both studies as well as other available evidence before making a decision. Amortization: Process & Case Study In order to amortize non-conforming plating shops, the City could adopt an ordinance identifying the uses by their site address in Section 18.70.070(b) (2), together with a termination date that is “reasonable” based on site investments. The same ordinance could also establish procedures and criteria for the property owner to request an extension to the amortization period prior to the termination date similar to the procedures and criteria established for limited circumstances in Section 18.70.070(c). The City of Mountain View provides a good example of how the amortization process works. In 1985 the City of Mountain View adopted a Precise Plan for the Villa Mariposa area intended to transition an older industrial area to residential uses. A Precise Plan in Mountain View includes both land use planning and development regulation provisions. In its regulations, the plan provided for the amortization of existing industrial uses and buildings, specified reuse criteria for those buildings during the amortization period, and defined criteria (including densities) for new residential uses in order to facilitate and require the orderly transition of all or, or a portion of, the area into development more in keeping with the character and best interests of the residential neighborhood. All existing industrial uses -- including existing uses in existing buildings -- became nonconforming, and were required to be terminated within 15 years except for high-hazard occupancies (using hazardous materials), which were required to be terminated in 10 years. The Villa Mariposa Area Precise Plan is included as Attachment H. Jasco Chemical Company, a manufacturer of paint thinner, was located in the Villa Mariposa Precise Plan area of Mountain View. Because of its hazardous type of use, Jasco was given a 10 year amortization (to December 1993). In September 1992, Jasco applied for an extension to their amortization based on the fact that other businesses were granted a 15 year amortization period. The Mountain View City Council granted Jasco’s two year amortization extension request on the basis that Jasco had “a good safety and compliance record for the past several years.” At the same time, the Council also amended the Precise Plan to increase the residential density allowed on the Jasco site from 8 to 30 units per acre which was similar to the density on surrounding properties. Timeline The table below provides a summary of Council direction provided in April 2012 and the current status and findings of staff’s analysis. April 23, 2012 City Council Direction to Staff Current Status 1. Return in 30 days with a budgetary proposal to hire an independent third party expert to evaluate off-site hazardous assessments under The City’s consultant, AECOM, has evaluated off-site risks and CPI practices; their work has informed the assessment of zoning practices provided in this staff City of Palo Alto Page 15 April 23, 2012 City Council Direction to Staff Current Status several models and compare to current zoning, best zoning practices, and CPI practices; report. 2. Recommend definitions and thresholds of hazardous material facilties that would be considered for a Zoning Ordinance proximate to residential areas; As discussed in this staff report, hazardous materials facilties are categorized using the CalARP thresholds and “H” occupancies in the Building Code. CalARP thresholds are already cited in the zoning ordinance. Using of “H” occupancies to regulate the location of land uses does not appear practical based on their number and variety. The “Plating Shop” land use could be defined and regulated based on its use of acutely hazardous materials and the results of the risk assessment. 3. Initiate a Zoning Ordinance amendment to prohibit plating shops, or facilities using similar hazardous materials without appropriate separation from residential areas. This agenda item provides an opportunity for additional public input and City Council direction on specific parameters of the requested zoning ordinance amendment, which could effectively make one or more existing plating shop uses “legal and non-conforming.” 4. Request staff to present to Council recommendations on potential amortization options to be reviewed in the context of the information provided by the third-party consultant. This agenda item presents a discussion of amortization for review in the context of the consultant’s risk assessment. Further study of amortization may be needed based on parameters of an ordinance creating non-conforming uses. 5. Direct staff to return with the results of the consultant study and the subsequent City action with a goal of six months or less. It has been more than 24 months since the City Council made these requests. Although the planning process thus far has taken much longer than anticipated, any amortization schedule adopted by the City would be based on the value of the site improvements and etc. (the “investment”), rather the date of the ordinance. Upon receipt of the Council’s direction, staff can prepare a draft ordinance for review by the Planning & Transportation Commission and consideration by the City Council in early 2015. Resource Impact The City has two contracts with its consultant AECOM, for a total of$141,100. The second contract would include, based on council direction, technical assistance with preparation of a draft ordinenace for review by the Planning & Transportation Comission and consideration by the City Council in early 2015. Efforts beyond this focus and timeframe would require additional funding. Additonal staff time and effort would be required to prepare and present a draft ordinance for the Council’s consideration. Policy Implications The current agenda item seeks Council direction only, and would not have direct policy implications. If the Council directs staff to prepare a draft ordinance prohibitting plating shop uses within proximity to residential districts, this would constitute a policy change, and could affect up to three existing businesses within Palo Alto if the Council also adopted an amortization schedule. The number of businesses affected would depend on the specific separaton requirement included in the ordinance. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Environmental Review Staff is seeking City Council direction, which is not a “project” requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However any ordinance that may be prepared based on Council’s direction would be subject to CEQA review prior to any decision whether to adopt the ordinance. Attachments:  Attachment A: Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials Report by AECOM Technical Services Inc., January 2014 (PDF)  Attachment B: Air Dispersion Modeling of Alternative Extreme Event (PDF)  Attachment C: Frequently Asked Questions, CPI Risk Assessment, March/April 2014 (DOC)  Attachment D: City Council Special Meeting Excerpt Minutes of April 23, 2012 (PDF)  Attachment E: CPI Letter of February 25, 2014 and City of Palo Alto Response Letter of March 20, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment F: PAMC Chapters 18.20, 18.23, 18.30 and 18.70 (DOC)  Attachment G: Survey of Industrial Zoning Practices in 18 Jurisdictions, April 23, 2014 (DOC)  Attachment H: Villa-Mariposa Area Precise Plan, City of Mountain View, Dec. 13, 1983 (PDF)  Attachment I: Fire Department Response to AECOM Risk Assessment Recommendations (PDF)  Attachment J: Palo Alto-Seismic Risk Assessment by Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. for Communications & Powers Industries (CPI) (PDF) Final DraftRisk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials Communications and Power Industries, Inc. Prepared for: City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, California January 2014 Attachment A Draft Final Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials Communications and Power Industries, Inc. Prepared for: City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, California Contact: Ms. Margaret Monroe Project Manager 650/329-2425 Prepared by: AECOM 2020 L Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95811 Contact: Roman Worobel, CIH Project Manager 916/414-5800 60289150 01.18.14 January 2014 ___________________________________ Prepared By Roman Worobel, CIH ___________________________________ Reviewed By Rodney Jeung Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Assessment Methodology ............................................................................................................. 1-1 2 DOCUMENT REVIEW ................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Incident Reports ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Inspection Reports ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 Risk Management Plans ............................................................................................................... 2-3 3 SITE SURVEY OF PLATING SHOP AND CRYOGENIC LIQUID STORAGE AREA ...................................... 3-1 3.1 Survey Approach .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Storage, Handling and Delivery of Hazardous Materials ............................................................. 3-1 3.3 Chemical Prevention Program ...................................................................................................... 3-4 3.4 Seismic Upgrade of Building 2 .................................................................................................... 3-5 4 ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ....................................................................... 4-1 4.1 List of Special Management Chemicals ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Accidental Release Hazards ......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Prevention Program ...................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.4 Emergency Action Planning ......................................................................................................... 4-3 5 AIR DISPERSION MODELING ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Acutely Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Air Dispersion Modeling of Nitric Acid ...................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Air Dispersion Modeling of Potassium Cyanide .......................................................................... 5-4 5.4 Review of Air Dispersion Modeling Results for Worst-Case Scenario ....................................... 5-4 6 AIR DISPERSION MODELING OF EXTREME EVENT ............................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Selection Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Potential Extreme Release Events ................................................................................................ 6-3 6.3 Reasonable Extreme Release Event ............................................................................................. 6-9 6.4 Air Dispersion Modeling of Nitric Acid Extreme Event ............................................................ 6-10 6.5 Air Dispersion Modeling of Cryogenic Liquid Hydrogen Extreme Event................................. 6-13 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 7-2 8 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 8-1 Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto ii Table of Contents Figures 1-1 Site Location Map ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2 3-1 Facility Map .............................................................................................................................................. 3-3 5-1 Nitric Acid Worst-case Release Ground-Level Concentration (ppm) for 10 cm Surface Roughness and a Temperature of 102 F....................................................................................................................... 5-3 6-1 Air Modeling Results for Extreme Events .............................................................................................. 6-15 Tables ES-1 Criteria for Determination of Relative Risk ............................................................................................ ES-7 2-1 Summary of RMP Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 2-7 5-1 Air Dispersion Modeling Parameters ........................................................................................................ 5-2 6-1 Criteria for Determination of Relative Risk .............................................................................................. 6-1 6-2 Evaluation of Potential Extreme Events .................................................................................................... 6-7 6-3 Air Dispersion Parameters for Nitric Acid Extreme Event ..................................................................... 6-12 Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto iii Acronyms and Other Abbreviations ACRONYMS AND OTHER ABBREVIATIONS AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc. BLEVE Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program Cal-OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health CAW Concentrated acid waste CFC California Fire Code CGA Compressed Gas Association CMP Chemical Management Program CPI Communications and Power Industries, Inc. CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency EHS Extremely hazardous substance HMBP Hazardous materials business plan kW/m2 Kilowatts per square meter PAFD City of Palo Alto Fire Department PEL Permissible exposure limit PHA Process hazard analysis RMP Risk Management Plan SCDEH Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health UPS Uninterrupted power source USDOT United States Department of Transportation USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto ES-1 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of this Report The City of Palo Alto (City) has requested an independent assessment of potential health risks associated with industrial processes conducted at Communications and Power Industries, Inc. (CPI). The CPI facility at 607-811 Hansen Way, Palo Alto is within the Stanford Research Park and adjacent to the Barron Park residential neighborhood to the south. CPI manufactures microwave and radio frequency products for defense, communications, medical, scientific, and other applications. The proximity of CPI to residences, the use of hazardous materials in CPI’s operations, and past accidental releases all contribute to the City and the Barron Park neighborhood’s desire to have an objective evaluation of CPI operations. The City retained AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) to prepare this assessment and to evaluate offsite public health risks from the use, storage, and handling of acutely hazardous materials at CPI. Concept of Risk and Risk Management. The assessment of risk posed by CPI is a function of several considerations: the amount of hazardous materials onsite, the potential to expose offsite neighbors, and the engineering controls and safe practices in place to prevent or respond to chemical releases. Each consideration is essential to formulating a professional opinion about risk. Emphasizing one item to the exclusion of the others would not be an accurate portrayal of the facility’s potential effects and could cause the analyses and results of this report to be taken out of context. Use of this Report. The outcome of this assessment may be used by the City to identify changes in CPI’s operations or to recommend revisions to City ordinances and regulations that govern activities at CPI and other similar uses in the City. Changes in local zoning regulations, for example, may be proposed if such revisions would be necessary for the City to carry out its land use authority to protect the public health and safety. Such public policy recommendations and other suggestions for code modifications are not part of this technical assessment, which examines only CPI’s preventive plans, its emergency response plans, and several hypothetical accident scenarios to gauge the potential risk to neighbors. Possible zoning and other code revisions are addressed in separate documents. Scope of Work. To undertake this assessment of CPI’s potential offsite public health risks, AECOM performed five activities: • Document review, • Site survey of the plating shop and cryogenic liquid storage area, • Review of CPI’s Chemical Management Program, • Validation test of prior CPI air dispersion modeling assessment, and • Air dispersion modeling of extreme events. The findings and conclusions for each activity are highlighted below. Greater details are provided in the body of the report. Based on AECOM’s review of past documents and discussions with CPI personnel, this assessment focuses on Building 2, including the plating shop, and the adjacent outdoor cryogenic liquid storage area. These sites contain large quantities of acutely hazardous materials and are the closest CPI operations and facilities to the neighboring residential areas. Consequently, these sites are likely to pose the greatest risk in the event of an accidental release. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto ES-2 Executive Summary Building 2 contains CPI’s plating operations and uses cryogenic liquids, which are stored nearby. The plating shop performs a critical step in the manufacturing process, and involves chemically cleaning and protecting the manufactured products from contamination. Acids, bases, and cyanide are commonly used during this “finishing” step. Cryogenic liquids are highly cooled substances that normally occur in a gaseous state; liquid hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are used at CPI. Acutely hazardous materials are a sub-class of hazardous materials that, because of their high toxicity or flammable properties, pose an acute risk to human health as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5, Section 2735.3 (19 CCR §2735.3). In accordance with Title 19, users of acutely hazardous materials that exceed threshold quantities established by the State or federal government must prepare a Risk Management Plan (RMP) that incorporates safety procedures for storing, handling and use of the substances and requires a contingency plan in the event of a release. The release scenarios represent worst case and alternative events, and in Santa Clara County are developed in coordination with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCDEH). As part of AECOM’s scope of work, CPI’s recent RMPs were reviewed, and AECOM performed an independent validation review of CPI’s 2008 air dispersion modeling by applying the US Environmental Protection Agency’s methodology. In addition, new scenarios were identified and modeled for their offsite consequences. The new scenarios involve conditions or assumptions that are even more extreme than those used in the RMPs. DOCUMENT REVIEW Select documents were reviewed to gain an understanding of the storage and handling operations associated with hazardous materials at CPI in general and at the plating shop specifically. Notably, the document review was not undertaken to critique CPI’s prior health risk studies or compliance history. The review focused on identifying: • potential activities capable of emitting airborne concentrations of hazardous offsite into the surrounding community, and • mitigation measures and engineering controls implemented at the facility to reduce the potential for an accidental release. These documents included regulatory incident records, inspection reports, and RMPs. In order to understand current CPI activities, hazardous materials use, and engineering controls and practices, the review for this study included reports prepared between 2004 and 2012, but concentrated on documents prepared in the last three years (2009-2012) because they are most representative of CPI’s current performance, activities, and plans. Incident Reports. The City of Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) incident reports reveal that three accidental releases of acutely hazardous materials occurred at the facility over six years (2006-2012): • February 2006 - Airborne release of nitric acid and sulfuric acid associated with the improper discharge of spent acid into the concentrated acid waste tank located in Building 2. Select employees were evacuated from the building and noticeable odors were detected outside of the building. However, measurement of the airborne acids found the concentrations to be below the permissible exposure limits (PELs) enforced by the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal- OSHA). A PEL is defined as the maximum permitted 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of an Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto ES-3 Executive Summary airborne contaminant that an employee may be exposed to daily during a 40-hour workweek for a working lifetime without an adverse effect. • March 2008 – A spill of 80 gallons of hydrochloric acid occurred at the facility. Of this amount, a total of 20 gallons was released on the exterior asphalt pavement. This release was contained and properly removed. No employees or waterways were affected by this release. Additionally, air emissions associated with this release did not produce an offsite impact to public health. • June 2008 – Release of copper and nickel wastewater into Matadero Creek. Subsequent testing of process wastewater in the storm drain and creek did not indicate elevated levels of these chemicals. Inspection Reports. The PAFD inspects CPI to ensure compliance with California Fire Code regulations and the SCDEH concentrates of the California Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations. The PAFD performed four inspections between April 2011 and March 2012. During each visit, inspectors identified code violations (e.g., malfunctioning eyewash station, a corroded galvanized duct, deficiencies in the installation of hydrogen gas tanks, and signage for shut-off switches). Corrective measures were made and documented in response to the first three inspection reports; no evidence was offered to indicate corrections were made following the March 2012 inspection. The SCDEH contracted with a consultant to perform a third-party audit of the 2007 RMP. The audit identified errors associated with the offsite consequence analysis, the need to recalculate the worst-case scenario for nitric acid and potassium cyanide, and discrepancies in the hazard review. Based on these findings, CPI reduced its storage and use of nitric acid and potassium cyanide at the facility sufficiently to qualify for the less stringent RMP Program Level 1 requirements. Risk Management Plans. The SCDEH is the local Certified Unified Program Agency, the state-designated agency responsible for overseeing implementation of hazardous materials and waste management regulatory programs in Santa Clara County. In this capacity, the SCDEH oversees compliance with the California Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations, which implements key parts of Title 19 and the requirements to prepare RMPs. Prior to March 2012, the amount of acutely hazardous materials used and stored at CPI were subject to Title 19 and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations. RMPs must, among other things, develop a worst-case scenario for an accidental release of acutely hazardous materials and assess the offsite consequences of that release. The air dispersion modeling performed for the RMPs is used to derive a “toxic endpoint” for a particular acutely hazardous material. This toxic endpoint is the air concentration of an acutely hazardous substance above which there may be serious acute health effect following a single short-term exposure. Before summarizing the results for CPI’s RMPs, it is noted that the results of the offsite consequence analysis need to be used cautiously since their primary purpose is to provide a basis for discussion among the regulated community, emergency planners and responders and the public rather than to be used for specific predictions or actions. This basis is supported by the following note reproduced from the US EPA’s General Risk Management Program Guidance, Chapter 4: Offsite Consequence Analysis (April 2004): Because the assumptions required for the worst-case analysis are very conservative, the results likely will also be very conservative. The endpoints specified for the regulated toxic substances are intended to be protective of the general public. These endpoints are concentrations below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed for one-half to one hour without any Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto ES-4 Executive Summary serious health effects. In addition, the worst-case analysis is carried out using very conservative assumptions about weather and release conditions. The distance to the endpoint estimated under worst-case conditions should not be considered a zone in which the public would likely be in danger; instead, it is intended to provide an estimate of the maximum possible area that might be affected in the unlikely event of catastrophic conditions. Distances greater than about 10 kilometers are particularly uncertain. EPA intends the estimated distances to provide a basis for a discussion among the regulated community, emergency planners and responders, and the public, rather than a basis for any specific predictions or actions. AECOM reviewed three RMPs prepared by CPI from 2004 through 2008. The review found that different worst- case release scenarios were used to develop the potential emissions of nitric acid and potassium cyanide into the surrounding community. However, these scenarios were developed using the California Accidental Release Prevention Program guidelines and as part of the hazard review process involved representatives of CPI, SCDEH and the RMP consultant. Also, different air dispersion models approved by the USEPA were used to estimate the distance airborne chemicals would travel to the toxic endpoints. This hazard review process incorporated the following parameters: 1) Hazards associated with the regulated processes, 2) Opportunities for equipment malfunction, 3) Safeguards used to control the hazards and 4) Procedures to detect airborne releases. A fire in the plating shop was evaluated as a probable release scenario in the 2007 RMP but was not selected for air dispersal modeling since control measures to reduce the probability of a release were in place at the facility. These measures include containment berms, air monitoring detection system and an air filtration system. Based on these varying parameters, the distance travelled by airborne nitric acid and potassium cyanide to reach the toxic endpoints varied by a large degree. For example, the 2004 RMP selected a worst-case scenario for potassium cyanide that involved mixing mineral acids with a spill of solid potassium cyanide. The scenario in the 2007 RMP involved a spill of aqueous potassium cyanide into a containment berm. The significant distinction between the two scenarios involves the generation of hydrogen cyanide gas in the 2004 RMP release. As of March 2012, CPI had further reduced the amounts of acutely hazardous materials below Title 19 threshold planning quantities and thus, is no longer required to comply with the California Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations. However, CPI is required to comply with the Clean Air Act since it uses and handles select acutely hazardous materials at its facility. Thus, it implements a Chemical Management Program for these acutely hazardous materials, identified as special management chemicals, to prevent an accidental release. SITE SURVEY As part of the risk assessment, AECOM performed a site survey of Building 2, including the plating shop, and the exterior cryogenic liquid storage area. An AECOM Certified Industrial Hygienist and a senior air quality specialist with experience in assessing the public health risk posed by hazardous materials conducted the survey. The visit was undertaken to observe plant operations, speak with personnel about control measures, and determine if any observed activities might result in accidental releases of hazardous materials. The two-day visit by AECOM should not be interpreted as an inspection or compliance audit. An inspection is an enforcement-oriented activity performed by the Certified Unified Program Agency focusing on compliance with all applicable laws and Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto ES-5 Executive Summary regulations including the California Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations. The audit is completed by the Certified Unified Program Agency but it is not enforcement-based. It reviews the adequacy of the RMP. Based on the site visit, AECOM observed that: • Delivery of hazardous materials at Building 2 is performed by trained personnel using proper procedures. • Equipment is maintained to prevent spillage during an earthquake, and engineering controls and measures are implemented to prevent an offsite release of airborne contaminants. • Similar prevention measures are implemented at the cryogenic liquid storage area including completion of an annual comprehensive inspection by Air Liquide Company, a CPI vendor that delivers the cryogenic liquids to the storage area and inspects and maintains the equipment at the CPI facility. Also, AECOM observed that CPI had made voluntary seismic upgrades to Building 2 following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake to reduce risks from future seismic events. Additionally, storage tanks and equipment contained in the building, plating shop, and cryogenic liquid storage area were installed per the building code and fire code requirements, including, for example, bracing to prevent movement during an earthquake and secondary containment in the event of a spill. AECOM did detect, however, that piping connected to the concentrated acid waste tank was sagging, which could be a risk for rupture during a seismic event. CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM As mentioned above, the amount of hazardous materials used by CPI is below the regulatory thresholds that trigger the need to implement an RMP and to comply with the California Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations. Nevertheless, CPI is required to comply with the General Duty Clause of the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(1) and developed a Chemical Management Program (CMP) plan to manage chemicals and operations at its facility. This act and Cal-OSHA regulations also require the inclusion of emergency action planning in the CMP. Chemicals of Concern. The CMP, prepared by CPI in 2013, identifies (1) special management chemicals that require special handling and/or are extremely hazardous and (2) the substances used in operations that could result in accidental chemical releases. These chemicals include: • Potassium cyanide, • Nitric acid, • Hydrogen gas, • Hydrofluoric acid, • Sulfuric acid, and, • Hydrochloric acid. While this list appears to be appropriate based on a review of the chemical inventory dated March 12, 2013, oxygen was not included. Oxygen is maintained in large quantities at the facility and can be considered an extremely hazardous substance per the Clean Air Action, Section 112 (r). Its omission from the chemicals of concern should be justified or corrected. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto ES-6 Executive Summary The CMP notes that a preventive maintenance program is implemented for the equipment at the cryogenic liquid storage area by Air Liquide; for other equipment, the CMP recommends regular inspections and tracking of those inspections. Additionally, the CMP describes a procedure to prevent changes in a process that may produce an unsafe condition. However, AECOM noted that operating procedures are lacking in the CMP for the delivery, storage, use, and disposal of special management chemicals. Also, the CMP describes a training program to ensure that employees understand their responsibilities, training requirements, and competencies to handle special management chemicals. AECOM’s interviews with various department supervisors indicate that implementation of this training program seems to be limited. Similarly, employees working in the plating shop and facilities department are trained annually but a training matrix has not been developed for each employee. Emergency Action Planning. CPI completed an Emergency and Contingency Plan as required by Cal-OSHA regulation, 8 CCR §3320 that addresses roles and responsibilities, emergency training, incidents and responses, and monitoring equipment. The plan relies on the PAFD to be the primary emergency response agency. In reviewing this plan, AECOM noted that a potential emergency release and response measures for the hydrogen gas storage tanks need to be addressed. EVALUATION OF CPI’S 2008 RMP AIR DISPERSION MODELING Because of the substantially different results from the air dispersion modeling in CPI RMPs, the City requested an independent assessment to test the validity of the results. AECOM examined the same worst-case scenarios in the 2008 RMP by using a methodology described in the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis (USEPA 2009) to determine the potential offsite impact to public health. Following regulatory requirements, appropriate parameters and assumptions were selected to complete this modeling. As described below, AECOM’s independent review of CPI’s 2008 RMP air dispersion modeling validated the conclusions that the worst-case scenarios would not result in airborne concentrations of nitric acid and potassium cyanide that would exceed the toxic endpoints beyond CPI’s property limits. Nitric Acid. The first scenario assumes rupture of an indoor 230-gallon tank of nitric acid in the plating shop with the contents spilling out into a secondary containment area. Release of the nitric acid would result in a pool contained within a space of 1.84 square feet. AECOM estimated that the toxic endpoint would extend 23 feet downwind of the spill, and would remain within CPI property limits and not reach offsite. Using the US Environmental Protection Agency’s methodology, AECOM’s results indicate a shorter distance to the toxic endpoint than the 33 feet reported in the 2008 RMP. This result is affected by a number of factors and assumptions. Notably, the toxic endpoint would be further from the spill location if this event were to occur outdoors; however, this scenario was not considered because even if the secondary containment were compromised, the nitric acid would accumulate in a containment berm, which then drains into a containment sump below ground. This sump has the capacity to contain the entire volume of a complete release. Potassium Cyanide. This chemical is used in solid and liquid forms at CPI but has no vapor pressure. As a result, there is no risk of offsite airborne migration of potassium cyanide as a vapor. Consequently, AECOM did not undertake air dispersion modeling for this substance. The only scenario that would enable potassium cyanide to convert to an airborne hazard is if it came into contact with an acid, which would result in a highly toxic hydrogen cyanide gas. The design of the plating shop, the containment measures for a spill of potassium cyanide in its Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto ES-7 Executive Summary liquid form, and preventative safeguards implemented at CPI would preclude contact of potassium cyanide with an acid. The 2008 RMP assumed that the contents of the “Silver Plate Tank” would empty into the potassium cyanide containment area and release of potassium cyanide vapor. A highly conservative vapor pressure for the aqueous solution of potassium cyanide was assumed and it was based on the vapor pressure of solid naphthalene. While there is no basis to estimate this vapor pressure, the findings indicate that airborne potassium cyanide would not be emitted offsite and pose a public health risk to the surrounding community. AIR DISPERSION MODELING OF EXTREME EVENTS Defining Relative Public Health Risks. Even though CPI is no longer required to implement an RMP, the City requested that AECOM evaluate additional “extreme” accidental release scenarios and describe their potential public health effects for the surrounding community. To develop “extreme event” scenarios, AECOM used four criteria: • potential impact of the release – this criterion considers the public health risk taking into account toxicity of the chemicals, the method of exposure (inhalation, burns from thermal radiation, and injury and ruptured eardrums from blasts), and the proximity to the surrounding community • likelihood of the release occurring - this criterion is a qualitative probability of an event that could occur during the life of the facility (e.g., human error, equipment failure, major earthquake), taking into account engineering and administrative controls that are intended to reduce the effects of such occurrences • potential engineering controls and mitigation factors that could limit the impact – this criterion recognizes the state and federal regulations that enforce chemical safety, protect workers, ensure safe transport of hazardous materials and wastes, and prevent accidental releases of hazardous substances to the environment • relative risk to the surrounding community posed by the release – this criterion is a qualitative assessment derived from the potential impact and the likelihood that impact occurs (see Table ES-1). Table ES-1 Criteria for Determination of Relative Risk Likelihood Potential Impact High Moderate Low High - Initiating event can occur more than once per year High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Moderate - Initiating event can occur during facility lifetime Moderate Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Low - Initiating event is not reasonably possible Negligible Risk Negligible Risk Negligible Risk Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto ES-8 Executive Summary Extreme Events. AECOM identified five extreme events for consideration and, based on the potential for offsite impacts and suggestions from the Barron Park neighbors during an initial meeting, selected the last two events listed below for air dispersion modeling: • nitric acid release from the bulk storage area due to an earthquake • concentrated acid waste release from tank due to an earthquake • release of aqueous nitric acid in the plating shop due to an earthquake • release of highly flammable cryogenic liquid hydrogen due to an earthquake, equipment malfunction, and/or human error • release of nitric acid in the outdoor storage area during delivery and offloading due to equipment malfunction and/or human error Air Dispersion Modeling Results. The definition of an “extreme event” implies a series of mishaps or conditions that are unlikely but could occur. The following air dispersion results also assume meteorological conditions that pose the greatest likelihood for offsite consequences but occur infrequently. Accordingly, use of the modeled toxic endpoints below should recognize that the conditions contributing to these results are even more remote than those required by the California Accidental Release Program and that the US Environmental Protection Agency intends the estimated distances to provide a basis for a discussion among the regulated community, emergency planners and responders, and the public, rather than a basis for any specific predictions or actions. • Nitric acid release – distance to toxic endpoint of 92 feet, or to the first row of residences to the south • Cryogenic hydrogen release – distance from storage yard to point where someone would experience first degree burns due to thermal radiation of 111 feet, within CPI’s property boundaries CONCLUSIONS • Review of public and available documents revealed that three incidents have occurred at the facility over six years (2006 to 2012) involving acutely hazardous materials. It was reported that these incidents did not produce an airborne contaminant concentration that exceeded the toxic endpoint offsite. • Review of the RMP documents indicates that presently the facility is not required to comply with the California Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations since it has reduced the quantity of acutely hazardous materials below the regulatory threshold limits. However, review of the past RMPs reveals that a different worst-case scenario was selected for the release of nitric acid and potassium cyanide. This selection process was performed by a committee consisting of representatives of CPI, SCDEH and the RMP consultant. In addition, air dispersion modeling was performed using different models and parameters providing a different distance to the toxic endpoint and potential impact to the surrounding community. The selection of the scenarios and the completion of air dispersion modeling were performed in accordance with the California Accidental Release Prevention Program guidelines. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto ES-9 Executive Summary • Survey of the Building 2, plating shop and cryogenic liquid storage area indicates that the tanks and equipment are being maintained to prevent a release of hazardous materials. Engineering controls and mitigation measures were observed to be in place to prevent or reduce a release. Preventive maintenance is performed at the cryogenic liquid storage area annually by Air Liquide and it involves a comprehensive inspection. A record of this inspection is maintained by CPI. Additionally, CPI indicated that inspections of the equipment are performed daily at the facility by CPI personnel but records of these inspections were not provided. These records should be maintained to support the Chemical Management Program to be implemented by CPI. • As part of the preventive maintenance program, inspections of the facility are performed on a regular basis by the PAFD. The frequency of these inspections should coincide with the implementation of CPI’s Chemical Management Program. • CPI has performed voluntary seismic upgrades to Building 2. Additionally, AECOM inquired about the construction of the storage tanks and equipment contained in the building, plating shop and cryogenic liquid storage area and was informed by CPI that this construction was performed in accordance with the building and fire code requirements. However, permits were not provided or reviewed during the survey. • AECOM performed air dispersion modeling using the worst-case scenarios in CPI’s 2008 RMP and it confirmed that the airborne nitric acid and potassium cyanide are not expected to travel offsite and exceed the toxic endpoints. • A Chemical Management Program (CMP) plan was developed by CPI in 2013. A comprehensive preventive maintenance program is implemented for the equipment at the cryogenic liquid storage area by Air Liquide. A management of change is implemented at the facility to prevent any chemical releases. However, the CMP indicated that a robust preventive maintenance program needs to be developed for other operations and equipment. Regular inspections need to be performed and documented. Additionally, written operating procedures and a matrix-based training program need to be developed and implemented. Emergency action planning should incorporate a potential release involving the cryogenic liquid hydrogen tanks and this modification should be performed with the PAFD. • Air dispersion modeling of a plausible extreme event was performed. Two scenarios were selected as an extreme event: release of nitric acid during offloading operation and release of cryogenic liquid hydrogen. The hypothetical scenario involving a release of nitric acid indicates that it has the potential to affect the offsite community. However, the release of liquid hydrogen and the associated fire would be contained onsite. RECOMMENDATIONS To prevent or reduce the potential of an emission of airborne acutely hazardous material handled or used at the CPI facility, the following recommendations are provided: • CPI should develop an action plan for these recommendations and oversight should be provided by the PAFD and/or SCDEH. • CPI should provide evidence that deficiencies and improvements recommended by the PAFD have been made. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto ES-10 Executive Summary • CPI should explain the omission of oxygen from the list of special management chemicals. • CPI should correct the sagging piping connected to the concentrated acid waste tank. • CPI should develop and implement a robust CMP at the CPI facility to handle, use and dispose of the special management chemicals. Timelines should be developed to complete and implement components of the CMP and oversight of this process should be provided by the PAFD. Some of these items require that operating procedures be developed and preventive maintenance of equipment be performed by trained personnel on a regular schedule. Records of the preventive maintenance performed on equipment should be recorded and maintained. • CPI personnel should be adequately trained and records of this training should be maintained. Additionally, emergency action planning should incorporate a potential release involving the cryogenic liquid hydrogen tanks and this modification should be undertaken with the PAFD. • To avoid and minimize the offsite risks from an extreme event, CPI should implement proper prevention measures to limit a release of nitric acid such as installing locking caps on piping contained in the loading rack. • CPI needs to submit an annual update of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the PAFD. This update should include any changes to the business activities and operations, chemical inventory and contingency action plan. In addition, the PAFD should perform an annual inspection of the facility to confirm the information provided in the HMBP update and assure that the quantities of acutely hazardous materials are below the RMP threshold planning quantities. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 1-1 Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION This section provides a project background and the approach that was applied to perform a risk assessment for handling and storing hazardous materials at Communications and Power Industries, Inc. (CPI). The assessment focused on chemicals and processes employed within the plating shop of CPI. Additionally, the chemicals addressed in this study are expected to pose the greatest acute risk to the surrounding population. Copies of reference and supporting technical documents are not attached to this report since they contain proprietary information. 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto is interested in assessing the potential offsite public health risks on the surrounding community from acutely hazardous materials and operations performed in the plating shop operations at Communications and Power Industries, Inc. (CPI). The CPI facility is located at 607-811 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, California (Figure 1-1), within the Stanford Research Park and adjacent to the Barron Park residential neighborhood. Numerous assessments of CPI activities have been performed, but a comprehensive review and assessment of these risks has not been completed. Therefore, the City of Palo Alto contracted with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) to perform this third-party assessment and assist the City of Palo Alto in determining possible zoning and other code revisions to address potential health and safety risks from CPI operations. 1.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY This assessment focused on the potential airborne risks posed to the surrounding community by the hazardous materials stored and operations performed primarily at Building 2, the plating shop and cryogenic liquid storage area located at CPI. Review of past documents and a discussion with CPI personnel indicates that these locations store the largest quantities of the acutely hazardous materials. The hazardous materials evaluated pose an acute risk to human health and are known as acutely hazardous materials as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5, Section 2735.3 (19CCR §2735.3). Additionally, other hazardous substances were addressed if they posed an acute risk to the surrounding population even if they were not listed in 19CCR §2770.5. The methodology used to perform this assessment was segmented into five components including: • Document review, • Site survey of the plating shop and cryogenic liquid storage area, • Assessment of CPI’s Chemical Management Program plan, • Air dispersion modeling assessment of CPI’s 2008 Risk Management Plan, and, • Air dispersion modeling of extreme event. Each of these components will be discussed in separate sections of this report; however, a summary is provided in this section. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 1-2 Introduction Source: AECOM 2013 Figure 1-1 Site Location Map Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 1-3 Introduction 1.2.1 DOCUMENT REVIEW Documents were reviewed to gain an understanding of hazardous materials stored and handled, and the operations performed at the plating shop of CPI. This review focused on documents ranging from Risk Management Plans (RMPs) to fire department inspection reports that were completed primarily during the recent three years, 2009- 2012. Additionally, review of the RMPs focused on the prevention control measures and air dispersion modeling. 1.2.2 SITE SURVEY AECOM personnel completed a site survey of the plating shop and the cryogenic liquid storage area following the document review. This survey focused on the work activities and operations performed by CPI personnel with specific attention placed on activities capable of emitting acutely hazardous substances offsite and affecting the surrounding community. Additionally, prevention measures including operating procedures and engineering controls were observed during the site visit. 1.2.3 ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM A Chemical Management Program is employed at CPI to use and handle potentially acutely hazardous materials. This program was reviewed at the facility and assessed to confirm that prevention measures are implemented and strive to reduce a potential offsite release. However, AECOM was not allowed to take a copy of this program offsite, and therefore, the review of extensive prevention measures was limited. 1.2.4 AIR DISPERSION MODELING ASSESSMENT Air dispersion modeling was performed by AECOM and it incorporated information contained in the most recent RMP dated November 2008 and accepted by the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). This modeling focused on the acutely hazardous materials and worst-case scenarios selected within the RMP but applied independent worst-case assumptions to perform the air dispersion modeling. The goal of this modeling assessment was to compare and validate offsite health consequences reported in the 2008 RMP. 1.2.5 AIR DISPERSION MODELING OF EXTREME EVENT AECOM performed air dispersion modeling on a much greater release scenario than the worst-case scenario contained in the 2008 RMP. Two scenarios were selected as an “extreme event” since they have the potential to affect the offsite community. A rationale and limitations of this exercise is presented in this report along with the modeling results to ensure that the results are interpreted properly and are not misconstrued. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 2-1 Document Review 2 DOCUMENT REVIEW Prior to and during the completion of the site survey, AECOM reviewed select documents to gain an understanding of the storage and handling operations associated with hazardous materials present at the plating shop. This review focused on potential activities capable of emitting airborne concentrations of hazardous materials offsite into the surrounding community and the complementary mitigation measures and engineering controls implemented at the facility. These documents included incident reports, regulatory inspection reports, and Risk Management Plans (RMPs). This review focused on reports and plans generated during the years of 2004-2012. 2.1 INCIDENT REPORTS Review of the available City of Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) incident reports indicated three incidents occurred during the time period of 2006-2012. An incident occurred at the plating shop on February 2, 2006 involving the improper discharge of spent acid into the concentrated acid waste tank, which caused an airborne release of nitric acid and sulfuric acid. Select employees were evacuated from the building and noticeable odors were detected outside of the building. Measurement of the airborne acids found the concentrations to be below the permissible exposure limits (PELs) enforced by Cal- OSHA.1 A PEL is defined as the maximum permitted 8-hour time-weighted average concentration of an airborne contaminant that an employee may be exposed to daily during a 40-hour workweek for a working lifetime without an adverse effect. A spill of 80 gallons of hydrochloric acid occurred in 2008 and this incident was documented on March 19, 2008. Of this amount, a total of 20 gallons was released on the exterior asphalt pavement. This release was contained and properly removed. No employees or waterways were affected by this release. Additionally, this report indicated that air emissions from the spilled hydrochloric acid did not produce an offsite impact to public health. Another chemical release occurred in 2008 and was documented on June 3, 2008. This release involved a discharge of copper and nickel wastewater from a tank into Matadero Creek, located on the southern border of the CPI site. Testing of the residual process wastewater in the storm drain and creek did not indicate the presence of elevated levels of the released chemicals. 2.2 INSPECTION REPORTS Inspections have been performed at the plating shop or the facility by the PAFD and the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health (SCDEH). The inspections performed by the PAFD focused on regulations imposed by the California Fire Code whereas the SCDEH concentrated on the California Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations. Inspection results for each agency are presented below. 1 Cal-OSHA refers to the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 2-2 Document Review 2.2.1 CITY OF PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT Records of inspections completed by the PAFD were reviewed focusing on a time period of 2011 through 2012. On April 8, 2011, an inspection was completed by the PAFD pertaining to the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) and the California Fire Code (CFC) regulations. Several fire and life safety hazards were noted but none pertained to the storage and use of hazardous materials within the plating shop. Corrective actions were completed by CPI and documented in a letter report to the PAFD dated June 3, 2011. A second inspection was completed by the PAFD on April 18, 2011 and the findings were similar to the earlier inspection. The violations for each inspection were corrected by CPI, and these corrections were documented in letter reports to the PAFD dated June 3, 2011 and June 22, 2011. On May 5, 2011, the PAFD performed an inspection related to the HMBP and CFC regulations. Multiple fire and life safety compliance violations were found in Building 2, which contains the plating shop, including a malfunctioning eyewash and shower station, and the operation of a nitric acid monitor. Additionally, a corroded galvanized duct was found in the lower level of the building. CPI was required to correct these deficiencies. Corrections were performed and documented in a letter to the PAFD dated June 22, 2011. The PAFD inspected the installation of the hydrogen gas tanks on May 20, 2011. This installation occurred in the cryogenic liquid storage area of the facility. Deficiencies in the installation were observed and documented. CPI corrected these findings and submitted a corresponding letter to the PAFD dated June 3, 2011. Of final note, the PAFD completed an inspection at the facility on March 15, 2012, focusing on HMBP and CFC regulations. Deficiencies were noted to the HMBP and emergency action plan requiring modifications. Also, inspection of Building 2 found multiple fire and life safety items requiring correction including the need to upgrade the door control, labeling of the dry room hood, and provide signs for the shut-off switches. Unlike the previous inspections, there was no evidence or a letter to the PAFD that corrections were made. 2.2.2 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH The SCDEH contracted with a consultant to perform a third-party audit of the 2007 RMP. This audit was documented in a letter dated February 11, 2008. Findings of the audit identified errors associated with the offsite consequence analysis, the need to recalculate the worst-case scenario for nitric acid and potassium cyanide, and discrepancies in the hazard review. Based on these findings, CPI significantly reduced its storage and use of nitric acid and potassium cyanide at the facility below the amounts that trigger the requirement to comply with the Prevention Program Level 2 of the California Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations. A new RMP was prepared by CPI documenting the reduced amounts of acutely hazardous materials. On January 20, 2009 CPI issued this RMP, CalARP Program 1 Submittal, and a review of this RMP is presented in Section 2.3.3. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 2-3 Document Review 2.3 RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS AECOM reviewed three RMPs developed by CPI between 2004 and 2008. This review focused on the offsite consequence analysis, prevention program, and emergency action planning. Additionally, specific attention was drawn to the seismic component in these documents. The findings associated with the review of each document are presented below. Presently, CPI is not required to administer and implement an RMP since it does not store or handle quantities of acutely hazardous materials exceeding the regulatory thresholds. However, CPI developed a Chemical Management Program plan to manage the storage and use of the special management chemicals at the facility. This plan was developed to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act and is addressed in detail in Section 4 of this report. An RMP is mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and at the state level by the California Emergency Management Agency for a facility storing or handling quantities of acutely hazardous materials in excess of threshold planning quantities. The RMP is a detailed engineering analysis of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. An RMP contains: • Safety information, • A hazard review, • Operating procedures, • Training requirements, • Maintenance requirements, • Compliance audits, and • Incident investigation procedures. The California Accidental Release Prevention Program is implemented at the local government level by Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). This program is designed so the CUPA works directly with the regulated businesses. The CUPA determines the level of detail in the RMP, reviews the RMP, conduct facility inspections, and provide public access to most of the information. With respect to the CPI facility, the SCDEH is the CUPA. 2.3.1 2004 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN Review of the 2004 RMP discovered that a hazard review was completed and addressed multiple hazards associated with CPI operations including the potential impact from a seismic event. It required that a structural engineering review of the plating shop and operations be completed to address this hazard. Completion of the review required anchoring of the nitric acid tank, concentrated acid waste tank, and the plating shop tanks. These upgrades were completed in December 2004. An offsite consequence analysis was completed as part of the RMP. The consequence analysis involved worst-case scenarios and alternative or most reasonable scenarios. A worst-case scenario for nitric acid considered a release of 250 gallons from the largest storage tank. This total volume would collect in a sump in the basement of Building 2 that has a surface area of 14 square feet limiting the generation of airborne nitric acid. The worst-case scenario for potassium cyanide involved a spill of a 110-pound storage drum of the potassium cyanide in the plating shop, of which 25 pounds comes in contact with Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 2-4 Document Review nearby acids generating hydrocyanic acid gas. Each airborne contaminant, nitric acid and hydrocyanic acid, was estimated to travel 1,056 feet from the facility, where the airborne concentration was equal to the toxic endpoint2. This distance was derived from the reference tables 7 and 20 contained in the USEPA’s Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis dated April 1999. Additionally, the analysis reported a release of each hazardous material from an alternate or reasonable scenario. The alternate release scenario for nitric acid assumed a spill of 130 gallons of copper bright dip solution containing nitric acid due to a seismic event. An alternate scenario for potassium cyanide assumed a release of 11 pounds of hydrocyanic acid resulting from the reaction of 47 pounds of potassium cyanide with a spill of 114 gallons of copper plating solution. Airborne nitric acid is estimated to travel less than 528 feet to the toxic endpoint whereas hydrocyanic acid gas would travel a maximum distance of 528 feet to the toxic endpoint. Both the worst-case and alternate scenarios indicate that the surrounding community could potentially be impacted by a release of these acutely hazardous materials used at CPI. However, the RMP noted that no accidental releases had occurred at the facility within the past five (5) years. Furthermore, a prevention program and emergency response program were discussed in the RMP. The prevention program was classified as a program level 2, which requires the completion of a hazard review, implementation of operating procedures, maintenance schedule for the equipment, and employee training. The emergency response program was discussed in the RMP and it identified the PAFD as the primary local emergency response agency. 2.3.2 2007 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN The 2007 RMP was developed in June 2007 by CPI. A hazard review was completed and addressed multiple hazards associated with the plating operations including the potential impact from a seismic event. It required a seismic walkdown to be completed and therefore, the seismic design of the plating shop was reviewed. A walkdown is a visual review of the actual condition of each equipment and system focusing on the potential seismic vulnerabilities. This review was completed in March 2007. An offsite consequence analysis was completed as part of the RMP and it involved selecting worst-case scenarios. This selection was completed as part of the hazard review process by a multidisciplinary team consisting of CPI representatives, RMP consultant and SCDEH. Alternative or most reasonable scenarios were not considered since they were determined to be not plausible by the team. The worst-case scenario for nitric acid was based on the 230 gallons being released into the basement sump consisting of a surface area of 14 square feet. A worst-case scenario for potassium cyanide assumed the entire Silver Plate Tank contents (276 gallons) would be deposited into the potassium cyanide containment area. Based on the worst-case scenario for nitric acid or potassium cyanide, neither release airborne contaminant was expected to travel more than 33 feet to reach the toxic endpoint. Thus, each 2 Toxic endpoint is defined as the air concentration of an acutely hazardous substance above which there may be a serious acute health effect following a single short-term exposure. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 2-5 Document Review acutely hazardous material would be contained within the CPI property boundary and not pose an acute health risk to the surrounding community. Also, the RMP noted that no accidental releases had occurred at the facility within the past 5 years that caused a death or significant property damage. However, a release of nitric acid and sulfuric acid occurred in February 2006 and it was the result of improper mixing with water in a waste tank. No employees were injured but a person working offsite smelled the release. Similar to the 2004 RMP, the 2007 RMP described CPI’s prevention program and emergency response program. The prevention program was classified as a program level 2, which requires the completion of a hazard review, implementation of operating procedures, maintenance schedule for the equipment, and employee training. Furthermore, the emergency response program identified the PAFD as the primary local emergency response agency. 2.3.3 2008 CALARP PROGRAM 1 SUBMITTAL Review of the CalARP Program 1 Submittal prepared by CPI in November 2008 showed that the facility needed only to comply with prevention program level 1 requirements, rather than the more stringent level 2 requirements identified in the previous RMPs. CPI’s eligibility to comply with the less stringent prevention program level 1 requirements was due to a decrease in the quantities of nitric acid and potassium cyanide stored and used onsite. An offsite consequence analysis was completed as part of the RMP and it involved two worst-case scenarios. The worst-case scenario for nitric acid was based on a release of 230 gallons from a primary storage tank into a secondary containment tank. Nitric acid would be released to the atmosphere from a pool contained between the outer shell of primary tank and interior shell of the secondary containment tank. This space has a surface area of 1.84 square feet. A worst-case scenario for potassium cyanide assumed a release of 112 gallons of potassium cyanide from the Silver Plate Tank to be deposited into the secondary containment area. Based on the worst-case scenario for nitric acid or potassium cyanide, neither release was expected to travel more than 33 feet to reach the toxic endpoint. This distance was estimated using air dispersion models published by the USEPA. Thus, the release of each acutely hazardous material and the toxic endpoint would be contained within the property boundary and would not pose an acute health effect to the surrounding community. Alternative or most reasonable scenarios were no longer required because the facility was now subject to the prevention program level 1 requirements. However, CPI provided modeling for the release of solid potassium cyanide from a storage drum and the release of nitric acid using the odor threshold as the toxic endpoint. The model estimated that the potassium cyanide would travel 31.50 feet in the air to reach the toxic endpoint and therefore, it would contained within the facility boundary. Air dispersion modeling of the release of nitric acid using the toxic endpoint as the odor threshold indicates that the airborne nitric acid would extend offsite to a distance of 165 feet. However, the odor threshold for nitric acid is significantly smaller than the toxic endpoint; 0.27 parts per million versus 10 parts per million. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 2-6 Document Review At the request of the SCDEH, CPI completed a seismic assessment of the equipment and structures to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. This assessment was completed in June 2008 and a record of this assessment was contained in the submittal. Additionally, an emergency response program was discussed in the submittal and similar to the 2004 and 2007 RMPs, it identified the PAFD as the primary local emergency response agency. Also, the submittal noted that no accidental releases had occurred at the facility within the past 5 years. 2.3.4 Analysis of RMPs Review of the RMPs from 2004 through 2008 found that different worst-case release scenarios were used to develop the potential emissions of nitric acid and potassium cyanide into the surrounding community. However, these scenarios were developed using the California Accidental Release Prevention Program guidelines and as part of the hazard review process involving representatives of CPI, SCDEH and the RMP consultant. Also, different air dispersion models approved by the USEPA were used to estimate the distance airborne chemicals would travel to the toxic endpoints. Table 2-1 presents a summary of the RMP analysis. This hazard review process incorporated the following parameters: 1) Hazards associated with the regulated processes, 2) Opportunities for equipment malfunction, 3) Safeguards used to control the hazards and 4) Procedures to detect airborne releases. A fire in the plating shop was evaluated as a probable release scenario in the 2007 RMP but was not selected for air dispersal modeling since control measures to reduce the probability of a release were in place at the facility. These measures include containment berms, air monitoring detection system and an air filtration system. Based on these varying parameters, the distance travelled by airborne nitric acid and potassium cyanide to reach the toxic endpoints varied by a large degree. For example, the 2004 RMP selected a worst-case scenario for potassium cyanide that involved mixing mineral acids with a spill of solid potassium cyanide. The scenario in the 2007 RMP involved a spill of aqueous potassium cyanide into a containment berm. The significant distinction between the two scenarios involves the generation of hydrogen cyanide gas in the 2004 RMP release. In the 2004 RMP, a worst-case scenario was used for the nitric acid that involved a release rate of one (1) pound per minute whereas the 2007 RMP used a release rate of 0.00327 pounds per minute. This larger release rate and the associated air dispersion model parameters produced a greater distance to the toxic endpoint, i.e. nitric acid would travel farther into the surrounding community Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 2-7 Document Review Table 2-1 Summary of RMP Analysis RMP Extremely Hazardous Substance Worst-Case Release Scenario Alternative Release Scenario Scenario Description Distance to Toxic Endpoint Scenario Description Distance to Toxic Endpoint 2004 RMP Nitric Acid Release of 250 gallons from largest storage tank into a sump in basement of Building 2. Release rate is 1 pound per minute. 1,056 feet from facility Spill of 130 gallons of copper bright dip solution due to seismic event Less than 528 feet from facility Potassium Cyanide Spill of 110-pound storage drum in plating shop with 25 pounds coming into contact with acids generating hydrocyanic acid gas. 1,056 feet from facility Release of 11 pounds of hydrocyanic acid gas resulting from a reaction of 47 pounds of potassium cyanide with a spill of 114 gallons of copper plating solution 528 feet from facility 2007 RMP Nitric Acid Release of 230 gallons into the sump into basement of Building 2. Release rate is 0.00327 pounds per minute. 33 feet from facility No alternative release scenario since committee determined it not to be plausible Not Applicable Potassium Cyanide Release of 276 gallons of potassium cyanide solution from Silver Plate Tank into containment area. 33 feet from facility No alternative release scenario since committee determined it not to be plausible Not Applicable 2008 CalARP Program 1 Submittal Nitric Acid Release of 230 gallons from largest storage tank into a secondary containment tank located in the basement of Building 2. Release of nitric acid from a pool contained between the outer shell of primary tank and interior shell of the secondary containment tank. 33 feet from facility Alternative release scenario not required since facility subject to Prevention Program Level 1 requirements. Not Applicable Potassium Cyanide Release of 112 gallons of potassium cyanide solution from Silver Plate Tank and it is deposited into secondary containment area. 33 feet from facility Alternative release scenario not required since facility subject to Prevention Program Level 1 requirements. Not Applicable Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 3-1 Site Survey of Plating Shop and Cryogenic Liquid Storage Area 3 SITE SURVEY OF PLATING SHOP AND CRYOGENIC LIQUID STORAGE AREA As part of this risk assessment, AECOM personnel undertook a site survey focusing on Building 2 including the plating shop and the exterior cryogenic liquid storage area. These two areas were selected since they contained the majority of acutely hazardous materials at the facility. The storage of hazardous materials and processes being implemented were observed. Additionally, the survey included a review of the chemical prevention program employed at the plating shop and cryogenic liquid storage area. 3.1 SURVEY APPROACH The survey methodology involved a physical walkthrough of the Building 2 primarily focusing on the basement and the plating shop, and the exterior cryogenic liquid storage area. CPI personnel and an environmental consultant from Environ escorted AECOM representatives, Roman Worobel and Howard Balentine. This survey was completed on September 16 and 17, 2013. AECOM observed the storage of hazardous materials and the operations performed in the basement, plating shop and exterior cryogenic liquid storage area. This survey focused on the storage of tanks, adequacy of secondary containment and implementation of control measures to prevent a release of the acutely hazardous materials. The prevention measures included but were not limited to implementing a seismic restraint system for each tank to prevent a release, release detection equipment and air filtration devices to prevent an airborne emission to the ambient environment. Questions were posed to CPI about the operations and the implementation of control measures. Training of personnel was assessed by reviewing records supplied by CPI. Additionally, copies of health and safety documents provided by CPI were reviewed to assess compliance with applicable regulations. A more detailed account of this survey is provided within the following sections. 3.2 STORAGE, HANDLING AND DELIVERY OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.2.1 BUILDING 2 The extremely hazardous materials at CPI are primarily stored and handled in Building 2 including the plating shop and exterior cryogenic liquid storage area (Figure 3-1). Hazardous materials are delivered to Building 2 in the form of solids and liquids. Packaged containers of potassium cyanide and mineral acids are delivered to the loading dock approximately every two weeks and transported by trained personnel into the building using a dedicated cart to prevent falling and a potential spill . The largest container of potassium cyanide weighs 15 pounds. These containers meet the shipping requirements established by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and can withstand opening from severe falls or impact. Bulk liquid acids such as hydrochloric acid and nitric acid are delivered on a transport truck by an approved vendor. This delivery occurs every month. Offloading of the acids is completed at an exterior offloading area that is located next to an alley approximately 15 feet from the property wall. A trained Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 3-2 Site Survey of Plating Shop and Cryogenic Liquid Storage Area operator connects a hose to the appropriate valve and then the acid is pumped into a dedicated tank located in the basement of Building 2. Any airborne releases of nitric acid or hydrochloric acid are monitored by a sensor that is located on the property line wall. A total of four tanks are used to store the acids in a dedicated room in the basement of Building 2 with secondary containment to contain a release. If this containment should reach capacity, an underground sump is used as a tertiary containment structure. Each tank was observed to be braced to prevent tipping or spilling in the event of an earthquake. Piping is placed in brackets to prevent movement or rupture. However, permits or plans associated with the seismic bracing were not available or provided for review during the survey. A computer-operated control panel monitors the operation of the tanks and an alarm is set to notify CPI personnel in the event of a chemical release. Exterior to Building 2 there are a series of aboveground wastewater tanks that are located within a secondary containment structure. The wastewater contains dilute acids and cyanide, and it is pumped to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant in accordance with an approved wastewater discharge permit. Additionally, a small number of drums containing hazardous waste are stored outside near the building. They are removed on a regular basis by a licensed hazardous waste hauler. 3.2.2 PLATING SHOP The plating shop is located on the second floor of Building 2. It consists of dedicated aboveground tanks containing plating solutions of acids, bases, and cyanide. The tanks containing acids are separated from the bases and cyanide, and any spill or release would be contained within dedicated secondary containment, i.e. berm. Additionally, these tanks and associated piping are braced to prevent movement or rupture in the event of an earthquake. Mechanical exhaust ventilation is applied to each tank to remove any airborne vapors and general ventilation is provided in the shop to maintain a safe workplace. Sensors operate within the plating shop to detect any airborne concentrations of hydrogen cyanide, nitric acid, and nitrogen dioxide. Any release of these vapors to the atmosphere is prevented by an air filtration system, i.e., chemical scrubbers. Preventative maintenance is performed annually on these scrubbed to assure proper operation. If vapors are emitted from the building, sensors are located near the exhaust stacks to detect the release and notify CPI personnel. A control panel is located and operated in an adjacent room. It contains a real-time display of the aforementioned airborne contaminants and their concentrations, i.e. hydrogen cyanide, nitric acid and nitrogen dioxide. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 3-3 Site Survey of Plating Shop and Cryogenic Liquid Storage Area Source: AECOM 2013 Figure 3-1 Facility Map Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 3-4 Site Survey of Plating Shop and Cryogenic Liquid Storage Area 3.2.3 CRYOGENIC LIQUID STORAGE AREA The exterior cryogenic liquid storage area is located adjacent to Building 2. It contains aboveground tanks of liquid hydrogen, nitrogen, helium, argon, and oxygen. The design and installation of the tanks was performed by Air Liquide in accordance with a permit obtained from the City of Palo Alto Planning Department. Oversight of the construction operation was provided by the PAFD to ensure that the California Fire Code and seismic requirements were met. Offloading of the cryogenic liquids is performed by a trained Air Liquide operator. Mechanical control measures are in place to prevent a release or overfilling of the tanks. Additionally, Air Liquide performs annual preventive maintenance on the tanks and associated equipment. This maintenance consists of a comprehensive inspection of the cryogenic liquid storage system and a record of this inspection is maintained by CPI. Daily inspections of the storage area are performed by CPI personnel. 3.3 CHEMICAL PREVENTION PROGRAM 3.3.1 ENGINEERING CONTROLS Engineering controls are implemented within Building 2, including the plating shop and the cryogenic liquid storage area to prevent an offsite release. These controls range from bracing of tanks and piping to an air filtration system. Additionally, control panels are operated to monitor the processes and operations. 3.3.2 MITIGATION MEASURES CPI implements mitigation measures to prevent or reduce a release of an extremely hazardous material. Approved and trained vendors deliver and offload the hazardous materials at the facility. Similarly, CPI employees are trained to handle and use the materials at the facility. Preventive maintenance is performed annually at the compressed liquid storage area by Air Liquide. A comprehensive inspection of the compressed liquid storage system is performed by trained personnel and this inspection is documented. Additionally, this system was inspected by the PAFD during construction to ensure the fire code requirements were met. A large pool of water is contained near this storage area for use by the PAFD to extinguish any fire. CPI personnel are not trained to fight a fire and will request the assistance of the PAFD. Additionally, the plating shop has been constructed to prevent a release of hazardous materials. A secondary containment structure is built for each group of compatible chemicals and this construction prevents improper mixing of incompatible chemicals or a reaction. The plating tanks have been braced to prevent any movement during an earthquake. Mechanical exhaust ventilation is employed to remove any vapors, and these vapors are inactivated by a chemical air filtration system. CPI maintains this system according to the manufacturer’s requirements but supporting documentation was not provided for review during the site survey. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 3-5 Site Survey of Plating Shop and Cryogenic Liquid Storage Area 3.4 SEISMIC UPGRADE OF BUILDING 2 During the site survey, CPI representatives informed AECOM personnel that voluntary seismic upgrades were performed in Building 2 following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. These upgrades were observed during the site survey to include: securing of walls at the ceiling and floor level and the installation of diagonal beams at multiple locations to reduce lateral movement and potential structural collapse in a seismic event. The large wall separating the two construction phases of the building was strengthened for greater shear resistance. These seismic upgrades were completed to reduce the likelihood of significant damage from an earthquake. As previously mentioned, the bulk storage tanks of acids in the basement of Building 2 are braced to prevent movement during an earthquake. These tanks are in a room that has built-in secondary containment including large tanks and a containment wall. The piping is secured in brackets to reduce any damage from a seismic activity. However, the piping connected to the concentrated acid waste tank was observed to be sagging at an elevated height potentially indicating instability. Therefore, the stability of this piping needs to be assessed and corrected. Similarly, the tanks in the plating shop and the associated piping are secured to limit the impact of an earthquake and release of hazardous materials. Furthermore, the cryogenic liquid storage area was constructed to comply with the permit requirements imposed by the City of Palo Alto. Construction of the tanks and equipment was performed to limit any damage from a seismic activity. The PAFD oversaw this construction. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 4-1 Assessment of Chemical Management Program 4 ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM This section reviews the Chemical Management Program (CMP) plan developed by CPI in 2013. The plan was reviewed during the site survey performed on September 16-17, 2013. CPI did not provide a hard-copy of this plan for review offsite and development of this report. CPI developed this plan in order to comply with the General Duty Clause contained in Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(1). It contains a list of special management chemicals, operations performed at the facility, and the associated prevention measures. In addition, emergency action planning is discussed in this plan. 4.1 LIST OF SPECIAL MANAGEMENT CHEMICALS The CMP identifies a list of special management chemicals or extremely hazardous substances (EHS) used within the operations at the facility. These chemicals include: • Potassium cyanide, • Nitric acid, • Hydrogen gas, • Hydrofluoric acid, • Sulfuric acid, and, • Hydrochloric acid. A selection criteria was used to develop this list and it incorporated the threshold quantity contained in 19 CCR §2770.5. Chemicals present at the facility at 50% or above the threshold quantity were identified as a special management chemical. However, these quantities do not exceed the California Accidental Release Prevention Program limits that would trigger the development and implementation of an RMP. While this list appears to be appropriate based on a review of the chemical inventory dated March 12, 2013, oxygen was not included. Oxygen is maintained in large quantities at the facility and can be considered an EHS per the Clean Air Action, Section 112 (r). Therefore, a justification should be provided for omitting oxygen from the CMP. 4.2 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE HAZARDS The General Duty Clause of the Clean Air Act requires owners and operators of stationary sources, from which an accidental release of an EHS may occur, to identify the relative potential hazards. CPI identified six EHS and the associated operations that could pose a hazard to the public and environment from an accidental release. These operations include the delivery, storage, use and disposal of the following hazardous materials or equipment: • Nitric acid, • Potassium cyanide, • Hydrogen gas, • Hydrofluoric acid, • Hydrochloric acid, and Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 4-2 Assessment of Chemical Management Program • Fume scrubbers. Sulfuric acid and oxygen were not listed within this compilation. This omission seems to be inconsistent with the list provided in Section 4.1 and therefore, CPI should provide a rationale for this exclusion. Additionally, the CMP provides a list of physical and administrative safeguards, and engineering controls for each operation and listed hazardous material. These prevention measures are implemented to reduce the possibility of an accidental release. 4.3 PREVENTION PROGRAM 4.3.1 OPERATING PROCEDURES Review of the CMP developed in 2013 discovered that operating procedures are lacking and need to be written for select operations including the activities listed in Section 4.2. These activities include but are not limited to the delivery, storage, use and disposal of special management chemicals. Additionally, these procedures should be readily accessible to employees that work or maintain a process. Safe work procedures were developed by CPI for work involving the use and handling of cyanides and acids and bases. 4.3.2 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE Presently, inspection and maintenance of the hydrogen tanks and system is being performed by the Air Liquide Company on an annual basis. This prevention process is comprehensive and a record is maintained by CPI. Additionally, CPI states that visual inspections are completed daily within the cryogenic liquid storage area and plating shop, and records are maintained of these inspections. However, copies of these records were not provided for review during the site survey. Additionally, the CMP recommends that each piece of equipment be identified and inspected, and tested in accordance with recognized and generally accepted engineering practices. Inspection of the equipment should be performed using a written procedure at a frequency recommended by the manufacturer and/or the best engineering practice. Completion of each inspection should be recorded in a database. 4.3.3 MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE CPI implements a process to manage changes to operations and equipment, and therefore, prevent an accidental release of EHS. This process requires the completion of an engineering change order by the necessary personnel and departments, and a record of this order is maintained. A copy of this engineering change order was provided to AECOM during the site survey. Employees involved in operating a process that has been changed shall be informed and properly trained in the change prior to the start-up of the process. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 4-3 Assessment of Chemical Management Program 4.3.4 TRAINING Presently, the CMP describes a training program for handling and use of the special management chemicals and the associated operations. Elements contained in this program include responsibilities, training requirements, competency testing, and trainer qualifications. Based on discussions with select department supervisors, implementation of this training program seems to be limited. Employees working in the plating shop and facilities department are trained in many subject areas annually but a training matrix has not been developed for each employee. Competency of a subject area is not supported by testing but rather by verbal communication. Additionally, employees performing a process are trained on-the-job by their supervisor and competency is evaluated by the supervisor. 4.3.5 CONTRACTORS The CMP describes the procedures to be implemented by a contractor and CPI during maintenance or repair activities at the facility. These procedures range from gaining access to the facility to use of personal protective equipment during work. As a result, implementation of these procedures seeks to reduce the possibility of an accidental release of EHS. 4.4 EMERGENCY ACTION PLANNING An Emergency and Contingency Plan was developed by CPI in May 2013. It contains many of the required elements of an emergency action plan as defined by the Cal-OSHA regulation, 8 CCR §3320, including: • Roles and responsibilities, • Emergency training, • Incidents and responses, and • Monitoring equipment. As mentioned previously, CPI relies on the PAFD to be the primary emergency response agency. This Emergency and Contingency Plan should address a potential emergency release and response measures associated with the hydrogen gas storage tanks. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 5-1 Air Dispersion Modeling Assessment 5 AIR DISPERSION MODELING ASSESSMENT This assessment evaluates the air dispersion modeling results of the worst-case scenarios presented in the CPI November 2008 CalARP Program 1 Submittal. Air dispersion modeling was performed by AECOM for those scenarios using methods that are consistent with the USEPA Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis (USEPA, 2009). 5.1 ACUTELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The CalARP Program 1 Submittal assesses the releases of two acutely hazardous substances, nitric acid present at a concentration of 67% by weight and potassium cyanide present in granules or aqueous solution. These hazardous substances are regulated under the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2 and Chapter 4.5, also known as CalARP. 5.2 AIR DISPERSION MODELING OF NITRIC ACID 5.2.1 WORST-CASE SCENARIO The CalARP Program 1 Submittal identifies a worst-case scenario involving the rupture of a 230-gallon tank of nitric acid located within the plating shop. It contains nitric acid at a concentration of 67%. This tank is located in a secondary containment tank that confines the entire contents of the tank. Release of the aqueous nitric acid would result in a pool generated within a space of 1.84 square feet and it is comprised of the area between the outer shell of primary tank and interior shell of the secondary containment tank. However, if this secondary containment tank were to fail, the nitric acid would accumulate in a containment berm that drains into a containment sump located below ground. Based on the tank location and associated surface area, the rate of evaporation of the released nitric acid would be small. 5.2.2 AIR DISPERSION MODEL AND PARAMETERS For the nitric acid release, it is appropriate to apply a heavy-gas air dispersion model because its molecular weight (63 grams per mole) is much greater than air (29 grams per mole). The SLAB model developed by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory was applied for this assessment and is used by USEPA in developing the offsite consequence modeling guidance. Worst-case meteorological conditions and a surface roughness of 10 centimeter (cm) were applied for this estimate. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 5-2 Air Dispersion Modeling Assessment The rate of evaporation of nitric acid was estimated in accordance with Equation D-1 from USEPA (2009): 𝑄𝑅=0.284 x 𝑈0.78 𝑀𝑊2/3 x 𝐴 x 𝑉𝑃 82.05 x 𝑇 where: QR = Evaporation rate (pounds per minute) U = Wind speed (meters per second) MW = Molecular weight (given in Exhibits B-1 and B-2, Appendix B, for toxic substances and Exhibits C-2 and C-3, Appendix C, for flammable substances) A = Surface area of pool formed by the entire quantity of the mixture (square feet) (determined as described in Section 3.2.2 of the text) VP = Vapor pressure (mm Hg) T = Temperature of released substances (Kelvin (K); temperature in oC) The parameters presented in Table 5-1 below were used in this assessment and are based on the surface area of the spill. In addition, air dispersion modeling parameters used in the 2008 CalARP Program 1 Submittal are provided in this table for comparison purposes. However, Equation D-1 should not be used to calculate the evaporation rate using the parameters contained in the 2008 CalARP Program 1 Submittal since a different model was used to derive this rate. Table 5-1 Air Dispersion Modeling Parameters Parameter Air Dispersion Modeling Assessment 2008 CalARP Program 1 Submittal QR (Evaporation rate) 0.00214 pounds per minute 0.00327 pounds per minute U (Wind speed) 1.5 meters per second 1.5 meters per second MW (Molecular weight) 63 grams per mole 63 grams per mole Area (Surface area of pool) 1.84 square feet 1.84 square feet VP (Vapor pressure) 4.76 millimeters of mercury @ 102º F 6.54 millimeters of mercury @ 95º F T (Temperature) 311º K 308º K Atmospheric stability F F The temperature used for the release is the highest daily temperature recorded over the past three years and this meets the requirements of the RMP regulations. Recent records indicate that this temperature is 102º F or 311º Kelvin (Palo Alto Airport, 2010-2012). Additionally, the worst-case scenario incorporated an atmospheric stability of F and a wind speed 1.5 meters per second (m/sec). A vapor pressure of 4.76 millimeters of mercury (Hg) was based on the temperature of 102º F. These parameters represent the worst-case meteorological conditions. (D-1) Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 5-3 Air Dispersion Modeling Assessment Furthermore, it was assumed that the wind over the exposed pool is equal to the outdoor wind speed. For an indoor release, the actual air flow over the pool would be less, resulting in a much lower emission rate (about 12% of the outdoor release for an estimated 0.1 m/sec indoor wind speed). 5.2.3 DISTANCE TO TOXIC ENDPOINT The air modeling results for nitric acid are provided in Figure 5-1 and are compared to the CalARP toxic endpoint for nitric acid, 10 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Figure 5-1 shows that that concentrations fall below the toxic endpoint at about 7 meters or 23 feet downwind of the spill. Given that the release is indoors, the expected endpoint distance would be less than half of the modeled distance for an outdoor spill. Source: AECOM 2013 Figure 5-1 Nitric Acid Worst-case Release Ground-Level Concentration (ppm) for 10 cm Surface Roughness and a Temperature of 102 F One of the limiting factors of this worst-case analysis is that the spill from the tank would be confined to a narrow annulus in the secondary containment, which limits the surface area to only 1.84 square feet. This area would be equivalent to an unconfined spill of 0.45 gallon, assuming a 1 centimeter deep puddle as defined in the RMP. Thus, a greater toxic endpoint distance would result if more than half of a gallon of nitric acid could be spilled outdoors. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Do w n w i n d c o n c e n t r a t i o n ( p p m ) Downwind Distance (m) Toxic Endpoint Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 5-4 Air Dispersion Modeling Assessment 5.3 AIR DISPERSION MODELING OF POTASSIUM CYANIDE 5.3.1 WORST-CASE SCENARIO Potassium cyanide in both granular and aqueous forms has no vapor pressure. As a result, there is no risk of offsite airborne migration of potassium cyanide as a vapor. A spill of the aqueous solution that is contained and does not come into contact with an acid would not pose an offsite hazard. However, if it has the potential to contact an acid, hydrogen cyanide would be generated and this gas is highly toxic. Presently, CPI states that potassium cyanide will not come into contact with an acid. This rationale is based on the design of the facility and prevention safeguards being implemented. 5.3.2 AIR DISPERSION MODEL AND PARAMETERS As noted above, the present state of potassium cyanide does not have a vapor pressure and therefore, would not result in an offsite emission as vapor. Therefore, an airborne hazard would not affect the offsite receptors. 5.3.3 DISTANCE TO TOXIC ENDPOINT A distance to the toxic endpoint for potassium cyanide was not estimated based on the rationale posed in Section 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. Potassium cyanide present in both granular and aqueous form has no vapor pressure. As a result it is not expected to travel offsite and pose a risk to the surrounding community. Further, a spill of aqueous solution that is contained and does not come into contact with an acid would not pose an offsite hazard. 5.4 REVIEW OF AIR DISPERSION MODELING RESULTS FOR WORST-CASE SCENARIO 5.4.1 NITRIC ACID Comparing the results of this independent air dispersion modeling to the results in the 2008 CalARP Program 1 Submittal indicates consistency. The present air dispersion modeling indicates that airborne nitric acid is expected to travel 23 feet to reach the toxic endpoint of 10 ppm whereas the 2008 CalARP modeling indicates that distance to be less than 33 feet. This difference is due to the use of an alternative USEPA air dispersion model in the past, Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres or ALOHA (USEPA, 2004). In either case, both modeling results indicate that nitric acid would travel less than 33 feet to reach the pertinent toxic endpoint and not impact the offsite residential community. The CalARP guidelines define the toxic endpoint as an air concentration of an acutely hazardous substance above which there may be a serious acute health effect following a single short-term exposure. 5.4.2 POTASSIUM CYANIDE The worst-case scenario developed in the 2008 CalARP Program I Submittal assumed the entire contents in the Silver Plate Tank would be deposited in the cyanide containment area. This containment area was Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 5-5 Air Dispersion Modeling Assessment observed by AECOM during the site survey. The 2008 CalARP Program I Submittal performed air dispersion modeling using a high vapor pressure for the aqueous solution of potassium cyanide and it was based on the vapor pressure of solid naphthalene. While there is no basis for this vapor pressure, the findings are consistent with the present air dispersion modeling results indicating that airborne potassium cyanide would not be emitted offsite. The 2008 air dispersion modeling results indicate that airborne potassium cyanide would travel less than 33 feet to meet the toxic endpoint of 2.5 milligrams per cubic meter of air. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-1 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event 6 AIR DISPERSION MODELING OF EXTREME EVENT CPI performed air dispersion modeling as part its 2008 RMP titled as 2008 CalARP Program 1 Submittal. The California Accidental Release Prevention Program is the state analogue of the Federal Risk Management Program (RMP). Following the completion of the 2008 CalARP Program 1 Submittal, CPI elected to limit storage of nitric acid and potassium cyanide to less than the regulated threshold quantity imposed by the California Accidental Release Prevention Program and the Federal RMP regulations. By limiting onsite storage and use of acutely hazardous materials to less than the California Accidental Release Prevention Program threshold quantities, the CPI facility is not subject to these pertinent regulations. Although CPI is not required to perform risk assessments of worst-case release scenarios under existing regulatory programs, AECOM was tasked by the City of Palo Alto to identify potential extreme release events of acutely hazardous materials that could reasonably occur and affect the surrounding the community. This task incorporated use of an evaluation criteria focusing on the relative risk posed by the release. A number of scenarios were initially selected using a qualitative process and selection of an extreme event was not limited to the specific requirements of CalARP and/or RMP. Two scenarios containing a moderate or higher relative risk were modeled to determine the airborne release and the associated risk to the surrounding community. 6.1 SELECTION CRITERIA Four criteria were used to identify potential extreme release events: potential impact of the release; likelihood of the release occurring; potential mitigation factors that could limit the impact; and a qualitative assessment of the relative risk to the surrounding community posed by the release. These evaluation factors are discussed below. Table 6-1 presents the criteria used to determine the relative impact, likelihood and risk for each release scenario identified. Table 6-1 Criteria for Determination of Relative Risk Likelihood Potential Impact High - Impact may extend beyond 300 feet offsite Moderate - Impact may extend up to 300 feet offsite Low - Impact does not extend off the property High - Initiating event can occur more than once per year High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Moderate - Initiating event can occur during facility lifetime Moderate Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk Low - Initiating event is not reasonably possible Negligible Risk Negligible Risk Negligible Risk 6.1.1 POTENTIAL IMPACT A release of a hazardous material can adversely affect an exposed individual in multiple ways, such as by inhalation or other exposure to toxic substances, burn injuries due to thermal radiation, and blast damage Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-2 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event from flying debris and ruptured eardrums. For a toxic chemical, the impact is determined by the toxicity of the chemical, the exposure route by which an individual could be exposed, the location of the release event relative to potentially exposed population, and the exposure amount or concentration. Impact from a fire is determined by the distance to the exposed individual, the amount of protection from the thermal radiation provided by clothing or shielding, and the magnitude and duration of exposure of the thermal radiation on exposed skin. For blast damage, the impact is determined by the overpressure produced by the blast and the distance to which that overpressure drops below a given significant threshold of damage. The thresholds of impact established under the California Accidental Release Prevention Program and RMP regulations are used to define the occurrence of an offsite impact. 6.1.2 LIKELIHOOD Likelihood is a measure of the probability that the extreme release event could occur. It is determined by the severity of the initiating event and the adequacy and efficacy of the engineering and administrative controls in place to prevent the occurrence of the postulated event. For this analysis, only a qualitative (relative) assessment of the likelihood is discussed in terms of higher or lower likelihood with no attempt to quantify the magnitude of the likelihood. For a scenario to be considered as a potential extreme event, the likelihood has to be reasonably probable. A reasonably probable event is an event that has some likelihood of occurring at the facility during the lifetime of the facility. Events that have a likelihood of being reasonably probable include human error, equipment malfunction, and acts of nature such as an earthquake. Each release must occur as a consequence of a relative short chain of events, any one of which if it does not occur, prevents the release from occurring or substantially reduces the impact of the release. Extreme postulated events such as an airplane crashing into the facility at the same time that an earthquake occurs are not reasonably probable and are not considered. 6.1.3 ENGINEERING CONTROLS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Engineering controls and mitigation measures encompass a number of state and federal regulations to enforce chemical safety, protect workers, ensure safe transport of hazardous materials and wastes, and prevent accidental releases of hazardous substances to the environment. In addition, suppliers and other third parties that deliver chemicals or operate on the CPI facility are themselves subject to the same and other regulations. Finally, these regulations and industry standard work practices form a framework under which operating procedures are implemented that ensure safe workplace practices are followed. The facility operates a number of control devices and equipment that are designed to prevent or mitigate the impact of a release. These control devices include an emergency generator to power critical equipment during power outages, two scrubbers to eliminate acid gas releases in the ventilation air from the plating shop, and uninterruptable power supplies (UPS) to ensure continued functioning of critical electronic control equipment during power failures. Another mitigation measure implemented at CPI to reduce risks from accidental releases was a seismic upgrade of the facility. The City of Palo Alto is located is a seismically active area with a history of strong earthquakes including the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (7.8 magnitude) and the 1989 Loma Prieta Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-3 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event earthquake (6.9 magnitude). The Loma Prieta earthquake caused significant damage throughout the Bay Area, including structural damage at CPI but no walls collapsed. There were small releases of toxic materials within the building produced by sloshing of the acid baths in the plating room and breakage of unsecured small containers in the manufacturing facility. None of the releases produced an impact that extended offsite. CPI subsequently reduced its risk from seismic activity by voluntarily seismically upgrading its buildings. These seismic upgrades were noted during the site visit and included securing walls at both the ceiling and floor, diagonal bracing of the building in multiple locations, and strengthening the shear resistance in a large wall separating two phases of building construction. It is assumed that these seismic upgrades will reduce the likelihood of significant damage to the hazardous material storage at CPI in the event of the future occurrence of an earthquake similar to the Loma Prieta earthquake. 6.1.4 RISK The risk posed by the extreme release event is determined by the combination of the potential impact and the likelihood that impact occurs. A high-impact but low-likelihood occurrence can have the same risk as a low-impact but high-likelihood occurrence. It is the relative risk that is of concern. For this analysis, only a qualitative (relative) assessment of the risk is discussed with no attempt to quantify the magnitude of the risk. The qualitative assessment of risk for each scenario is based on professional judgment of the reviewer using the criteria presented in Table 6-1 and the results are presented in Table 6-2 at the end of Section 6.2. 6.2 POTENTIAL EXTREME RELEASE EVENTS Based on the prior discussion, five potential release scenarios were selected as potential extreme release events. The scenarios include: 1. Nitric acid is released into tertiary containment within the acid storage area. The proximate cause of the release is damage due to a seismic event. 2. A spill of concentrated acid waste from the concentrated acid waste holding tank within the acid storage area. The proximate cause of the release is damage due to a seismic event. 3. A spill of plating solution in the plating shop. The proximate cause of the release is damage due to a seismic event. 4. A liquid hydrogen release during unloading from a tube trailer adjacent to the cryogenic or compressed gas storage yard. The proximate cause of the release is human error or mechanical failure of the loading valve or hose on connection. 5. A spill of 67 percent nitric acid solution during an unloading event near the storage tank fill valves. The proximate cause of the release is human error or mechanical failure of the loading valve or hose on connection. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-4 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event A discussion of each scenario and the corresponding evaluation criteria are provided in Table 6-2 at the end of Section 6.2. An interior fire was not considered as a potential extreme event based on the outcome of the hazard review completed in the 2007 RMP. The hazard review found that an interior fire has a limited potential to occur based on the safeguards that are in place such as an automatic water sprinkler system and smoke detectors. Additionally, the generation of excessive water and overflow into an adjacent secondary containment area would be prevented since CPI has the ability to manually turn off the sprinkler system. 6.2.1 NITRIC ACID RELEASE FROM BULK STORAGE AREA The risk of this release scenario is low based on a low potential impact and a moderate likelihood. This release scenario is based on a seismic event and assumes the release of the entire contents of the nitric acid storage tank into secondary containment within the storage area. Due to damage during the seismic event instigating the spill, secondary containment is also damaged and the acid is assumed to overflow the secondary containment and spill into the tertiary containment. Following USEPA guidance, a 90% control on the estimated emission rate is assumed due to the passive control expected of an indoor release. This release could occur once in a lifetime of the facility. However, the nitric acid storage tank is stored below grade against a facility exterior wall with support pillars adjoining the storage area. The tank is protected from collapsing structural debris and is secured with straps and bracing blocks preventing movement. All piping connecting the tanks is braced in multiple locations that prevent excessive motion during seismic events. A tertiary storage sump is at a low point in the floor where any spilled acid that escapes secondary containment would drain under gravity to the tertiary containment. The potential impact of this release is low. A nitric acid worst-case release has already been modeled as part of the 2008 CalARP Program 1 Submittal and it produced a distance to toxic endpoint that does not extend to the property line. Additionally, this modeling incorporates assumptions that are very conservative. 6.2.2 CONCENTRATED ACID WASTE RELEASE FROM TANK The release of concentrated acid waste (CAW) from the associated storage tank is assumed to result from a seismic event and this release scenario has a low impact with a moderate likelihood resulting in an overall low risk. The CAW storage tank is on a low platform with bracing straps and floor blocks constraining movement of the tank in case of an earthquake. This tank withstood the impact of the Loma Prieta earthquake with no significant damage. The tank containment area is at a low point in the floor. Any released CAW would drain under gravity to the containment sump. All piping connecting the tank is supported in multiple locations that prevent excessive motion during seismic events. However, the piping to the tank, assumed to be polyvinyl chloride (PVC), was observed to be sagging that raises questions about the seismic stability of the piping. While holding “concentrated” acid, the CAW tank is unlikely to hold nitric acid waste with a molar concentration greater than 67%; the concentration of the fresh acid due to dilution in the plating shop as Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-5 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event part of the plating process. Also, the concentration of the acid waste in the CAW tank is unlikely to be greater than the fresh acid stored at the facility. Therefore, the emission of the acid vapors would be less than the vapors associated with the concentrated acid. Given the outcome of modeling pertaining to the nitric acid release from the largest tank, the impact of the acid vapors would not extend offsite. 6.2.3 NITRIC ACID RELEASE IN PLATING SHOP FROM SEISMIC EVENT The plating shop has open tanks of cyanide-containing plating solutions and nitric acid plating solutions. The potential for a release of acid and cyanide from an accidental release event in the plating shop was analyzed during the process hazards analysis (PHA) that was part of the RMP. The PHA concluded that there were adequate controls to prevent the release of toxic substances from the plating shop. These controls include a high volume ventilation system to provide fresh air for the plating shop, dual exhaust scrubber systems to neutralize acid gases in the plating shop ventilation exhaust, secondary containment for each pair of plating tanks, tertiary containment in the floor of the plating shop, an uninterruptable power supply (UPS) that maintains functioning of the controller for the safety systems in the plating ship, and an emergency generator that continues to power one of the two scrubber systems during a power outage. The plating shop was in operation during the Loma Prieta earthquake. While there was sloshing in the individual tanks, the established controls in place prevented a release of cyanide-containing or nitric acid gases offsite. There was no significant damage to the plating shop during the Loma Prieta earthquake, and seismic upgrades implemented following the earthquake were observed in the building housing and the plating shop that would further reduce the risk from this scenario. 6.2.4 RELEASE OF CRYOGENIC LIQUID HYDROGEN The Air Liquide Company stores and operates a cryogenic liquid storage yard at the CPI facility. The primary cryogenic liquids stored are liquid hydrogen, liquid nitrogen, and liquid oxygen. Only liquid hydrogen is flammable. Liquid oxygen is not flammable per se but it is a very strong oxidant that makes a fire much more likely to happen if a release does occur and makes a resulting fire more intense. Liquid hydrogen in the cryogenic storage area is stored in two approximately 4,000-pound storage tanks specifically constructed for storage of liquid hydrogen. Each tank is composed of an inner and outer tank with a vacuum separating the two tanks to reduce convective transfer of heat into the inner tank. Being a cryogenic liquid, hydrogen continuously boils off and is released to the atmosphere via pressure relief devices on piping rising above each tank. Given the high combustibility of hydrogen, a hydrogen fire can occasionally occur when released from the release device. A manually operated emergency purge system using gaseous helium is available to extinguish any hydrogen fire that may occur in the relief device. Water cannot be used to quench a hydrogen fire in a cryogenic yard because the water would instantly freeze on components containing liquid hydrogen, potentially freezing all relief devices and valves or hampering their intended operation. Dry powder is the recommended quenching agent, but if the source of hydrogen cannot be shut, the hydrogen fire will reoccur after quenching due to the very high flammability of hydrogen in contact with fire heated material. In a case where the flow of hydrogen cannot be stopped, the recommended action is to protect surrounding equipment and tanks from the flames and thermal radiation of the fire and let the fire burn itself out by consuming all the hydrogen fueling the fire. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-6 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event Significant controls are in place to prevent an accidental release and fire at the cryogenic storage yard. Controls in place include: • Comprehensive, recurring training of Air Liquide operators in the safe handling of liquid hydrogen and operation of the storage facility. • Daily inspections of the cryogenic liquid storage yard performed by CPI employees and annual comprehensive inspection of the liquid hydrogen tanks by Air Liquide operators. • Hydrogen tanks are constructed with dual walls and vacuum-insulated, which greatly reduces the rate of heat transfer into the inner tank. This tank design greatly reduces the potential for a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE), a risk posed by all gases liquefied by pressure. • Transport of liquid hydrogen to the cryogenic liquid storage area occurs in a DOT-approved tube trailer. • The storage tanks were designed to the seismic standard in place at the time of construction. • Construction of the tanks and associated equipment was completed under permits and construction was overseen by the City of Palo Alto Fire Department. Additionally, hydrogen is combustible and potentially explosive over a wide range of concentrations. Upon release, liquid hydrogen will rapidly boil, producing hydrogen gas that is dense because of its cryogenic temperature despite its natural buoyancy. A cloud of hydrogen gas at cryogenic temperature will be white due to the condensation of atmospheric moisture. The cloud itself will be an asphyxiant as a result of the displacement of oxygen even though hydrogen is non-toxic. Once released, the hydrogen gas will warm and quickly become buoyant and rise in the atmosphere. An explosive concentration of hydrogen will typically occur only if there are structures or other impediments to the rapid natural dissipation of the evolving hydrogen gas. 6.2.5 NITRIC ACID DELIVERY RELEASE EVENT Nitric acid is delivered to the CPI facility on a bulk tanker truck. Due to administrative limitations and preventative measures, not more than 45 gallons of nitric acid (67% molar concentration) is offloaded at the facility. However, the maximum volume of nitric acid contained in a tank on the tanker truck is 130 gallons. The delivery occurs in an alleyway on the southeast side of Building 2 and adjacent to the wall that separates CPI from its neighbors to the south. Acid delivery occurs on a monthly basis during daylight hours only. During deliveries, there are three individuals present at all times: delivery driver, CPI delivery observer, and CPI storage tank operator. The CPI observer and the CPI storage tank operator are in radio contact throughout the delivery. Offloading is initiated by connecting the hose to loading ports contained in a locked box. Multiple acids are delivered at the same location so each loading pipe is clearly marked with the type of acid. All loading pipes use the same hose connection. It is possible that through distraction or other human error, an acid could be delivered into the wrong tank if the hose connection is improperly connected to the wrong hose connector. A Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-7 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event misconnection has a low likelihood because there is clear marking on the inlet piping, two individuals perform the loading at the location of the loading valves (driver and CPI observer/helper), a second CPI employee monitors the loading at the storage tank, and a checklist is used during the loading procedure. Notwithstanding the safety procedures in place, loading accidents do occur occasionally across all industries despite the best efforts by management and risk reduction through mechanical and human means. A perverse outcome of the decision by CPI to limit the quantity of nitric acid on the CPI site at any given time is that this decision actually increases by a small amount the likelihood of the occurrence of a nitric acid release during an unloading accident. By limiting the volume delivered in a given event, the number of deliveries required to supply a given level of production increases the overall likelihood of a spill during nitric acid delivery. However, this increase in the likelihood is small because the likelihood of an individual event is much smaller than the number of events in a given period. In other words, a small multiple of a very small number is itself still a very small number. To put this in perspective, CPI has not had a significant release of nitric acid during a delivery in over 50 years of operation. Based on this scenario, a release of nitric acid during offloading is potentially hazardous to the surrounding community since it occurs outdoors at a location adjacent to the facility property line. This accident has the potential to pose a threat to human health since the distance to the toxic endpoint extends beyond the property line. Table 6-2 Evaluation of Potential Extreme Events Potential Release Event Relative Potential Impact to Off-site Individual Relative Likelihood of Occurrence Engineering Controls and Mitigating Measures Relative Risk of Offsite Exposure Nitric acid release from bulk storage area Impact is low: Toxic release of nitric acid (67% solution). Release occurs inside building in the basement. Past air dispersion modeling demonstrates airborne contaminant would not extend offsite. Likelihood is moderate: Release scenario assumes failure of multiple independent safety devices. Release could occur once in a lifetime of the facility. Secondary and tertiary containment. Release is inside building. Electronic and visual tank level indicators. Piping and tanks secured against seismic movement- Regular inspection of acid storage system. Operators are trained. Low Concentrated acid waste release from tank Impact is low: Toxic release of nitric acid (67% solution). Release occurs inside building in the basement. Past air dispersion modeling demonstrates airborne contaminant would not extend offsite. Likelihood is moderate: Release scenario assumes failure of multiple independent safety devices. Release could occur once in a lifetime of the facility. Secondary and tertiary containment. Release is inside building. Electronic and visual tank level indicators. Piping and tanks secured against seismic movement. Regular inspection of acid storage system. Operators are trained. Low Plating shop seismic release event Impact is low: Toxic release of aqueous Likelihood is moderate: Release scenario assumes Dual acid scrubbers on ventilation system. Low Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-8 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event Table 6-2 Evaluation of Potential Extreme Events Potential Release Event Relative Potential Impact to Off-site Individual Relative Likelihood of Occurrence Engineering Controls and Mitigating Measures Relative Risk of Offsite Exposure nitric acid released inside building. Potential impact to surrounding community is low given the controls in place. Potential exposure is primarily a worker exposure. Loma Prieta earthquake did not produce an offsite impact from spilled plating solution in the plating shop. failure of multiple independent safety devices and human errors. Extensive controls are in place. Releases can occur during facility lifetime. Uninterruptable power supply for control panel for plating shop. Secondary containment in floor for spilled acid solutions. Secondary containment segregated for incompatible acid baths. Upon power failure, emergency generator provides power to one scrubber to prevent shutdown of the plating shop ventilation system. Nitric acid delivery release event Impact is high: Toxic release of nitric acid (67% solution) during a spill during delivery. Modeling indicates that impact would occur offsite. Likelihood is moderate: Release scenario assumes failure of multiple independent safety devices. Fill pipes for delivery of sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and hydrochloric acid are in same cabinet with nothing to stop incorrect hose connections except labeling on the pipes. Lack of positive control on attaching delivery hose to correct pipe is a risk factor that increases likelihood of a release. Release could happen once in the facility lifetime. Driver deadman switch to kill pump. CPI observer. Excess flow valve on delivery tank. Written unloading procedure are to be followed during the unloading. Training of both CPI observer and delivery driver. Chocked tires of delivery truck during unloading. Safety procedures in place are essentially equivalent to the prevention program for a Level 3 RMP. Moderate Release of cryogenic liquid hydrogen Impact is high: Hydrogen fire with thermal burns to exposed individuals. Cryogenic burns on contact with cold vapors of liquid hydrogen, liquid nitrogen, liquid argon, or liquid helium. Asphyxiation hazard due to oxygen displacement by cold vapors in low sheltered areas. Thermal impact of hydrogen fire localized due to extreme Likelihood is moderate: Release scenario assumes failure of multiple independent safety devices and human errors. Extensive controls are in place. Mechanical failure or human error during a loading event can occur during the lifetime of the facility. A seismic event during a loading event could Cryogenic storage tanks and equipment are owned, operated, and maintained by Air Liquide. Operated by highly skilled technicians that handle cryogenic liquids daily. Annual 13-page inspection of cryogenic liquid tanks by Air Liquide personnel. Daily walkthrough by CPI operators. Gaseous helium system to extinguish hydrogen fires in Moderate Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-9 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event Table 6-2 Evaluation of Potential Extreme Events Potential Release Event Relative Potential Impact to Off-site Individual Relative Likelihood of Occurrence Engineering Controls and Mitigating Measures Relative Risk of Offsite Exposure buoyancy of hydrogen. Cryogenic and asphyxiation hazard localized to immediate vicinity of storage yard. Jet fire can produce thermal impacts offsite. Fire could cause trees on the property line to catch fire, endangering nearby residences. Limited direct-line thermal impact on residences due to presence of trees on property line. produce a release. pressure relief piping. Fenced facility to prevent inadvertent entry. Signs prohibiting use of water to fight hydrogen fire because of potential to freeze and interfere with pressure relief valve operation. Risk is primarily a worker safety issue given localized nature of impacts. Double-walled cryogenic tanks with vacuum between the inner and outer tanks essentially prevent a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE). Helium purge of vent line to extinguish vent fires. Hydrogen tube trailer is rated for transport on liquid hydrogen on highways where it is subject to traffic accidents. Liquid hydrogen loading area is in the central plant area with no buildings within 40 feet that could cause containment of released hydrogen. Location of a potential hydrogen fire is not in direct line of sight with any surrounding residential structures preventing direct thermal impingement. 6.3 REASONABLE EXTREME RELEASE EVENT Based on the analysis presented in Section 6.2, two release events were identified as reasonable extreme release events. These two events are determined to have a moderate risk and involve the release of nitric acid during delivery and offloading, and a hydrogen fire at the cryogenic liquid storage yard. The release scenarios and air dispersion modeling results are discussed in the following sections. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-10 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event 6.4 AIR DISPERSION MODELING OF NITRIC ACID EXTREME EVENT 6.4.1 NITRIC ACID DELIVERY RELEASE SCENARIO The nitric acid delivery extreme release scenario assumes that the spill occurs at the unloading area occur during daylight hours because CPI has a stated policy that acid deliveries only occur during daylight hours. Consistent with the CalARP/RMP worst case scenario definition, the following additional assumptions are made in the definition of the extreme event. 1. The entire nitric acid delivery of 45 gallons spills in the driveway during the unloading accident. This quantity is a compromise between the volume contained in a tank (130 gallons) on the tanker truck and the amount contained in the loading hose (6 gallons). Release of the entire contents from the tank would not be expected and highly unlikely given the preventative measures implemented during offloading including oversight by multiple operators and operation of automatic shutoff switches. 2. The driveway is relatively smooth and flat, and the spill creates a shallow (1 cm deep) pool from which nitric acid vapor is released due to evaporation. 3. Mechanical devices including any excess flow valves and emergency shut-off switches do not work during offloading of this volume. 4. Human intervention to stop the spill is initially ineffective but eventually stops the spill at 45 gallons. 5. Because there is no berm around the loading area, the contents of the delivery spread across the driveway, forming a liquid pool one (1) cm deep. 6. The release occurs at a time of day and year when air temperature is at or above 90 Fahrenheit (oF), which in Palo Alto occurs less than 10 days per year. This assumption maximizes the computed rate of evaporation. 6.4.2 AIR DISPERSION MODEL AND PARAMETERS To model an evaporating pool, three meteorological factors need to be specified, wind speed, temperature and an atmospheric stability category. Wind speed is not the most important meteorological factor because both the rate of vaporization and downwind dilution increase with wind speed. For this assessment, a typical wind speed of 3 m/sec (7 mph) was applied. The more important meteorological factors in modeling downwind concentrations from an evaporating pool are temperature, which affects the vapor pressure, and the atmospheric stability, which governs the rate of downwind dilution. Following EPA Risk Management Program Guidance, the highest temperature in Palo Alto over the past three years (2010-2012) was determined to be 100oF, occurring in August 2010. The atmospheric stability class ranges from A (highly unstable, sunny) to D (neutral, very windy or cloudy) to F (extremely stable, clear nights). The lower the stability class, the higher the rate of dilution. Nitric acid deliveries are made Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-11 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event during the day, when the atmospheric stability ranges from A to D. Because very hot temperatures are always associated with at least partly sunny conditions, a stability category C is appropriate when modeling releases above about 90oF. Otherwise, the lowest possible rate of dilution occurs under D stability during daylight hours. To determine the combination of temperature and stability that result in the highest possible concentrations of nitric acid downwind of the pool, two cases were simulated: 1. 100oF with stability C 2. 90oF with stability D. For the evaporation rate of the 67% nitric acid pool, it is appropriate to apply a heavy-gas model because its molecular weight (63 grams per mole) is much greater than air (29 grams per mole). The SLAB model, developed by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and used by USEPA in developing the consequence modeling guidance, was applied for this assessment. The model was applied with worst-case meteorological conditions and a surface roughness of 50 centimeters, which is appropriate for this industrial/suburban area. The rate of evaporation of nitric acid was estimated in accordance with Equation D-1 from EPA (2009): 𝑄𝑅=0.284 x 𝑈0.78 𝑀𝑊2/3 x 𝐴 x 𝑉𝑃 82.05 x 𝑇 where: QR = Evaporation rate (pounds per minute) U = Wind speed (meters per second) MW = Molecular weight (given in Exhibits B-1 and B-2, Appendix B, for toxic substances and Exhibits C-2 and C-3, Appendix C, for flammable substances) A = Surface area of pool formed by the entire quantity of the mixture (square feet) (determined as described in Section 3.2.2 of the text) VP = Vapor pressure (mm Hg) T = Temperature of released substances (Kelvin (K); temperature in (oC) The parameters shown in Table 6-3 below were used for this assessment of Case 1 and Case 2 which consider different air temperature and stability class. (D-1) Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-12 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event Table 6-3 Air Dispersion Parameters for Nitric Acid Extreme Event Parameter Case 1 Case 2 QR (lb/min) 0.35 0.27 U (m/sec) 3 3 MW (g/mole) 63 63 A (ft2) 183.36 183.36 VP (mm Hg) 4.56 3.51 Atmospheric Stability C D T (oK) 311.15 305.15 6.4.3 AIR MODELING RESULTS The SLAB model was used to estimate the distance to the California Accidental Release Prevention Program toxic endpoint of nitric acid (10 ppmv). This level was selected by the California Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations as it represents the level below which permanent or escape- impairing health effects would not be expected to occur. For Case 1, the modeled endpoint distance was 21 meters or 69 feet; for Case 2, the distance was 28 meters or 92 feet. As shown in Figure 6-1, the distance to the toxic endpoint extends beyond the property boundary and onto residential properties to the south. This nitric acid modeling scenario is very conservative. As discussed above, it is unlikely that 45 gallons of liquid nitric acid would spill in a loading accident without multiple human errors and mechanical failures. A reduction in the amount spilled would have a commensurate reduction in the distance to the toxic endpoint. There is directional dependence for the impact to occur that is not shown in a simple circular plot of the maximum impact distance. In other words, the impact of a spill would not affect receptors in a neat circle but rather the released vapor would extend offsite in an oval shape. Therefore, only if the wind is blowing at a given location will that location experience the full toxic impact of the release. In this instance, the wind direction would need to be to the south or from the northwest. Review of meteorological data indicates that northwesterly winds occur in Palo Alto 11 percent of the time during daylight hours.3 During the remaining 89 percent of the time, the wind blows in a direction that would not transport the emitted vapors toward the residences to the south. Accordingly, the severity of the impact depicted in Figure 6-1 needs to be used with caution. 3 Western Regional Climate Center, available at www.wrcc.dri.edu. Data for Palo Alto airport, wind statistics generated for hours 0700-1800 for years 2010-2012. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-13 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event 6.5 AIR DISPERSION MODELING OF CRYOGENIC LIQUID HYDROGEN EXTREME EVENT 6.5.1 CRYOGENIC LIQUID HYDROGEN RELEASE SCENARIO The failure of containment of a liquid hydrogen storage tank or the hydrogen tube trailer is judged to be not reasonably foreseeable. A more realistic accident would involve the severing of a pipe connected to the tube trailer in which case the internal orifice diameter of the valve limits the potential emission rate. Based on the specified CGA (Compressed Gas Association) valve for hydrogen service (CGA 350), the maximum orifice would be about 0.5 inches in diameter. The initiating event is not specified but could include a seismic event, human error in the connection of hoses or operation of valves, traffic accident or mechanical failure of connections or hoses. The assumed liquid hydrogen release is defined below: 1. The entire contents of one trailer tube of liquid hydrogen are released. 2. The trailer tubes are assumed to be interconnected, resulting in a constant pressure within the leaking tube, allowing a steady state fire to occur. 3. Due to the high pressure, hydrogen forms a turbulent jet that rapidly mixes with air. 4. Sparks from the initiating event or nearby equipment cause the jet to become ignited, resulting in a flame and associated emission of radiant heat. 5. The initial pressure of the hydrogen in the tube is assumed to be 250 atmospheres and the temperature is assumed to be 115oK. This combination of high pressure and low temperature represents a temperature-pressure combination at which liquid and gaseous hydrogen can coexist (Weisberg, et al., 2008). 6. The PAFD is unable to stop the flow of hydrogen and allows the jet fire to continue until all of the pressurized hydrogen in the tube trailer is released. . 7. The PAFD performs the necessary actions to prevent other cryogenic or compressed gas tanks in the storage yard from being involved in the fire. 8. The scenario involves a jet fire only, since an explosion is not realistic, given the controls in place and the fact that a release of hydrogen that does not ignite, due to its buoyancy, would rapidly rise and mix with air to a concentration below the lower explosive limit in air (4% by volume). 6.5.2 AIR DISPERSION MODELING PARAMETERS AND RESULTS The radiant heat associated with a pressurized hydrogen jet fire was computed using the Gas Research Institute Jet Fire model (Risk and Industrial Safety Consultants, 1996). The model computes the length of the jet fire and the perpendicular distance from the release point at which the RMP endpoint of 5 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m2) would occur. This endpoint corresponds to the threshold for first degree burns4 4 Second and third degree burns involve a greater impact of the skin and require more energy as in kW/m2. Thus, these burns would be experienced closer to the fire and away from the fenceline. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-14 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event for a person’s skin that has been exposed to the thermal radiation for 40 seconds. Modeling indicates that the maximum flame extent would be about 22 meters (72 feet) and the maximum distance to the thermal radiation endpoint would be about 34 meters or 111 feet, as shown in Figure 6-1. Given the location of the hydrogen tanks, the maximum thermal endpoint would not extend beyond the facility property boundary. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 6-15 Air Dispersion Modeling of Extreme Event Source: AECOM 2013 Note: 34 m = 111 feet and 28 m = 92 feet Figure 6-1 Air Modeling Results for Extreme Events Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 7-1 Conclusions and Recommendations 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the assessment approach and findings from the document review, site survey, chemical management program and air dispersion modeling, this section features conclusions and recommendations. These conclusions focus on the potential risk posed to the surrounding community from the acutely hazardous materials stored and processes performed at the plating shop and the cryogenic liquid storage area of the CPI facility. Recommendations are provided to potentially enhance the safe work procedures and reduce this risk. However, these recommendations do not address zoning, land use or code revisions, which the City may elect to consider separately from this technical assessment report. 7.1 CONCLUSIONS • Review of public and available documents revealed that three incidents have occurred at the facility over six years (2006 to 2012) involving acutely hazardous materials. It was reported that these incidents did not produce an airborne contaminant concentration that exceeded the toxic endpoint offsite. • Review of the RMP documents indicates that presently the facility is not required to comply with the California Accidental Release Prevention Program regulations since it has reduced the quantity of acutely hazardous materials below the regulatory threshold limits. However, review of the past RMPs reveals that a different worst-case scenario was selected for the release of nitric acid and potassium cyanide. This selection process was performed by a committee consisting of representatives of CPI, SCDEH and the RMP consultant. In addition, air dispersion modeling was performed using different models and parameters providing a different distance to the toxic endpoint and potential impact to the surrounding community. The selection of the scenarios and the completion of air dispersion modeling were performed in accordance with the California Accidental Release Prevention Program guidelines. • Survey of the Building 2, plating shop and cryogenic liquid storage area indicates that the tanks and equipment are being maintained to prevent a release of hazardous materials. Engineering controls and mitigation measures were observed to be in place to prevent or reduce a release. Preventive maintenance is performed at the cryogenic liquid storage area annually by Air Liquide and it involves a comprehensive inspection. A record of this inspection is maintained by CPI. Additionally, CPI indicated that inspections of the equipment are performed daily at the facility by CPI personnel but records of these inspections were not provided. These records should be maintained to support the Chemical Management Program to be implemented by CPI. • As part of the preventive maintenance program, inspections of the facility are performed on a regular basis by the PAFD. The frequency of these inspections should coincide with the implementation of CPI’s Chemical Management Program. • CPI has performed voluntary seismic upgrades to Building 2. Additionally, AECOM inquired about the construction of the storage tanks and equipment contained in the building, plating shop and cryogenic liquid storage area and was informed by CPI that this construction was performed in accordance with the building and fire code requirements. However, permits were not provided or reviewed during the survey. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 7-2 Conclusions and Recommendations • AECOM performed air dispersion modeling using the worst-case scenarios in CPI’s 2008 RMP and it confirmed that the airborne nitric acid and potassium cyanide are not expected to travel offsite and exceed the toxic endpoints. • A Chemical Management Program (CMP) plan was developed by CPI in 2013. A comprehensive preventive maintenance program is implemented for the equipment at the cryogenic liquid storage area by Air Liquide. A management of change is implemented at the facility to prevent any chemical releases. However, the CMP indicated that a robust preventive maintenance program needs to be developed for other operations and equipment. Regular inspections need to be performed and documented. Additionally, written operating procedures and a matrix-based training program need to be developed and implemented. Emergency action planning should incorporate a potential release involving the cryogenic liquid hydrogen tanks and this modification should be performed with the PAFD. • Air dispersion modeling of a plausible extreme event was performed. Two scenarios were selected as an extreme event: release of nitric acid during offloading operation and release of cryogenic liquid hydrogen. The hypothetical scenario involving a release of nitric acid indicates that it has the potential to affect the offsite community. However, the release of liquid hydrogen and the associated fire would be contained onsite. 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS To prevent or reduce the potential of an emission of airborne acutely hazardous material handled or used at the CPI facility, the following recommendations are provided: • CPI should develop an action plan for these recommendations and oversight should be provided by the PAFD and/or SCDEH. • CPI should provide evidence that deficiencies and improvements recommended by the PAFD have been made. • CPI should explain the omission of oxygen from the list of special management chemicals. • CPI should correct the sagging piping connected to the concentrated acid waste tank. • CPI should develop and implement a robust CMP at the CPI facility to handle, use and dispose of the special management chemicals. Timelines should be developed to complete and implement components of the CMP and oversight of this process should be provided by the PAFD. Some of these items require that operating procedures be developed and preventive maintenance of equipment be performed by trained personnel on a regular schedule. Records of the preventive maintenance performed on equipment should be recorded and maintained. • CPI personnel should be adequately trained and records of this training should be maintained. Additionally, emergency action planning should incorporate a potential release involving the cryogenic liquid hydrogen tanks and this modification should be undertaken with the PAFD. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 7-3 Conclusions and Recommendations • To avoid and minimize the offsite risks from an extreme event, CPI should implement proper prevention measures to limit a release of nitric acid such as installing locking caps for piping contained in the loading rack. • CPI needs to submit an annual update of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the PAFD. This update should include any changes to the business activities and operations, chemical inventory and contingency action plan. In addition, the PAFD should perform an annual inspection of the facility to confirm the information provided in the HMBP update and assure that the quantities of acutely hazardous materials are below the RMP threshold planning quantities. Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials AECOM City of Palo Alto 8-1 References 8 REFERENCES This list of references contains the main documents cited within this report and is not meant to be exhaustive. California Code of Regulations, 2004. California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal-ARP) Program. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5. June 28, 2004. Communications and Power Industries, Inc., 2004. Risk Management Plan, Communications and Power Industries, Inc., 811 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303. January 2004. Communications and Power Industries, Inc., 2007. Risk Management Plan, Communications and Power Industries, Inc., 811 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303. June 2007. Communications and Power Industries, Inc., 2008. CalARP Program 1 Submittal, Communications and Power Industries, Inc., 811 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, CA 94301. November 2008. Communications and Power Industries, Inc., 2013. Chemical Management Program, Communications and Power Industries, Inc., 811 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Communications and Power Industries, Inc., 2013. Emergency and Contingency Plan. May 2013. Risk and Industrial Safety Consultants, 1996. LFGRISK User’s Manual, Gas Research Institute, Chicago. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA 550-B-99-009. March 2009. Weisberg, A., et.al., 2008. High Pressure, Low Temperature Hydrogen Tube Trailers, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Project Id # PD22, Department of Energy, June 11, 2008. AIR DISPERSION MODELING OF ALTERNATE EXTREME EVENT September 2, 2014 Addendum to Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials (AECOM Technical Services, Inc., January 2014) 1 INTRODUCTION This document contains the air dispersion modeling results for an alternate extreme event associated with the extremely hazardous substance storage and operations at the Communications & Power Industries, LLC (CPI) facility in Palo Alto, California. Air dispersion modeling of the alternate extreme event was undertaken in response to a request at a public meeting convened by the City of Palo Alto on February 20, 2014 for the Barron Park neighborhood residents. The intent of the meeting was to present and discuss the results of the Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials report completed by AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM), dated January 2014. This additional air dispersion modeling supplements the risk assessment report. 2 ALTERNATE EXTREME SCENARIO 2.1 Development of Alternate Extreme Scenario During the public meeting, residents requested that AECOM and City of Palo Alto representatives assess a more extreme scenario than evaluated in the January 2014 Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials report. This scenario accounts for the impacts of a potential release of nitric acid and potassium cyanide at the CPI facility during a major earthquake. The residents acknowledged that the scenarios evaluated in the Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials report were more likely to occur, but suggested that a major earthquake is also anticipated within the next 30 years and its potential consequences should be presented. As a result of a major seismic occurrence at the CPI facility, the following related events were assumed: x Significant damage to Building 2 and the associated plating shop; x Quantities of potassium cyanide and nitric acid released during the earthquake include the aqueous solutions contained in the plating shop; x Release and mixing of potassium cyanide solution and nitric acid solution occurs in the in the plating shop due to the rupture and failure of the containment barriers; and x Scrubbers are damaged rendering them inoperative. Uniform mixing of nitric acid (HNO3) and potassium cyanide (KCN) generates hydrogen cyanide (HCN) gas (Equation 1). Although the assumption that the nitric acid and potassium cyanide would mix completely is highly unrealistic, it forms the basis for an extreme upper limit emission rate. HNO3 + KCN = HCN + KNO3 (Equation 1) Air dispersion modeling was used to determine the distance the resulting hydrogen cyanide gas would migrate and extend offsite above a concentration that exceeds the toxic endpoint. The toxic endpoint is defined as the air concentration of an acutely hazardous substance above Attachment B Air Dispersion Modeling of Alternate Extreme Event September 2, 2014 Page | 2 which there may be a serious acute health effect following a single short-term exposure. For hydrogen cyanide, the toxic endpoint is 10 parts per million by volume 2.2 Scenario Parameters and Assumptions To complete this air dispersion modeling, AECOM developed assumptions for key model parameters (Table 1). A rationale for each parameter is provided below. Table 1 – Alternate Extreme Scenario Parameters Parameter Value Release Area 2,704 square feet Quantity of Nitric Acid 528.2 pounds Quantity of Potassium Cyanide 73.1 pounds Release Duration 30 minutes It was assumed that hydrogen cyanide gas would be released from the plating shop, which has a footprint of 52 feet by 52 feet, or 2,704 square feet (Figure 1). Release and mixing of the potassium cyanide solution and the nitric acid solution is assumed to occur in the plating shop due to the rupture and failure of the containment barriers. Additionally, this worst-case scenario assumes that the scrubbers are damaged rendering them inoperative. The amount of nitric acid and potassium cyanide assumed to mix and generate hydrogen cyanide gas was calculated using the amounts and concentrations identified in Table 2 below. These quantities were derived from CPI’s March 28, 2012 letter to the County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health requesting deregistration from the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (Cal-ARP). Containers of nitric acid and potassium cyanide stored in storage cabinets or not located in the plating shop were not included in this alternate extreme event. Table 1 indicates that the plating shop can contain up to 528.2 pounds of nitric acid (pure equivalent) and 73.1 pounds of potassium cyanide. If the amount of chemicals in the plating shop are assumed to mix and completely react, 30 pounds of hydrogen cyanide gas would be emitted into the atmosphere.1 The unreacted nitric acid that remains would form a 21% nitric acid solution. An aqueous solution of nitric acid containing a concentration of less than 40% has a vapor pressure close to zero, and, consequently, virtually no nitric acid vapor would evolve and be emitted into the atmosphere. 1 The amount of hydrogen cyanide gas generated is based on Equation 1, presented earlier in Section 2.1, and the 509 moles of potassium cyanide is the limiting reagent. Based on this chemical equation and the amount of potassium cyanide released at the facility, 509 moles of hydrogen cyanide would be generated, which is equivalent to 30 pounds. Air Dispersion Modeling of Alternate Extreme Event September 2, 2014 Page | 3 Figure 1 Location of the Plating Shop Area and Release of Hydrogen Cyanide Gas Table 2 Quantities and Concentrations Derived from CPI’s 2012 Cal-ARP Deregistration Letter Nitric Acid Usage at CPI Description of Nitric Acid Solution Total Volume of Process Tank (gallons) Weight of Nitric Acid in Process Tank (%) Weight of Nitric Acid in Process Tank (lbs) Copper Bright Dip 50 22.6 155.6 Descale 51 2.2 6.0 SS, M1-9 26.3 26.2 67.5 Moly Clean 27.6 5.9 19.3 Nickel Bright Dip 5.6 28.0 15.2 Kovar Bright Dip 26.9 15.5 52.3 HC4 Dip 26.9 65.3 203.1 Mandrel Etch 5.6 14.8 9.2 Total: 528.2 Air Dispersion Modeling of Alternate Extreme Event September 2, 2014 Page | 4 Table 2 Quantities and Concentrations Derived from CPI’s 2012 Cal-ARP Deregistration Letter (cont.) Potassium Cyanide Usage at CPI Description of Potassium Cyanide Solution Total Volume of Process Tank (gallons) Weight of Potassium Cyanide in Process Tank (%) Weight of Potassium Cyanide in Process Tank (lbs) Technistrip 9030 1.5 lbs 70 1 Copper Strike 46.4 2 7 Silver Plate 40.3 13 45 Silvabrite II SE Replenisher Brightener 40.3 2 0.097 Copper Strike 51.9 2 8 Copper Plate 51.9 2 10 KCN Cleaner 5 6 2 Total: 73.1 The release of hydrogen cyanide gas is expected to occur over a 30-minute period, and this duration assumes that the aqueous solutions mix at a speed of 3.5 feet per minute within the plating shop. This release time of 30 minutes corresponds to an exposure period at an airborne concentration of 10 parts per million (ppm) of hydrogen cyanide, which is the toxic endpoint defined by the U.S. EPA and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program. It also appears reasonable (compared to the worst-case assumption of 10 minutes in the U.S. EPA guidance), given the many indeterminate variables that affect the release duration for this extreme scenario involving a major earthquake. Some of these variables include: x The physical mechanisms causing containment systems to breach and allowing chemicals to mix; x The rate that mixing of the chemicals occurs, which is influenced by, among other factors, the extent and depth of the pool; and x The rate that the gaseous chemicals releases to the air, which is influenced by, among other factors, the extent that building debris might cover the pool. Exposure of the general population to hydrogen cyanide gas above 10 ppm for a 30-minute period could result in irreversible or other serious, long lasting adverse health effects. CPI has completed some seismic retrofit of Building 2, and the worst-case conditions assumed in this analysis are not based on a specific evaluation of the building’s construction or the retrofit’s ability to prevent significant damage during a major earthquake. If effective, the seismic retrofit work may lessen the amount of the chemicals that are released and mix, alter the release rate, and, thus, the distance to the toxic endpoint. 3 AIR DISPERSION MODEL AND PARAMETERS To model the release of hydrogen cyanide gas, meteorological parameters needed to be defined and an appropriate air dispersion model selected. The hydrogen cyanide gas was assumed to disperse downwind Air Dispersion Modeling of Alternate Extreme Event September 2, 2014 Page | 5 during worst-case meteorological conditions as defined in the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis2 (USEPA 2009). These default meteorological parameters include an atmospheric stability of F with a wind speed of 1.5 meters per second. Table 3 presents these meteorological parameters. Also, an important parameter in air dispersion modeling is surface roughness or topography. This parameter generally ranges from about 3 centimeters (cm) for open rural areas to 100 cm for urban areas. A larger surface roughness value results in a smaller plume migration. The surface roughness of 50 cm was selected for this modeling since this value is appropriate for an industrial/suburban area. To select the proper air dispersion model, the vapor density of hydrogen cyanide was considered. Hydrogen cyanide has a molecular weight of 27 grams per mole and, thus, is less dense than air. Consequently, a passive dispersion model applicable to neutrally buoyant releases is most appropriate for examining the dispersion of hydrogen cyanide. AFTOX, developed by the U.S. Air Force, is an accidental release Gaussian dispersion model provided by U.S. EPA that is able to address continuous to instantaneous liquid or gas elevated or surface releases from point or area sources. Note that for passive dispersion models, the ambient temperature does not affect the air dispersion. Table 3 – Air Dispersion Modeling Parameters Parameter Value Atmospheric stability F (stable nighttime conditions) Wind speed 1.5 meter per second Surface roughness 50 centimeters 4 AIR MODELING RESULTS The release of 30 pounds of hydrogen cyanide would occur over 30 minutes and be emitted into the atmosphere. Using the toxic endpoint of 10 ppm for hydrogen cyanide3, the atmospheric release is expected to travel 616 feet from the plating shop at an airborne concentration that exceeds the toxic endpoint. The air dispersion modeling result is displayed on Figure 2. This depiction of a simple circular “impact zone” from the hydrogen cyanide release is hypothetical. The impact of a spill would not affect receptors in a neat circle but rather the released vapor would extend offsite in an oval shape. The distance to reach the toxic endpoint would still be 616 feet but the impact zone and the number of receptors within that zone would be smaller. This alternate impact zone is illustrated in Figure 3 and it depicts a more realistic outcome of the air dispersion modeling. Meterorological parameters used to derive this alternate impact zone include the wind speed and wind direction, and these parameters are contained in the wind rose (Figure 4). 2 USEPA, 2009, Risk Management Program Guidance for Offsite Consequence Analysis (EPA 550-B-99-009) 3 California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal-ARP) Program, California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5 June 28, 2004. Air Dispersion Modeling of Alternate Extreme Event September 2, 2014 Page | 6 The wind rose for Palo Alto (Figure 4) indicates that the winds are predominantly from the north to northwest (as seen by the length of the “bars” in that direction) and travel across the site to the south and southeast. Additionally, the wind rose indicates that wind speeds are generally greater than 3.6 meters per second rather than the 1.5 meters per second assumed for the modeling. A wind speed in excess of 1.5 meters per second will result in a smaller downwind airborne concentration due to wind dilution and the corresponding distance to the toxic endpoint would be less than depicted in the Figure 2. Note the wind rose depicts the wind speed to be greater than 3.6 meters per second (the blue and red portions that comprise the majority of the “bars” indicate that the wind speed is between 3.6 meters per second and 8.8 meters per second for a majority of the time). Figure 2 Air Dispersion Modeling Result for the Alternate Extreme Scenario Air Dispersion Modeling of Alternate Extreme Event September 2, 2014 Page | 7 Figure 3 Air Dispersion Modeling Result for the Alternate Extreme Scenario Containing Alternate Impact Zone (red oval shape) Air Dispersion Modeling of Alternate Extreme Event September 2, 2014 Page | 8 Figure 4 Wind Rose for Palo Alto (Source: CARB) AECOM appreciates this opportunity to assist the City of Palo Alto with this air dispersion modeling of the alternate extreme event. Roman S. Worobel, CIH Rodney Jeung 1 FAQ CPI Risk Assessment This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) summarizes and responds to questions that were asked prior to, during, or immediately after the Barron Park Community Meeting on February 20, 2014 where AECOM’s January 2014 Risk Assessment for Storing and Handling Hazardous Materials report was discussed. The questions have been organized by topic, and chronologically, beginning with the questions received before the neighborhood meeting. AECOM Responses Consultant Credentials A1. Does the consultant (any of the consultants actually) have any previous or current professional or personal connections or contacts with any of the personnel at CPI or with any of CPI’s consultants? (Art Liberman) AECOM does not have professional or personal connections with CPI personnel or consultants. This was one of the requirements set by the City of Palo Alto in contracting with AECOM. A2. What is consultant’s previous experience in doing air dispersion analysis? Has he ever benchmarked an analysis with an actual measurement of the level and time duration of air concentrations of the material? (Art Liberman) AECOM is a leader in the environmental industry in performing air dispersion modeling and air quality assessments. The AECOM staff personnel who completed this qualitative risk assessment and associated air dispersion modeling have experience in performing air quality measurements and assessing the impact of the air concentrations to the surrounding community. The measurements have been performed using air sampling methods approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Health-based levels developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were used to assess the air concentrations and the impact to the surrounding community. Document Review / Site Visit A3. Why did the consultant not persist in obtaining documents of tank construction, seismic upgrades, inspection reports, chemical air filtration systems and employee safety training records following the CPI site visit? (Art Liberman) AECOM reviewed documents that were requested, available and provided by CPI. It is important to understand that the purpose of the site visit was not to perform an inspection or compliance audit, where such further investigations are necessary. The intent of the document review and site visit was to understand the CPI operations and determine which facilities and chemicals should be evaluated for the health risk assessment. Attachment C 2 A4. Toxic gas sensors – did consultant look at the operational record and testing program of the toxic gas sensors and validate their operation or merely observe their presence? (Art Liberman) AECOM did not review the operation of the toxic gas sensors, although their presence was noted during the site visit. AECOM did not verify that the equipment operated properly by testing or reviewing records nor was verifying proper operation of the equipment necessarily the intent of the site visit. However, the operation of the toxic gas sensors was discussed with CPI representatives during the site survey. Operational records or testing program procedures were not provided by CPI to AECOM for review, and were not requested. Please refer to response A3 about the intent of the document review and site visit. A5. Did the consultant meet and talk with plating shop and other chemical handling personnel privately without CPI managers present? What is the consultant’s view of the safety culture at CPI? In other words, how it has permeated the workforce the safety group’s adherence to regulatory guidelines? The absence of employee training records is a worrying concern. (Art Liberman) AECOM did not meet with the employees individually since the site visit was not an audit of the facility or the chemical prevention program. In general managers were present during our inspection. Based on a targeted review of selected documents and a brief site visit, it would not be appropriate to assess the company’s safety culture. However, it is noted that a health and safety program exists at the facility, which we have recommended be further developed and implemented to include safety inspections, procedures, training and emergency response related to the handling and use of chemicals within the facility. This implementation would coincide with the development and implementation of the chemical management program. A6. Did the consultant examine storage locations outside of building #2 where hazardous chemicals and hazardous waste are stored? Did the consultant review manifests of CPI’s hazardous waste shipments? Is CPI subject to the Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989, also known as SB 14? And if so, did the consultant review CPI’s Hazardous Waste Management Performance Reports, and Summary Progress Reports that demonstrate CPI’s compliance? (Art Liberman The focus of the AECOM site visit was on the plating shop and the cryogenic liquid storage area. These locations represent the primary locations where hazardous materials are stored and handled. AECOM did not conduct an audit at the facility; rather, the focus was on Building 2 and the exterior cryogenic storage area to assess the quantities of hazardous materials stored at the facility, proximity to the residents, and the recognition in prior risk management studies that these facilities posed potential risks. Thus, the site visit concentrated on a survey of this building and storage area. Additionally, the document review and site visit did not include a review of hazardous waste manifests or shipment documents or other environmental regulations such as SB14. A7. Almost two years ago, the Santa Clara County DEH certified that CPI reduced their inventories of nitric acid and potassium cyanide to no longer be subject to Title 19 regulations. Did the consultant verify that CPI’s inventory was below the Title 19 thresholds during their site visit or just rely on CPI documents or statements by CPI 3 personnel? What was the nitric acid and cyanide inventory during the site visit? (Art Liberman) AECOM did not verify CPI’s current inventory or calculate all storage quantities present of nitric acid and potassium cyanide since (1) that was not the purpose of the site visit, and (2) the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health had already determined that CPI is not subject to the CalARP regulations (Title 19). The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health de-registered CPI from having to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 19 regulations since the quantity of nitric acid and potassium cyanide did not exceed the planning quantity limits. Any change in the quantity of a hazardous material stored at the facility would need to be listed in the update of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which is updated annually and maintained by the Palo Alto Fire Department. A8. Who has the authority to confirm that CPI remains below the Title 19 requirements? Presently, CPI submits a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the Fire Department annually. This plan lists all the chemicals and their associated quantities at the facility. Review of this HMBP would confirm if the amount of extremely hazardous substances present at the facility is greater than the limits imposed by Title 19. A9. Is there an independent agency to check of CPI compliance with the Hazardous Materials Business Plan? The Palo Alto Fire Department inspects CPI each year and is responsible for inspecting the facilities for compliance with the HMBP. A10. Sagging pipe from CAW tank (Section 3.4) – what would be the consequences if it ruptured? How long has this been this way and why didn’t PAFD notice this during previous inspection(s)? What caused it to sag - overheating, old and damaged materials, unstable bracing? PAFD report (Tetra Tech). Is the consultant aware that a sagging pipe was also noted in the PAFD investigation report following the 2006 nitric acid fume release? Did the consultant review the PAFD mandated outside investigation report (Tetra Tech) of that incident? - It is not mentioned in this report. (Art Liberman) Why does the pipe sag? If the sagging piping ruptured, the liquid would collect in the basement of Building 2 where there is ample space for it to collect. AECOM detected the sagging pipe during its site visit; how long this piping has been in the present state or how it occurred is unknown, but, as recommended in the report, it should be corrected. AECOM did not review any report corresponding to this potential safety hazard. AECOM did not see any report about why the pipe had been sagging or what caused the pipe to sag. AECOM noted the sagging pipe in their report and recommended correction. See also responses F10 and F11. A11. CPI routinely pipes acids up from the ground floor up to the 2nd floor plating shop and pipes the spent acids and cyanide solutions back down to the basement - are there other piping systems that could cause toxic releases if they broke? Are there secondary containment systems if there are failures in these lines? (Art Liberman) To address the question properly would require a site audit. As noted previously, AECOM did not perform an audit of the facility but completed a one-day site survey. AECOM did not 4 inspect all piping but did observe adequate secondary containment structures within the basement of Building 2 containing the bulk acid storage tanks, and in the plating shop and plating vats on the second floor of Building 2 to collect releases of chemicals. A12. Has the total amount of hazardous material on the site been reduced, or just the amount stored on site? In other words, have they increased the number of deliveries but continued to use the same amount? The total quantity of hazardous materials used in the process is smaller. This total quantity refers to the amount present at the facility at any one time. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health is responsible for determining that the hazardous materials on site remain below the RMP levels. If the quantities of hazardous materials were proposed to return to levels that would require an RMP (i.e., such that the amounts at CPI again exceeded the Title 19 thresholds), the plating shop would be out of conformance with the City’s current zoning regulations that require such facilities be at least 300 feet from a residential area. A13. It appears that one way to comply with the criteria in the law is to reduce the amount of such materials on site. There are tanker trucks parked on El Camino, what is in those trucks? Is CPI storing material there? See response C8. A14. What was the difference between the amounts of toxic materials on site between 2004 and 2007 to have the results of the impact off site change so dramatically? The difference is primarily associated with the release scenarios selected and evaluated. The 2007 RMP took into consideration the prevention remediation factors, e.g., a leak in the basement would flow and be contained in an underground sump. Therefore, there was less surface area of the liquid exposed and less evaporation of the vapors into the air. The combination of these factors resulted in an air concentration that would not exceed the health- based level (toxic endpoint) for nitric acid or potassium cyanide offsite. A comparison of the 2004 and 2007 RMPs is provided in the technical report, in Section 2.3.4, Analysis of RMPs (see especially Table 2-1). A15. Did you find any flaws in the 2004 RMP that would invalidate it? The 2004 RMP prepared by CPI met the requirements of the USEPA and CalARP regulations and was approved by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, the regulatory agency with oversight for its validity and accuracy. A16. Why did the consultant not evaluate the documentation etc? The purpose of the qualitative risk assessment and document review was to provide the City and the public with an understanding of the operations and engineering controls at CPI, not to audit or inspect their operations. The evaluation and verifying of CPI’s safety documentation are primarily the responsibility of the Palo Alto Fire Department and the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health. 5 Site Survey A17. Are the hydrogen tanks separated and secured so that they cannot fall over? When they fall they can act like a bomb. My experience with these tanks is that people mishandling them can result in explosion. Need to solve the mystery of how many tanks are present and how they are secured. The cryogenic storage area, where the hydrogen tanks are sited, was built in compliance with the requirements of the Palo Alto Fire and Building Departments. The safety and building permits issued by these departments required a review of the siting, design, and construction of the tanks. An annual comprehensive inspection of this area is performed by a qualified contractor to verify the safe operation of these tanks and systems. A record of this inspection is maintained by CPI and includes findings and any needed corrective actions. A18. The tables provided indicate a surface area of exposed chemicals so small it’s about equivalent to 2/3 of a cup. Is this so? The analysis took into account that a spill from the primary storage tank would be contained within the inner and exterior wall of the primary and secondary tanks. The width between the two tanks is small and, thus, the surface area of the contained hazardous material would be small. This condition is explained in the last paragraph on page 5-3 of the technical report. A19. And if the containment management system does not work? There are a number of safety measures and back-up systems. If the hazardous material in the primary container is accidentally released, the material would flow into a secondary containment. If that then failed, the hazardous material would then drain into a tertiary containment (sump). Adequacy of Engineering Controls A20. Much of the risk reduction to neighbors is dependent on the continuous operation of the chemical scrubbing system. CPI retrofitted the scrubbers with a natural gas backup generator. In an earthquake, what are the chances that the scrubbers will continue to operate (given they have no onsite reserve of fuel like propane), and what is the risk to the neighborhood of CPI operating without scrubbers? (Art Liberman) It is AECOM’s understanding that the scrubbers act as filters to limit the emission of chemical vapors into the environment. These scrubbers are part of a broader chemical risk prevention program that includes proper storage of chemicals, bracing of tanks, secondary containment, and training of employees. Therefore, the scrubbers are only one preventive measure among several that limits an emission of chemical vapors. Control of a potential airborne emission should include all the prevention measures. A21. Risk reduction to neighbors is due to scrubbers. How are they fueled and what is risk if they stop functioning? Etc. See response A20. 6 A22. Did you model what would happen if the scrubbers were not working: AECOM’s air dispersion modeling of the extreme event focused on two most probable scenarios: release of nitric acid during an offloading operation and hydrogen gas fire. The release of nitric acid from an offloading operation was selected as an extreme event over a release within the plating shop since it was rated to have a higher impact on the surrounding community. The risk posed to the community from a release of nitric acid during an offloading operation would be greater than the risk from scrubbers not working. Release Scenario Assumptions A23. Some of the containers of acids and cyanide solutions are heated in the plating shop. Why is the idea of a fire in a plating shop area completely discounted when CPI (its precursor Varian) actually had a fire in the plating shop in 1985 from an overheated bath that released copious fumes of hydrochloric acid and caused an evacuation of the area? (Art Liberman) Fire in the plating shop was not discounted. A fire in the plating shop was addressed in a prior RMP as part of the hazard review in completing the offsite consequence analysis. Based on the safeguards in place, this type of incident did not qualify as an alternate or most probable release scenario based on the control measures in place, i.e. automatic sprinkler system. In addition, the plating process is heated presently using hot water and not electricity, reducing the potential of fire. Also see response F12. A24. Why did the consultant minimize the likelihood of a nitric acid delivery accident so emphatically (section 6.2.5) when a delivery accident with a release of 80 gallons of hydrochloric acid actually occurred in 2008? The consultant's writing is contradicted by the evidence. (Art Liberman) The hazardous spill report (March 2008) indicates that the release of hydrochloric acid involved 20 gallons onto the asphalt and 60 gallons was contained in a concrete area near the storage tank. The storage tank is located in the basement of Building 2. As such, the spill amount with potential to affect the neighbors was 20 gallons, not the 80 gallons suggested by this comment. Notably, the exterior release was contained and removed. In addition, AECOM has not dismissed the release of nitric acid during a delivery; rather, this scenario was identified and evaluated as one of the two extreme events discussed in Section 6 of the technical assessment report. A25. Did the consultant look at the accident report for the toxic fume release in 2006 in which the acid was heated and fumes released because of water present in the Concentrated Acid Waste (CAW) tank when the acid reached the tank and try to recreate that scenario? This is an example of how a higher vapor pressure could be created - and nitric acid vapors did reach off site though the quantities were not measured. On page 6-5 of the report, the idea of a release from the CAW tank is quickly dismissed - even though such a release actually happened. (Art Liberman) This accident report was reviewed. AECOM evaluated this scenario as one of the potential extreme events in Section 6 of the technical assessment report. The risk to the surrounding 7 community was evaluated to be low based on the results of the past air dispersion modeling and control measures in place, i.e. release occurs in the basement of Building 2, electronic and visual tank level indicators are operating and tank is secured. Additionally, CPI’s Chemical Management Program includes safety measures associated with the storage and operation of hazardous materials. These safety measures should be fully developed, implemented and documented to limit the risk in the event of such a release. A26. Since the incidents and scenarios mentioned in the questions above actually occurred at CPI, while the consultant deems that such incidents are unlikely and not worthy of concern and essentially dismissed them out of hand, doesn't this indicate that the consultant has not done an adequate job in determining and assessing the 'Thresholds of Acceptable Level of Risk' with the hazardous materials at CPI, which is one of the main charges from the Council? (Art Liberman) An adequate assessment of the risk posed to the surrounding community by hazardous materials stored and used at the CPI facility has been completed. As explained at the neighborhood meeting, selection of the extreme events needed to take into account the likelihood that certain scenarios would occur. This likelihood must acknowledge engineering controls and mitigation measures that are in place now and would serve to reduce releases or the effects of such releases. The technical report does not intend to dismiss past accidents, but the selection of extreme events reflects current conditions at the facilities as informed by the site visit and the review of documents. Table 6-2 provides much of this information and is intended to help the reader understand the relative risk of exposure. The 'Thresholds of Acceptable Level of Risk’ is a methodological concept or framework for considering multiple factors that influence risk. A27. For the dispersion analysis, the consultant used the size of pool of spilled nitric acid of 1.84 sq ft. (Section 5.2.2) Was that measured, estimated, experimentally validated or just copied from CPI’s RMP? (Art Liberman) The air dispersion modeling assessment used the volume presented in the 2008 CalARP Program I Submittal. The goal of this assessment was to validate the distance that airborne nitric acid would travel to meet the toxic endpoint or the health-based threshold. A28. The City Manager report (June 04, 2012, ID #2817) specified that the study should “include an analysis of the effects of inadvertent combination of all chemicals on site, not just single chemicals or those currently identified as hazardous.” Why wasn’t this done? (Art Liberman) The scope of work pertaining to the technical assessment required an assessment of the risks associated with the use, storage, handling and disposal of hazardous materials at the CPI site. These risks were to be evaluated using a variety of methodologies to identify worst case offsite scenarios and the associated risk posed to the public and sensitive populations proximate to CPI. AECOM evaluated six potential scenarios occurring at the CPI using selection criteria that incorporated the potential impact, likelihood of occurrence and potential risk. Of these six potential scenarios, two scenarios were selected based on the degree of risk posed to the surrounding community. Air dispersion modeling was performed for each scenario and the distance the air contaminant concentration would travel and pose a health-effect to the offsite 8 community was calculated. This information is presented in detail in Section 6 of the technical assessment report. A29. Uncomfortable with likelihood analysis, it is qualitative and not scientific. What is the basis for judgment? Were judgments based on other situations, which were quantified? AECOM notes that the approach is qualitative and is a basis for selecting an extreme event; it is not a predictive tool to define the risk of an extreme event. The selection criterion used in Section 6 of the technical assessment is based on assessing the relative risk from a release. Relative risk is evaluated using the outcome of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence. This analysis applies the same methodology approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a part of a Risk Management Plan to perform a hazard review and offsite consequence analysis and assess the impact to an offsite community. A30. It seems a lot of things were not looked at based on the scope of the study. You don’t have the documentation for data to project risk. Not look at why the pipe continues to fail. Looks as if you didn’t have the scope to look at what the neighbors were looking for. Why did we wait 2 years to get this report? In performing the qualitative risk assessment, AECOM reviewed past inspection reports and documentation including Risk Management Plans, completed a site survey and performed air dispersion modeling to validate the outcome presented in the 2008 Risk Management Plan. Additionally, AECOM evaluated six potential scenarios occurring at the CPI facility using selection criteria that incorporated the potential impact, likelihood of occurrence and potential risk. Of these six potential scenarios, two scenarios were selected based on the degree of risk posed to the surrounding community. Air dispersion modeling was performed for each scenario and the distance the air contaminant concentration would travel and pose a health-effect to the offsite community was calculated. This information is presented in detail in Section 6 of the technical assessment report Extreme Events A31. I don’t understand the chart? I do not like the mix of potential impact with frequency. The definition of the likelihood and impact are presented in Section 6 of the technical assessment report. The combination of the impact and likelihood of occurrence assesses the relative risk. This process applies the same methodology approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in performing a hazard review and offsite consequence analysis as part of a Risk Management Plan and assesses the impact to an offsite community. A32. High, moderate or low, where does a significant earthquake fall? 9 A major earthquake is predicted to occur in the Bay Area within the next 30 years. As such, this event would likely occur in our lifetime and, according to the chart (Table 6-1), would be rated as having a “moderate” likelihood of occurring. A33. Study shows that there is a pipe out side (connection), in an earthquake would it empty into the alley? The exterior piping is connected to the tank located in the basement of Building 2. Hazardous material could be released from the piping into the alley during an offloading operation and in the event of an earthquake. A34. In the first RMP (2004) there was an impact of 1,330 feet from a spill from the largest tank. Was that spill studied? In the 2004 RMP, a worst-case scenario was evaluated for the release of nitric acid and potassium cyanide. The worst-case scenario for nitric acid involved a release of 250 gallons from the largest storage tank into a sump located in the basement of Building 2. The worst-case scenario for potassium cyanide involved a spill of a 110-pound storage drum in the plating shop with 25 pounds coming into contact with acids generating hydrogen cyanide. The airborne concentration of each contaminant was expected to travel 1,056 feet from the facility and meet the toxic endpoint or health-based threshold. This information is presented in detail in Section 2.3 of the technical assessment report. Note that the County has certified that these amounts of potassium cyanide and nitric acid are no longer stored at CPI. A35. Do the scrubbers depend upon power? Would the toxic end point shift if the scrubbers were not working? The distance to the toxic endpoint if there was a release and the scrubbers were not working is unknown, since this scenario was not modeled. However, it is highly unlikely that a release of nitric acid from the bulk storage tank would result in an airborne concentration that exceeds the toxic endpoint at an offsite location. This assessment is based on the location of the storage tank in the basement of Building 2 and the control measures in place. Additionally, air dispersion modeling performed as part of the 2008 Risk Management Plan indicates that the airborne concentration of nitric acid does not exceed the toxic endpoint offsite. A36. Why minimize the likelihood of a nitric acid delivery accident when such an accident occurred in 2008? This question was previously addressed. AECOM did not minimize the likelihood of a nitric acid delivery accident. In actuality, this scenario was selected as one of the extreme events and evaluated to assess the impact on the surrounding community. See Section 6 of the Risk Assessment report. A37. Every 10 years there’s a problem at the plant, despite engineering practices, why? There are multiple causes of accidents, including human errors. A chemical management program includes monitoring and verification by the Palo Alto Fire Department. Implementation of a complete chemical management program would reduce the probability of these potential occurrences. A38. How do you address an inadvertent combination of chemicals resulting in a problem? 10 The scope of work pertaining to the technical assessment required an assessment of the risks associated with the use, storage, handling and disposal of hazardous materials at the CPI site. These risks were to be evaluated using a variety of methodologies to identify worst case offsite scenarios and the associated risk posed to the public and sensitive populations proximate to CPI. AECOM evaluated six potential scenarios occurring at CPI using selection criteria that incorporated the potential impact, likelihood of occurrence and potential risk. Of these six potential scenarios, two scenarios were selected based on the degree of risk posed to the surrounding community. Air dispersion modeling was performed for each scenario and the distance the air contaminant concentration would migrate and pose a health-effect to the offsite community was calculated. This information is presented in detail in Section 6 of the technical assessment report. A39. What about the issue of hydrogen cyanide? Why not consider the two together in the containment area? Are changes needed in the basement? The potassium cyanide is in a small container primarily stored on the second floor of Building 2 inside metal cabinets with secondary containment and the bulk acids are stored in tanks in the basement. Additionally, the plating shop is located on the second floor of Building 2 and it contains secondary containment for hazardous materials to limit or prevent mixing of incompatible solutions. A40. I am a professional in this area, is it not true that if you have two chemicals in the same area you must look at the possibility of combination? As mentioned in the response to Question A39, the plating shop contains secondary containments to prevent mixing of incompatible solutions. Additionally, potassium cyanide is stored in a sealed container on the second floor of Building 2 and bulk acids are stored in tanks in the basement. Both of these prevention measures would limit or prevent the generation of hydrogen cyanide gas. Palo Alto Fire Department Responses CPI Operations and Reporting F1. Were RMPs always prepared/reviewed/approved before CPI brought increased quantities of hazardous materials on site that triggered the need for the report? (Chris & Jennifer Steck) Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department is the agency administering the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program and its Risk Management Plan (RMP) component. The Fire Department is unaware of past reporting procedures between the County and CPI. Currently CPI is below the threshold quantities of the CalARP program. Any future increase of chemical above the CalARP thresholds needs an RMP submission to Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department prior to the increase. 11 F2. Is CPI subject to the Toxic Gas Ordinance (TGO)? Does CPI have an in-house emergency response team (ERT) capable of responding to any on-site emergency? What types of training do they have? Is it current? (Chris & Jennifer Steck) CPI is not subject to the Toxic Gas Ordinance (TGO) and is not required to have an in-house Emergency Response Team (ERT) as required by the TGO. CPI has an Emergency and Contingency Plan as a required component of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) and has an ERT trained to respond to on-site emergencies. F3. When was the last full facility inspection conducted by PAFD for compliance with Uniform Fire Code (UFC) issues? Have any violations that were found all been corrected at this time? (Chris & Jennifer Steck) The most recent CPI facility inspection conducted by PAFD was on 1/21/2014 to 1/24/2014. A response from CPI to certify compliance was submitted before the reinspection date so that the PAFD could confirm the corrections on 3/23/2014. PAFD confirmed that CPI had complied with all issues identified in the initial inspection relating to hazardous materials and/or processes. F4. When did CPI last certify their entire business plan for hazardous materials storage? Where is it available for review? (Chris & Jennifer Steck) CPI submitted a complete Hazardous Materials Business Plan and Inventory through the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) on 2/28/2014. CPI is required to update this Plan annually. The PAFD has a copy of this plan and it is available to the public. F5. The consultant mentions that CPI needs to provide an annual update of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan to the PAFD. Isn't the absence of such plan a violation of City of Palo Alto ordinances? (Art Liberman) Under the California Health and Safety Code (Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Section 25503) CPI is required to certify annually that its Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) filed with the City is current. If there are changes to the HMBP, then a revised submission is required. A new HMBP is required every third year even if there are no changes. F6. Is CPI using natural gas to power their emergency back-up generator? (Chris & Jennifer Steck) CPI has diesel emergency back-up generators. The scrubber exhaust in the plating shop is on back-up power from an emergency natural gas generator. F7. Is CPI subject to tiered permitting requirements? (Chris & Jennifer Steck) CPI is under the Tiered Permitting system for its treatment and storage of hazardous waste. This program is administered by Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department F8. Who has the authority to confirm that CPI remains below the Title 19 requirements? Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department is the administering agency for the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program. Its inspector conducted an inspection on 4/12/2012 to verify that the cyanides and nitric acids at CPI are below the CalARP 12 threshold quantities. During its annual inspection, the Palo Alto Fire Department also verifies the quantities of chemicals reported under the Hazardous Materials Management Plan. A review would be triggered if quantities on site were found to exceed threshold quantities. F9. Is there an independent agency to check on CPI compliance with the Hazardous Materials Business Plan? The Palo Alto Fire Department is the administering agency of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan and inspects CPI annually. F10. The sagging pipe, if it broke where would the material go and why does it sag? If the sagging pipe observed by AECOM 9j 2013 broke the release would be into the basement storage area and the material would be contained there. The PAFD confirmed that CPI corrected the AECOM observed sagging pipe before the PAFD’s site inspection in March 2014. The pipe was repaired by replacing the schedule 40 to thicker schedule 80 PCV, and installing additional hangers. (See also F11) F11. Pipe sag was noted in 2006 and in 2012, has it recurred? The pipes that sagged in 2005 and 2013 were different pipes. The pipe sagging in 2005 was a pipe from the plating shop to a waste acid holding tanks with secondary containment to contain leaks. The pipe observed in 2013 conveyed warm non-metal containing rinse water from the plate shop to the waste water treatment system for pH adjustment. This pipe also has secondary containment to contain any leaks in the event of failure. Both pipes were upgraded form 40 to thicker schedule 80 PCV and additional hangers were installed. F12. Plating involves heating solutions, why is the idea of fire discounted when CPI actually had a fire in the plating shop in 1985? The fire in 1985 was caused by an electric thermostat failure allowing the tank to overheat. CPI now uses hot water and not electricity to heat the tanks thus eliminating the potential for the tank to overheat. AECOM also notes they did not discount a fire in the plating shop. A fire in the plating shop was addressed in a prior RMP. AECOM reached the conclusion that it was not a scenario to select since the proper controls were in place (e.g. a fire protection sprinkler system). F13. How does CPI deal with emergencies? What notification process is used? What happens if the events happen on the weekend or at night, are the people properly trained? Want to be sure that they are. How serious is the reporting issue? AECOM noted that CPI relies on the PAFD in the event of emergencies. There is an on site alarm system for notification. PAFD added that CPI has an in-house response team trained to handle emergencies. CPI is required to notify the Fire Department (911 call) for any incident that is a threat to human health, the environment and property. F14. On February 10 I called 911, there was a huge cloud over Bill’s house, I never heard back from the Fire Department or City. Why? A liquid hydrogen delivery truck was off loading a delivery. Occasionally the delivery system will release a small quantity of pressurized hydrogen gas from the system as a part of the delivery 13 process. Hydrogen gas is colorless and odorless. Room temperature hydrogen gas is highly buoyant and if not confined will rise at several meters per second. It diffuses rapidly in air expanding 845 times in volume. In the process the cold gas will condense water vapor from the air creating a cold fog. What the residents were seeing was water vapor. F15. Why does the Fire Department not have unannounced inspections at CPI? With announced inspections CPI can get ready and mitigate regulatory impact. In my experience, if they were not prepared and PAFD sees Class 1 violations, the plating operation is shut down. The PAFD noted that generally fire inspections are announced at large businesses in the city. This is because of the significant amount of time involved in the inspection and coordination of facility personnel required for the inspections. Because of their size and the complexity of their operations it would be very difficult for these businesses to hide problems in the time between scheduling and performing the inspection. The Fire Department did conduct an unannounced inspection at CPI in 2012 to verify the quantity of nitric acid in the plating tanks. CPI has agreed to an additional annual unannounced inspection of Building #2. F16. When did the Palo Alto Fire Department last inspect CPI? The last PAFD inspection was on January 21-24, 2014. It was a three-day inspection. There were some corrections identified that CPI was required and did respond to before the scheduled re-inspection by the PAFD. On March 23, 20-14 the PAFD returned to confirm that the requested corrections identified in the initial inspection had been made. All issues related to hazardous materials or processing had been addressed. Art Liberman has a copy of the inspection report. Copies are available to others who wish to receive them. (See also response F3). F17. Who enforces SB 14 regarding hazardous waste? SB 14 is the Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989 that requires generators to examine their current hazardous waste generating processes for hazardous waste minimization opportunities and to develop plans for the implementation of workable alternatives. Facilities generating more than 12,000 kilograms of hazardous waste annually or more than 12 kilograms of extremely hazardous waste annually are required to prepare a Source Reduction Evaluation Review and Plan, a Hazardous Waste Management Performance Report and a Summary Progress Report. These reports are submitted to the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), which audits specific industries to compile and publish the most effective source reduction techniques for these industries. The Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department is the agency in charge of enforcing hazardous waste regulations in Palo Alto, while the Fire Department enforces the safe storage of hazardous materials under the fire code and the Hazardous Materials Management Plan regulations. 14 F18. Is the scrubber required for safety? If a major event shut down several systems including the scrubber would it result in a hazard to the neighbors? Do we need to worry? Exhaust ventilation is required within the plating shop to capture hazardous emissions that could pose a risk to health and property. Scrubbers for the exhaust are required to ensure that the exhaust is not a danger to the community and workers. If the exhaust ventilation and scrubber system is not working, then the plating shop cannot operate. Planning and Community Environment Responses Next Steps to be taken by the City C1. What's the plan for addressing all of the questions that are being submitted to you via e-mail? (Chris Steck) This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document has been prepared by the Consultant, Planning and Fire Departments to respond to questions received. This document will be presented to the Council and made available on the City’s website in advance of the City Council meeting. C2. This report does not address any of the land use planning and zoning associated aspects of the Council motion that was passed in 4/13/12. Following that meeting, the City Manager prepared and presented a report to the Council in June 2012 (ID #2817) that included several bullet points (page 3 of that report).  "Evaluate zoning approaches used by other cities or counties to avoid or mitigate impacts of hazardous materials use, storage and handling on adjacent or nearby residential uses.  As appropriate, recommend amendments to the Palo Alto Fire and Zoning Codes standards based on the identified definitions and thresholds of hazardous materials use, storage and handling that may be appropriate proximate to residential uses. After Council review, the Consultant may be asked to assist City staff in drafting such regulatory revisions for further public review and discussion.  Present a report summarizing technical assessment and recommendations as they may affect amortization options so that they may be considered in the review of any potential action with respect to amortization." Why was none of this work included in the report or is this part of the study still underway and not yet complete? (Art Liberman) Planning staff is still gathering information from other cities regarding similar zoning issues and will be developing recommendations based on that information, the Risk Assessment, public input, input from the consultants, and other factors. As noted at the community meeting, Planning staff will present the risk assessment to Council along with information and analysis of the zoning issues, and will likely request direction to 15 proceed with zoning ordinance amendments that would make the use of certain chemicals or certain land uses nonconforming when in close proximity to residential uses or residential zoning districts. Public input on the staff’s analysis will be solicited before and during the Council meeting. Also, if the Council directs the staff to prepare zoning ordinance for their consideration, the ordinance itself will be subject to formal public hearings at the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council prior to adoption. C3. City Council studied this matter in 2012, this is 2014; the problem has persisted since 2006. Very concerned with delaying action taken at the City Council. The City had a significant challenge finding a consultant to take on this study. The study is not the last word; the study will add information that can be used to move on to the next phase that will be the recommendation of zoning changes. C4. I understand from Council that this risk assessment does not change the amortization clock. Does the amortization period start at the time of the amortization study? CPI has not made a substantial investment in the facility since the time of the amortization study, so if the Council elects to make uses like CPI nonconforming and adopts an amortization schedule, the clock does not have to be “reset”. However, CPI presented their own study that concluded that a longer amortization period is needed. If the Council opts to move forward with amortization, all evidence must be evaluated, weighed and appropriately considered when making a decision. C5. What will the City now do with the CPI Risk Assessment Study? The technical report will be forwarded to the City Council for their review in May, along with the questions and answers (FAQ), results of any supplemental modeling prepared in response to the neighbors’ input, and information and analysis related to the zoning issues. C6. Based on what we’ve heard tonight I’m not convinced that the technical study is adequate. It does not cover specific concerns, does not include very real scenarios, presents risk-based assumptions and does not address the really probable catastrophe, a major earthquake with a large release. Residents want to model an event not based on frequency but on likelihood. A very large earthquake will happen. Also when you get to amortization the City will not have enough information to go forward. Can the City work with the residents to prepare and test a couple of scenarios, particularly a large catastrophe with a toxic release? City staff will be meeting with neighborhood representatives and our technical consultants to discuss preparation of an additional scenario. Preparing another scenario may require additional time before the Council can review of the CPI Risk Assessment and regulatory framework. C7. Will the change in zoning, mean that CPI will have more regulation and if the County is more involved will there be more oversight of such things as alarms? Any change to the City’s zoning ordinance would not affect County regulations or oversight. In general, new zoning requirements apply prospectively. Existing uses that do not comply with new zoning requirements are described as “legal non-conforming uses.” Generally, these uses 16 may remain, though may not intensify. There are several exceptions to this general rule, including where a legislative body adopts a schedule to “amortize” a non-conforming use. Amortization means establishing an appropriate period of time for the property owner to recoup his or her investment in the property, after which the use must come into compliance with current zoning. C8. There is a tanker truck parked on El Camino Real, is it there to provide deliveries to CPI? The Fire Department investigated this truck after the neighborhood meeting and determined it was a cement truck with no CPI association. C9. In 2003 the City allowed CPI to consolidate their San Carlos plating shop into the Palo Alto site. The plating shop as it is currently operating is compliant with the Municipal Code. However, the City is undertaking this technical study, and will consider zoning code modifications to address concerns about this type of facility being located near residential areas. Prepared: March/April 2014 04/23/2012 Special Meeting April 23, 2012 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:00 P.M. Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh (left the meeting @ 10:00 PM) Absent: CLOSED SESSION 1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray) Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) Local 521 Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) The City Council reconvened from the closed session at 7:21 P.M. and Mayor Yeh announced no reportable action. The City Council convened as the Public Improvement Corporation at 7:22 p.m. and reconvened to the City Council meeting at 7:23 p.m. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2.Proclamation for May as National Preservation Month. Council Member Holman read the Proclamation into the record. Margaret Feuer, past Board Member of the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage invited the Council to the programs the Palo Alto Stanford Heritage planned for May. The Heritage held walking tours as a way to educate the public about the historic character of the neighborhoods in Palo Alto. At the 17th Attachment D 5 04/23/2012 2013 and Setting a Time and Place for a Public Hearing on May 7, at 7:00 PM or Thereafter, in the City Council Chambers. 5. Approval of Amendment No. Five to Agreement with the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County, Inc. to Provide a Contribution in the Amount of $200,000 from the Residential Housing Fund for Fiscal Year 2011/12 to be Expended Through Fiscal Year 2015/16. 6. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2011. 7. Approval of Amendment Eight to the Agreement With the County of Santa Clara for Abatement of Weeds to Change the Method for Setting Abatement Fees and Costs. 8. Approval of Contract C12144913 with CompuCom Systems Inc. in the Amount of $210,617.28 per year for Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (MEA). 9. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5152 in the amount of $410,000 and Approval of Agreement with the County of Santa Clara for the City's Fair-Share Contribution for the Oregon Expressway Improvement Project. 10. Approval of City Council Priorities Quarterly Report Update. MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item No. 3: 8-0 Klein not participating MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item No. 4: 8-0 Shepherd not participating MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item No. 8: 8-0 Espinosa not participating MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Nos. 5-7, 9-10: 9-0 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS None ACTION ITEMS 11. Discussion of Zoning Amortization Study and Options Related to Communications and Power Industries (CPI) at 811 Hansen Way. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment reported the purpose of the meeting was to allow input from residents and Communications and Power Industries (CPI), and to solicit comments and 6 04/23/2012 direction from the Council. CPI moved to the site in 2005, bringing their facility from San Carlos. Residents had raised concerns about the level of hazardous materials at the site. There had been three recorded incidents of violations that had heightened residents' concerns. In 2007, Staff worked with residents, the Council, and CPI to draft amendments to the Zoning Code. Amendments denied any facility having hazardous materials above thresholds established in Title XIX the ability to expand or construct new facilities without Council approval unless they were at least 300 feet from residents. There were also provisions regarding the amount of existing hazardous materials that could be modified. Generally these types of facilities would not be permissible elsewhere. As a result of ongoing concerns, Staff initiated a zoning amortization study to require compliance over an appropriate period of time to recoup investments. The City commissioned that study from CB Richard Ellis, who delivered a report to the City approximately one year ago. Staff noted that in the interim, CPI had reduced the quantities of the two hazardous materials that exceeded the thresholds of Title XIX, and was in compliance with the zoning regulations regarding the 300-foot setback that would otherwise be required. Nevertheless, the amortization study reviewed the issue of the plating shop facility and what would be a reasonable time period to allow that facility to be either relocated on the site or placed elsewhere. The recommended time period was approximately 20 years from the date CPI moved to the site, which would be approximately 2026. Staff had outlined three potential options on this project. Staff was not asking the Council to decide which option to pursue, but wanted to outline some possibilities. One was to pursue zoning that would require further setbacks to address not specifically Title XIX facilities, but plating shops or similar facilities with these particularly hazardous materials, and follow up with an amortization process. A second option was to have a further study of hazardous material quantities and the risks thereof to determine what kind of zoning change was appropriate and what kind of setback from residential areas was appropriate given different types of materials. The third option was to work with the residents and CPI to determine what further gains could be achieved in continuing to reduce the use of hazardous materials on the site, and lower those levels. Staff asked for direction from the Council. Staff believed they needed to engage some technical assistance to help understand the implications and risks for the nearby residential neighborhood. Staff requested the Council direct Staff to retain third-party, independent assistance to review offsite hazards and appropriate levels of hazardous materials in proximity to residential areas. Staff could use this information relative to further deliberations about zoning options or further design and process improvements at either CPI or other industries. Bob Fickett, President and Chief Operating Officer of CPI, had been employed with CPI at the Palo Alto campus since 1982. Five years ago, the City Council directed the City Manager to work with CPI to reduce the 7 04/23/2012 quantities of two Title XIX chemicals below threshold levels. CPI supported the recommendation and worked for five years to reduce the amount of these chemicals. As of March 2012, all chemicals were below Title XIX thresholds. In 1986 CPI remodeled the plate shop and reduced the amount of chemicals. Prior to 1986, the amount of chemicals was much higher. The move from San Carlos to Palo Alto necessitated a short-term, temporary increase in the amount of chemicals on-site, because of the increase in parts being processed. It also provided a catalyst for CPI to upgrade the plate shop. CPI employed Chemical Solutions to design, develop and renovate the plate shop to state of the art. Chemical Solutions successfully improved the efficiency of the plate shop, while bringing all safety systems up to best of class. Since the completion of renovations, CPI had continually decreased the amount of chemicals onsite to the point of being below threshold. For nitric acid, the same timeline applied. CPI placed great importance on safety. In regards to storage, incompatible materials were segregated. Containment included secondary and tertiary containment as well as berms. Also, approximately 300 different alarm and sensor points were onsite. There was also security around the clock, monitoring the alarm systems, and personnel were very well trained on the proper notification protocol. For transportation, chemicals were delivered by trained experts, and each delivery was overseen by a trained CPI person. Delivery size was limited, and transportation was performed in double containment. CPI separated cyanides and acids by very large berms. CPI had reduced the bath sizes, and all baths were covered when not in use. There was a wastewater treatment center, exhaust scrubber system, emergency generator, and gas monitors and alarms. Plate shop employees were long tenured, with an average of greater than 15 years handling chemicals at CPI, and they were very well trained. In the unlikely event of a worst-case scenario or a hazardous materials waste, modeling for the worst-case scenario had been performed, and it indicated no offsite consequences. Modeling used conservative assumptions, assumed the release occurred outside, even though chemicals were contained inside. It assumed there were no walls or ceilings to attenuate it. Analysis was performed by a third-party expert, Risk Management Professionals, who was recommended to CPI as being the most knowledgeable and experienced in the field. The County brought in its own outside technical experts for review of the 2008 Risk Management Plan. This expert did agree with the findings. The 2008 Plan calculated toxic endpoints of less than 33 feet from the point of origin. In addition, since the 2008 Plan, CPI had greatly reduced the amount of chemicals; nitric acid by 70 percent and potassium cyanide by over 80 percent. In the worst-case scenario, neither potassium cyanide nor nitric acid reached the property line. The odor from a nitric acid spill would travel much further than the toxic endpoint and would reach the neighborhood, but was not harmful. In 2006 there was a release of nitric acid, which did cause an odor to reach the neighborhood. There was no danger, to the neighbors. CPI cleared the room, took measurements in the room where the release occurred, and 8 04/23/2012 found that the peak measurements did not exceed the physical exposure limit (PEL). Employees could have worked in that room even if it stayed at its peak level for up to an eight-hour period without any risk of health consequences. While it was not harmful even at the source, it was enough to cause an odor to reach the neighborhood. Since CPI's measurements were below the PEL, it did not notify the Fire Department. In hindsight, CPI should have contacted the Fire Department. Since then, CPI had updated its process, and would notify the Fire Department regardless of the size of the release. CPI had been onsite since 1953. It was a very large, long-term employer in Palo Alto, with more than 660 employees. The average tenure of the employee base was greater than 20 years. The high vacuum requirements of devices required that the surfaces of all parts, assemblies and final product be incredibly clean. This required that assembly be performed in a clean room. It also required that parts, assemblies and final product go through the cleaning process. The plate shop was integral to CPI's business. The division manufactured between 3,500 and 4,500 products per month, made up of approximately 500,000 piece parts. These parts found their way through the plate shop many times during the manufacturing cycle. Without an in-house plate shop, CPI would have trucks flowing through the business nonstop, greatly increasing costs, cycle time and the risk of contamination. This would render CPI non-competitive. In summary, CPI had been onsite for approximately 60 years. During that time, the noteworthy incident was when the plate shop in 2006 released a nitric acid odor that carried into the neighborhood. This odor was not and could not have been dangerous. CPI was designed to keep the worst-case scenario onsite. Regardless, it concerned the neighbors, and CPI took their concerns to heart. Since that time, CPI had increased efforts, training, investment, and focus with the objectives of getting below Title XIX thresholds while continuing to increase all safety aspects of the business. Over the last five years, CPI had radically reduced the amount of both potassium cyanide and nitric acid. Now CPI had no chemicals above the threshold. CPI had increased the number of alarms to the point there were almost 300 alarm and sensor points onsite, from the plate shop to the storage area to the roof to the fence line. CPI had invested in an emergency generator to backup the alarms and the chemical scrubber. CPI had increased the level of training of employees along with anyone else who came into contact with the chemicals, including delivery personnel. CPI had improved its communications protocol. While the neighbors and community were extremely important to CPI, its employees and their well being were equally important. He was proud of CPI's safety record, and proud CPI was a vital supplier to the medical industry and the U.S. Government. While the factory was virtually irreplaceable, the workforce could never be duplicated, which was why CPI had every intention of staying in place for the foreseeable future. Lastly, he wanted to address some recent misstatements in some of the City's materials, which implied CPI had been a non-conforming organization until recently. CPI's operations had always 9 04/23/2012 conformed to the Palo Alto zoning rules. Given the facts, any attempt by the City to target CPI would be unjustified, unenforceable, and unlawful. There is no threat to the health or safety of the community. Attempting to eliminate CPI based upon fears not supported by evidence would be discriminating, and CPI would oppose such an attempt. If the City did attempt to eliminate CPI and adopt an amortization period, the only reasonable amortization period would be at least 40 years as determined in the report from Marshall and Stevens that was provided to the Council. As a longstanding member of the Palo Alto community, they preferred not to fight against the City. Therefore, CPI urged the City Council to adopt some form of the third option in the Staff Report, for CPI to continue to work with the City and the neighbors to further reduce the risk and promote the health and safety of the employees and the neighbors. Steve Maher, Risk Management Professionals, indicated his firm had been in business since 1995. He had been in the industry, performing a variety of risk management actions since the early 1980s. Risk Management Professionals were considered specialists in risk-based applications. Risk Management Professionals had given technology in various annual California Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) conferences that fire departments attended. Twice the company had been asked to share its approaches for dealing with potentially hazardous issues, especially related to cyanide. Under key services, California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) program had been referred to as Title XIX. From a CalARP perspective, experts considered severe events with some limiting assumptions that made the analyses extreme and worse than reality. Some of the assumptions were everything being outdoors and no active safety measures being applied. Experts applied those to potassium cyanide solution spills, solid particle release, and nitric acid spills to ensure the community was protected. Even with all these boundary conditions, these spills would not go any further than 33 feet. CalARP had some significant limiting approaches from a regulatory perspective. CPI asked Risk Management Professionals to look beyond that, at occurrences such as extreme earthquakes and people deliberately mixing chemicals. Risk Management Professionals found that, even with those extreme events, CPI had exceeded all industry practices. CPI's actions in terms of creating an inherently safer design was consistent with the industry in terms of implementing these best safety practices. Samir Tuma recognized much work had been accomplished. However, the work was not over and the situation remained untenable. There remained a substantial quantity of toxic chemicals behind the neighborhood. There was just under the threshold of 100 pounds of potassium cyanide and just under the threshold of 1,000 pounds of nitric acid. CPI had done a good job of meeting the technical requirements, but getting under those thresholds did not make it safe. CPI produced a significant amount of hazardous by- 10 04/23/2012 product, some of which had been found in Matadero Creek. CPI admitted in their documents there was a possibility of a release, and residents agreed with that. The dispute was the consequences. There was little or no warning of a release. The notion of time to shelter in-place or to learn of a release was minimal. The consequences of one of these incidents were dependent on the assumptions and the model. In the past, two consultants hired by CPI produced different results. The notion that residents' safety should be the subject of an assumption one way or another was problematic. The time to respond was impossibly short. A plating shop with potassium cyanide and nitric acid did not belong next to a neighborhood. There had been some discussion about which occurred first, the neighborhood or CPI. Residents had pictures and maps that showed the history of the area, and the neighborhood was first. Art Liberman was a retired physicist, and had some expertise in this area as director of a division of a major corporation that made vacuum electronic devices. In 2005 CPI consolidated operations and rebuilt the plating shop in Palo Alto. The rebuilding occurred when risks of chemical releases were not well understood and the health consequences of acute and chronic exposure to hazardous chemicals were seldom discussed. That changed when the Bhopal disaster occurred worldwide, and locally when it was realized there was a widespread contamination of groundwater under Barron Park from leaking chlorinated solvents in the Research Park. If this incompatibility was not what the Council wanted for its land-use policy, then it needed to update its zoning regulations. CPI's actions to improve safety were not taken by CPI's own initiative. They all required prodding, pressure and activism by residents, persistence by regulators and government officials, and policy decisions by political leaders. Everyone understood and appreciated CPI's principle objective to be profitable. However, there was a conflict between making profits for investors and spending money on investments in the health and safety of residents who did not work onsite. On the other hand, the health and safety of residents must be the top priority for the Council. In 2006, the consequence of an accident analyzed by CPI's expert extended one-fifth of a mile. In 2007 and later, the consequences computed by a different consultant did not extend beyond CPI's site boundaries. The difference was the result of different assumptions, methodologies and consultants. The Stanford National Accelerator Laboratory (SLAC) had performed risk analysis for cyanide, for example, using similar accident scenarios and found distances which were several hundred feet. The CalARP regulations about worst-case scenarios did not require site owners to consider the consequences of chemical reactions between the hazardous materials. Each material was considered separately. Residents' nightmare scenario was a mixing of acids with cyanide. This was possible, because cyanide and acids were in the same room at CPI. Such an accident would release hydrogen cyanide. The concentration after an accident of hydrogen cyanide inside a two-story home located 100 feet from the location of the 11 04/23/2012 accident could be at a lethal level. The actions of CPI's consultant were consistent with the regulations. However, he did not consider what might be an accident with the worst possible outcome for residents. In 1985, there was a fire in a plating shop; hydrochloric acid fumes were released, and hundreds of people were affected and evacuated along El Camino Real. In 2008, a spill occurred in an alleyway between the back of CPI and homes. He did not know how frequently tanker trucks filled with acid drove along this narrow alleyway, but it made residents nervous. In case of a toxic fume release during working hours, CPI employees were notified and had an in- house emergency response team, but residents were on their own especially during evenings and weekends. The consultant indicated many chemicals had an odor, but that was not dangerous. That was not true for hydrogen cyanide. CPI was just below Title XIX thresholds, but the amounts of extremely hazardous materials were still significant. Accidents with offsite consequences were possible. CPI did generate a significant amount of hazardous wastes. In a City that prided itself on ecological and environmental consciousness, the Council ought to be aware that a considerable amount of these toxic materials were produced as a result of the plating shop operation. Mr. Tuma urged the Council to adopt the first option in the Staff report, initiate a zone change to prohibit plating shops within a reasonable distance of residential neighborhoods, and commence amortization of the plating operations. A loophole in current zoning regulations allowed the building of the same facility in the City of Palo Alto. The business would be required to provide notice, but it could build a similar facility. Residents would not be happy with a 14-year amortization of the site. Given the circumstances of the situation and in the interest of concluding the issue, he personally could accept that. He hoped CPI would see that continuing to operate next to a community was not a decision that made sense, and hoped they would move the operation out of the neighborhood. Council Member Shepherd asked residents what the distance was for full disclosure when selling a home, and what the experience was for selling homes in that neighborhood. Mr. Tuma had been told disclosure was one-half mile. John Anderson, a realtor with Coldwell Banker, indicated homes tended to remain on the market longer, even though the market was hot, and values tended to be slightly lower than the rest of the area. Council Member Shepherd asked what was being disclosed to potential purchasers. 12 04/23/2012 Mr. Anderson stated disclosures varied by company. Coldwell Banker had a Barron Park disclosure that stated there was an issue. Council Member Shepherd stated potential purchasers were made aware of the problem. Mr. Anderson reported not all companies disclosed that. Council Member Shepherd referenced an email from residents regarding alarms sounding and not knowing who to call for information. She inquired about the procedure for residents to gain information when alarms sounded. Mr. Fickett said there was a number at CPI for residents to call. Paul Denapi, Manager of Facilities Department, CPI, indicated CPI tested its fire protection system periodically, and neighbors could hear that alarm. CPI had provided a telephone number for the security office, which was manned 24 hours a day. When testing alarms, CPI did not notify anyone. If there was a release, CPI would contact the Fire Department immediately. Council Member Shepherd asked if there was any direct communication between CPI and residents. Mr. Denapi reported CPI's responsibility was to contact the Fire Department. The Fire Department had a communication system to notify employees and residents of Palo Alto. Council Member Shepherd asked if conservative scenarios for an accident included the mixing of toxins in one area. Mr. Mahar reported Risk Management Professionals considered extreme cases of mixing all possible potassium cyanide onsite in the plating room with excess quantities of nitric acid under various conditions, to assure themselves that there was not a risk to the community without any necessity for emergency response. Council Member Shepherd asked for the meaning of without the necessity for any emergency response. Mr. Mahar stated the distance at a threshold that could hurt somebody did not go offsite. Council Member Shepherd inquired if that meant that there would be an alarm onsite, but the neighbors would not know there was an emergency inside the plant. 13 04/23/2012 Mr. Mahar said in cases of no communication to the community or no action taken by the community, there were no harmful quantities that could hurt anyone. Council Member Shepherd noted Risk Management Professionals' presentation indicated tests were performed as though accidents occurred outdoors. She asked if that was the case when mixing toxins. Mr. Mahar reported Title XIX requirements called for analysis of releases outdoors. Separate from that requirement, Risk Management Professionals also considered extreme scenarios of earthquakes, loss of power, and someone deliberately mixing chemicals. Risk Management Professionals also considered use of the scrubber system, which removed 98 percent of material in the plating room, loss of power when the scrubbers might not work, and use of emergency vents when power was restored. Council Member Shepherd asked if Risk Management Professionals tested for mixing toxins in an outside environment and the distance that would travel to the neighbors. Mr. Mahar answered no. Mr. Fickett indicated Risk Management Professionals did test where these accidents could happen. They considered the possibility of potassium cyanide being added to the acid tank, and tested for the distance the release would travel from the acid tank. That release remained onsite in tests. Vice Mayor Scharff referred to residents' comments concerning hydrogen cyanide. He asked if Risk Management Professionals' tests indicated the release from someone mixing two chemicals did not leave the site. Mr. Mahar replied correct. In the scenario of mixing materials, the chemicals could mix in the plating room only. The plating room itself was not outside, and there was a scrubber system that removed 98.5 percent of the release. The scrubber system operated continuously and had emergency power. It was fair to take credit for that. If the scrubber system did not operate, there was no place for the hydrogen cyanide to go; it stayed inside the room. It would gradually seep out, but by that time first responders and emergency responders would be onsite to re-establish operation of the scrubber system, or possibly seal leakage points. Earthquake events could cause an interruption in power, but the emergency power system was seismically qualified to ensure the scrubber system functioned properly. Vice Mayor Scharff asked Mr. Mahar to address the scenario in which an earthquake occurred, the building collapsed, and chemicals mixed in the open air. 14 04/23/2012 Mr. Mahar indicated credit was allowed for efforts to strengthen the building to ensure it could withstand design-basis earthquakes. Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if the building would not collapse in the event of an earthquake. He asked if an earthquake caused the building to collapse and chemicals to mix, was that a threat. Mr. Fickett reported CPI was safe during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Since that time, the building had been seismically upgraded, the plate shop had been rebuilt to a higher seismic standard, and the berm separating acid from cyanide had increased. Mr. Mahar stated the industry wrestled with this issue when considering hazardous materials. There were specific State standards endorsed by emergency responders and fire departments for actions to protect the community and employees. When an emergency response system accounted for all foreseeable events, then the company had done its best effort to protect employees and the community. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if CPI legally must maintain quantities below Title XIX thresholds, because it had reduced quantities to below those thresholds. Mr. Fickett answered yes. Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if CPI moved above threshold levels, would it be a non-conforming use. Mr. Fickett replied yes. Because CPI was not a new build, it was allowed to have above Title XIX thresholds, but could not increase quantities more than 10 percent. Once it dropped below threshold levels, CPI was not allowed to increase above threshold levels. Vice Mayor Scharff stated CPI would not be above Title XIX thresholds in the future. Mr. Fickett answered yes. Council Member Price asked CPI to discuss changes in the handling of hazardous waste over the past few years and the assumptions it made about that. Mr. Denapi reported CPI used an outside vendor to dispose of waste it could not treat in its waste treatment facility. 15 04/23/2012 Council Member Price inquired if CPI had modified its practices in that area over the past few years. Mr. Denapi stated he did not know. CPI had done a good job in terms of handling waste at its facility. CPI staff met every Monday to discuss what would be processed in the plate shop and what chemicals would be transferred to the waste treatment system. CPI had done a tremendous amount of work in terms of handling the material, and had done a good job of handling the waste. Council Member Holman referenced a statement that plate shops were completely reconstructed in 15-year intervals, and asked if that was usual. Mr. Williams did not have the technical knowledge to know if that was standard practice. In the amortization study, the consultant had relied on Mr. Fickett's statement that the plate shop had been rebuilt. Council Member Holman inquired how often inspections were performed for conformance to Title XIX, and if inspections were noticed or surprise visits. Gordon Simpkinson, Fire Marshall reported the Fire Department had an annual inspection program for CPI and any facility that had similar levels of hazardous materials onsite. They reviewed Title XIX compliance, whether a risk management plan was in place, whether the plan had been updated for changes in process or quantity of materials onsite, requirements for hazardous materials management plans, compliance with California Fire Code requirements, and compliance with local standards for storage of hazardous materials. The Fire Department had a comprehensive inspection program. Council Member Holman asked if inspections were noticed. Mr. Simpkinson stated inspections were noticed in general. Notice was typically a phone call 24-72 hours prior to inspection to ensure the facility manager or other appropriate personnel was onsite. Council Member Holman inquired if the discharge into Matadero Creek was surface water. Mr. Simpkinson indicated most exterior storage areas were required to have a means of containing spills from the primary containment. If the primary containment was a tank and the means of capturing spills was a bermed area around the tank, the tank could collect rain water unless it had a cover. If there was rain water intrusion, the standard practice was to examine the rain water for signs of release and to test for pH in areas of acids. Once the rain water had been screened and determined not to be contaminated, then 16 04/23/2012 there was a drainage system which allowed rain water to be released. An attendant had to be present to observe the draining of the containment and the restoration of it at the conclusion. That was standard industry practice for exterior storage area. In the case of the release, he understood water with relatively small concentrations of metals had accumulated in the containment system, and was inadvertently released. Council Member Holman asked if the same scenario could happen again, now that CPI no longer stored materials outside. Mr. Simpkinson stated CPI performed a comprehensive analysis of the sequence of events that lead to the release and any mistakes that needed to be corrected or improvements that needed to be made to its processes. Council Member Holman asked CPI to address her previous question about the release. Mr. Fickett reported the release happened because the accumulation and run over occurred during a weekend. During weekends, CPI now did not allow any chemical flow. Council Member Holman asked why containment areas did not have vapor locks while clean rooms did. That would seem to be a practical and comprehensive method to ensure safety. Mr. Fickett stated air locks were used to keep positive pressure on the room. The plate shop was cleaned by the scrubbers. Each had different purposes. Council Member Holman suggested a vapor lock would provide extra containment to decrease the likelihood of a release escaping. Mr. Fickett indicated the design would prevent releases from reaching a doorway. Council Member Holman noted an incident in 2006. Mr. Fickett stated that incident did not occur in the plate shop. That incident occurred during the move from San Carlos, when rear garage doors were open. Under normal circumstances with those doors closed, the release would not have reached the neighborhood. Council Member Holman stated if the rear doors were open, but only one set of doors at a time, it would seem to provide an extra barrier. 17 04/23/2012 Mr. Denapi reported a clean room was a room for employees to put on smocks and contained positive pressure. There was too much traffic in and out of the plate shop to have a clean room. Council Member Holman asked whether reconstruction of plating shops every 15 years was standard practice. Mr. Fickett indicated it was not standard practice. An important differentiation was that the plate shop was not totally reconstructed. CPI replaced tanks and piping in 1986 and 2005. Rebuilding depended on how long equipment lasted and changes in state of the art concepts. Council Member Holman asked if Mr. Tuma's statement regarding the current ordinance was accurate. Mr. Williams reported a facility could be located in CPI's location, but it could not contain hazardous materials over Title XIX thresholds. It would have to be set back 300 feet, and go through the process for a Conditional Use Permit. If the facility was below Title XIX threshold requirements, there were requirements for notification to neighbors if any part of the facility was within 150 feet of a residential property and for accidental release and emergency plans. Council Member Holman noted the current Code required notification after issuance of the building permit, and suggested that should be changed. Mr. Williams recalled that was discussed at the Council hearing, and the Council determined that it was appropriate to provide notice but it was intended not to create a discretionary review situation. Council Member Schmid noted representatives from the City and County were present at the inspection of CPI regarding Title XIX thresholds, and asked who was present from the City. Mr. Simpkinson indicated Inspector Paul Johnson was present at the time. The Fire Department was in the process of finalizing the documentation for the inspection. Council Member Schmid inquired if the official party was a County inspector. Mr. Simpkinson answered yes. Council Member Schmid asked if the County performed annual inspections or only the Fire Department. 18 04/23/2012 Mr. Simpkinson stated both agencies performed annual inspections. The County's annual inspection concerned hazardous waste and changes to the risk management plan. The Fire Department would need to confer with the County's representatives in terms of their standard practice for specifically addressing ongoing Title XIX compliance. He believed the County inspector verified that conditions remained the same each year, but did not comprehensively revisit the risk management plan. Council Member Schmid asked if either agency could report CPI as being non-compliant with Title XIX thresholds. Mr. Simpkinson responded yes. The facility was required to maintain a hazardous materials management plan, and that needed to be updated within 30 days of any significant change of quantities of hazardous materials onsite. The Fire Department had received that documentation and provided that information to the State's environmental reporting system. Council Member Schmid stated that became important in the future. Mr. Simpkinson stated CPI had officially committed to being at levels below the thresholds. Council Member Schmid inquired if Title XIX requirements were based on emission standards that were no longer state of the art. Mr. Mahar was not familiar with the details of how the EPA made regulations or tests or studies performed. The Title XIX parallel was to look at lower threshold quantities and less dilute amounts of material, so it had a broader range of encompassing facilities that may be closer to the community. California had some special circumstances in terms of dealing with residential areas being located close to industry. The concentrations considered harmful for nitric acid that were applied as part of Title XIX, were consistent with emergency response planning guidelines. EPA had less stringent thresholds for quantities, and nitric acid quantities were lower for California. Council Member Schmid assumed there was a connection between EPA standards and the various states. Mr. Mahar stated most of the Title XIX danger thresholds were consistent with EPA requirements. EPA reviewed chronic worker exposure and other things that were not necessarily associated with the community. Council Member Burt asked for the history of rebuilding the plate shop prior to 1986. 19 04/23/2012 Mr. Fickett stated 1959 was the only rebuild on record prior to 1986. Council Member Burt inquired if there were several different permissible methodologies for offsite hazard assessment. Mr. Mahar answered yes. Council Member Burt understood the first analysis used a series of worst- case scenarios, and asked if that was correct. Mr. Mahar had reviewed the documentation for the original risk management plan for CPI, and it did review reaction-type hazards of nitric acid mixing with cyanide directly. In the 1980s, California had a risk management prevention program, which reviewed topics such as cyanides mixing directly with acids. As things evolved, Title XIX only reviewed spills of the actual covered materials. It was a discontinuity. CPI asked them to consider scenarios that could create bigger hazard to ensure CPI was representing a proper risk balance. Council Member Burt stated the prior risk management plan and the offsite hazard assessment used a different methodology from Risk Management Professionals' methodology. He asked if both methodologies were permissible under Title XIX. Mr. Mahar stated the original submittal in 2005 went beyond Title XIX requirements. In one respect, it was an incorrect submittal; however, the facility operator would want to cover those kinds of issues. Council Member Burt inquired whether the original assessment evaluated a mixing of the full quantity of acid and cyanide. Mr. Mahar did not recall. George Leong, Risk Management Professionals indicated the original assessment reviewed 10 pounds of potassium cyanide and excess nitric acid. Council Member Burt asked if Risk Management Professionals' methodology considered that mixture. Mr. Mahar said it went beyond Title XIX for the portions. Council Member Burt asked how Risk Management Professionals got a fraction of the impacted range compared to the original assessment. Mr. Leong stated the EPA had a useful tool when reviewing worst-case hazard assessments. It was a list of tables separated by a tenth of a mile. 20 04/23/2012 The first risk management plan submitted used that table, and found the result to be two-tenths of a mile. Council Member Burt understood the first methodology had a program of rounding up in calculations. He wanted to understand Risk Management Professionals' scenario which evaluated higher volume mixes of the most severe incompatibles and did not identify any offsite impact potential. Mr. Mahar suggested he prepare an outline of the two assessments to answer the question. He did not want to mislead the Council by speculating. He believed his methodology was more accurate and applicable to particulate releases of potassium cyanide. Council Member Burt asked for the square footage of the plating facility for the wet and non-wet process areas. Mr. Denapi did not know the exact numbers, but believed the wet portion of the plate shop was approximately 2,500 square feet and the prep area was approximately 1,500 square feet. The acid storage room in the basement was approximately 400 square feet. Council Member Burt stated a wet area was open chemicals in tanks. Mr. Denapi agreed with his statement. Council Member Klein understood there was no such thing as no risk. He suggested a scenario of a severe earthquake that breached the building walls of CPI, such that there was no containment from the building, and the chemicals mixed. He asked what the risk was to the immediate neighborhood compared to his house three miles away. Mr. Mahar could not answer exactly because of variables, but it was unlikely the mix of chemicals would spread in that much destruction. Council Member Klein changed his assumption from an earthquake to a terrorist who mixed the chemicals and breached the walls. Mr. Mahar reported Risk Management Professionals did not consider that scenario, because of the security of the facility. There were two meaningful thresholds: living within the community, and codes and standards. If he was not comfortable with living in the community, then he would recommend his client make improvements. Adhering to codes and standards ensured all facilities applied best practices and were on an even footing. 21 04/23/2012 Council Member Klein asked if the community was more at risk than he was three miles away. Mr. Mahar stated, assuming zero risk at Council Member Klein's household, the incremental risk posed by CPI to the community was negligible. Risk Management Professionals had been asked to consider cyanide and nitric acid only, so he was speaking for those chemicals and not hazardous waste issues mentioned earlier. Council Member Espinosa asked why Staff needed a technical consultant for subsequent City actions and what work was anticipated. Mr. Williams reported the amortization study was focused on gaining compliance with Title XIX. Staff had not considered the technical differences between the two studies. Now Staff needed to define the remaining constituents and the level of risk associated with them, and determine appropriate restrictions for the use of hazardous materials adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Staff wanted a third-party, independent review of the two studies that had drastically different results. Council Member Espinosa noted Staff's second option would have an impact on other businesses, and inquired if Staff knew which businesses, the number of businesses, and the breadth of the impact. Mr. Williams indicated there were businesses located at Barron Park and across the street from College Terrace, but Staff did not have a sense of the quantities used and the level of risk. That was another reason to have a third-party review. Council Member Espinosa asked if the City monitored use of hazardous materials, and their location and proximity to neighborhoods. Mr. Simpkinson reported the Fire Department considered the types of facilities that were in proximity to residential areas when the Zoning Ordinance was amended the first time. With respect to plating shops, there were only four within the city limits of Palo Alto, and three of those were located far away from any residential neighborhoods. In terms of other facilities near residential areas, those facilities typically had less hazardous materials onsite. The Fire Department reviewed the nature of the uses, and determined the risk of an accident was not as great as the risk from a major structure fire. Plastics, foams and materials within office furniture and partitions would produce far more offsite consequences than a facility with small amounts of hazardous materials. The Fire Department was concerned about areas primarily along Hansen and Hanover. Most of those industrial areas had buffer zones before reaching storage facilities. 22 04/23/2012 Council Member Espinosa asked for the neighborhood's suggestions for noticing and further study if the Council did not amend the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Liberman stated his opinion did not reflect that of the neighborhood, and it would not be fair for him to offer suggestions. He hoped the Council did not repeat the lack of notice and hearing which occurred in 2005 when it approved reconstruction of the facility. Mayor Yeh understood achieving below Title XIX levels meant the frequency of delivery of chemicals had changed. He asked CPI to comment on the frequency of deliveries. Mr. Fickett stated the change in deliveries was minimal. Most of the change occurred in usage; some processes were changed to different, milder chemicals. Potassium cyanide was delivered in double-contained 5-pound bags. Nitric acid was delivered less than once a week. Mayor Yeh asked if delivery of both had increased in frequency. Mr. Fickett said nitric acid has shown an increase in frequency. CPI had reduced the usage quantity of potassium cyanide, and he could not state that delivery had increased or decreased. Mayor Yeh inquired if new hazards were created from increased deliveries of chemicals. Mr. Simpkinson reported the overall transportation of hazardous materials in Palo Alto had not changed as a result of CPI's actions, primarily because CPI did not represent the majority share of those types of deliveries. Lynnie Melena, President of the Barron Park Association, spoke on behalf of the Board. The Barron Park Association was concerned about the presence of hazardous materials in close proximity to the neighborhood. They appreciated CPI reducing the quantities of chemicals to below Title XIX thresholds; however, it was not good planning for these two land uses to exist side-by-side. The plating shop at CPI was an anachronism, because other facilities around it had changed. CPI took the opposite course and expanded its plating operations without notifying neighbors. She felt an amortization schedule was the only real solution for CPI. Palo Alto had amortized many uses, which were more benign than CPI. She urged the Council to support option one. Kriss Deiglmeir stated the City Council had to make a common and critical decision regarding public safety. Based on the range of presentations, there were opposing views. Decisions about public safety were not without 23 04/23/2012 controversy. Many public safety measures were led by community members. She wanted the Council to consider individuals when making their decision. The standard of public safety had to move. It was unacceptable to have a toxic chemical manufacturing plant close to a residential neighborhood. She urged the Council to adopt Staff's option one and initiate a Zoning Ordinance. She wanted to give CPI an opportunity to recover its costs, and wanted to the City to act in the best interests of Palo Alto. Douglas Moran urged the Council to recognize that the best plans and mechanisms could be negated by a poor safety culture. It was difficult to determine the quality of a safety culture from outside. There were too many basic failures in the 2006 release. The incident began when an operator dumped a bad batch of chemicals into the waste tank. He was unaware that it would trigger a reaction. That sort of mistake had been anticipated and the venting system had scrubbers to remove the harmful gases, except the access doors to the scrubbers were open and the gas escaped. The surrounding room was supposed to be a secondary containment vessel in case of failure, but its doors to the outside were open. Those two measures were in the model as being 100 percent effective. A good safety culture would not have those sorts of mistakes. The report submitted to this meeting showed a dismissive attitude in numerous places. They falsely claimed the odor only reached homes, when in fact an adult became faint. They had calculations trumping observed facts. Winter Dellenbach stated she would have two minutes to try to save herself if an accident occurred. The children at Barron Park School would have either 45 seconds or 2 minutes; she could not remember which. She asked how they would learn of an accident. She wanted to know if there was a clean-up of the discharge into Matadero Creek. The Council knew CPI was incompatible with the neighborhood. Residents' health and safety were at risk. She wished CPI had taken half the time and cost to move the plating shop to an appropriate and reasonable place. Robert Moss had over 40 years' experience working with toxic and hazardous materials. CPI would not succeed with any of the organizations he had worked with. The claim that the risk area was only 33 feet was absurd. A low-level toxic spill had caused a resident more than 100 feet away to be sickened. The Council should begin amortizing it. If CPI had one more event, he wanted it shut down. The most important thing was protecting public health and safety. If CPI was incapable of doing that, it was up to the Council. Adequate controls and performance meant more than having a plan. The Fire Department should provide only a 15-minute notice of inspection, so there was no possibility of hiding problems. Protecting the public was important, and that meant enforcing good, quality controls. They were depending on the Council and Staff to save lives. 24 04/23/2012 Michel Adar indicated his home was built 12 years before CPI moved into the neighborhood. At that time, the area was not part of Palo Alto, and there were no regulations for hazardous materials. Because of the construction of his home, he could not shelter in-place. Shelter in-place would not work here, and the residents needed something better. Mircea Voskerician stated CPI had no plan in place to handle an accident. It was a mistake to approve the remodel in 2005. They needed to do something to live in the community. Only CPI representatives would want to live in the neighborhood with the current situation. Jeff Dean did not believe the Council would allow a new plating shop to operate near a residential area. He asked what value the facility provided the community. He asked the Council to consider changing the zoning, because CPI was an incompatible use. Fred Balin stated when the accident occurred in 2006, residents of Barron Park learned for the first time what was happening at CPI. The City of Palo Alto never announced that it was a Title XIX site. The whole issue came up in the context of performance standards. On the Fire Department issue, the station on Hanover Street might be consolidated with Arastradero to have one unit. Council Member Burt felt consultants could play a role in the Council's evaluation of options one and two. He had three general categories of functions for an independent consultant in the City's employ. The first was to identify any additional best practices. Second was an independent offsite hazard assessment. He suggested using three scenarios and two methodologies to provide a range of results. The first scenario would be a baseline, the second at Title XIX thresholds, and third was locating the facility 300 feet from residences. The third category was to define levels of hazardous materials and appropriate separation from residential areas. The area had become a research park, and there were appropriate questions regarding zoning and segregating incompatible uses. This facility appeared to have exceptionally strong safety measures, but that did not mean it should be adjacent to a residential area. The Council needed information to make rational decisions concerning options one and two. Vice Mayor Scharff agreed the Council did not have enough information, but felt the Council should initiate a Zoning Ordinance amendment to prohibit plating shops without an appropriate separation from residential areas. A consultant could provide the appropriate distance of separation. He did not want to make a decision regarding implementation of an amortization. 25 04/23/2012 Council Member Burt clarified a consultant could provide a definition of a plating shop. Other facilities used identical materials, but were not plating shops. He inquired about the number of years remaining on CPI's lease. Mr. Williams stated 38 years. Council Member Burt stated the plating shop was not designed to last until 2050, and suggested there was at least one more rebuild before the lease expired. The reality of what CPI would have to do might not be so different from what the neighborhood and the City were considering. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Espinosa to direct Staff to; 1) return with a budgetary proposal to hire an independent third-party expert to evaluate off-site hazardous assessments under several models and compare to current zoning and CPI practices, 2) recommend definitions and thresholds of hazardous materials facilities that would be considered for a Zoning Ordinance proximate to residential areas, and 3) initiate a Zoning Ordinance amendment to prohibit plating shops, or facilities using similar hazardous materials without appropriate separation of residential areas. Council Member Espinosa stated the lack of independent information was a concern. He noted CPI had hundreds of employees, who would be affected by changes. This company had been responsive to Council and community needs. He expressed concerns about the proximity of CPI to the neighborhood. Council Member Burt asked how long Staff would need to prepare a budget proposal. Mr. Williams answered 30 days. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return within 30 days with a budget proposal. Council Member Holman inquired about a timeline for providing results. James Keene, City Manager indicated Staff would outline the process and timeline in the budget proposal. Those details would be presented within the 30-day period. Council Member Holman asked for the length of time for the normal procurement process. 26 04/23/2012 Mr. Keene stated Staff recognized the urgency of the issue, and would review methods to respond expeditiously while complying with ordinances. There could be a range of options, and Staff would present the quickest path. Council Member Holman was looking for an outside estimation of time. Mr. Keene said the intent of the Council's Motion seemed to be driven to ensure that Staff presented a budget proposal designed to meet the ends inherent in the Council Motion. Council Member Holman asked if Staff was confident in the current amortization schedule. Mr. Williams reported Staff was confident with the study in relation to this particular project. If the Council wanted to consider a certain category of hazardous materials being used, the study could be different. The study was prepared for one specific business and one set of circumstances. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XXXX to require amortization for CPI consistent with the amortization study which is 14 years longer. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Burt asked if it was appropriate for the Council to include action on the amortization period in open session. Molly Stump, City Attorney understood the intent of the Amendment was to gain technical assistance. The Council would be well served to receive the budget proposal and performing that work before addressing anything further. Council Member Burt understood that CPI and the City had different amortization studies, and Council action could have legal ramifications. Consequently, the Council could choose to have discussion on an amortization period in a closed session. Ms. Stump agreed with that characterization. Based on material submitted by CPI, they stated the amortization could be an issue subject to legal contention. That would be a basis for the Council to discuss it in closed session. Council Member Holman asked why the amortization study was contained in a Staff recommendation option. 27 04/23/2012 Ms. Stump indicated the Staff recommendation options were general in nature, and intended to provide Council Members a framework for discussing issues in an open session. Staff anticipated this Item would have multiple steps, and would not be resolved in only one meeting. She recommended the Council receive advice before taking action on the second step. Council Member Holman hoped the Motion would have language regarding consideration of an amortization schedule. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER TO request Staff present to Council recommendations on potential amortization options to be reviewed in the context of the information provided by the third-party consultant. Ms. Stump indicated the Council could direct that to come back to Council. Council Member Burt noted the Motion did not stipulate an open or closed session. That would be at the discretion of the City Attorney. Mr. Keene stated there was no confusion about having a closed session if necessary. Council Member Price stated the Motion suggested the results from the consultant would be used to review potential amortization options. It did not reference additional amortization studies that may be needed to review the adequacy of the amortization studies. Council Member Burt had not heard from the City Attorney or Staff that additional work was necessary to evaluate the adequacy of the amortization study. Ms. Stump said the first step could raise new issues, and Staff would need to incorporate that into their response, but Staff did not foresee anything specific. Council Member Shepherd inquired whether Staff had considered other communities' means of addressing hazardous material facilities being located adjacent to residential areas. She also asked if a setback of 300 feet was standard practice. Mr. Williams reported most communities zoned for compatibility issues, but did not know if other communities considered the types and quantities of hazardous materials. That would be part of the consultant's function to some extent, but Staff could do that work as well. Council Member Shepherd suggested best practices could be in existence. 28 04/23/2012 Mr. Williams stated this was similar to performance zoning. He explained separating certain types of uses from residential areas versus separating uses with certain types and quantities of hazardous materials from residential areas. Staff would review that. Mr. Keene noted there was a good potential for conflicting perspectives on this issue, and this was additional review and analysis. The wisest move would be to direct this level of review and due diligence in advance of subsequent decisions. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to include within the best practices, best zoning practices. Council Member Shepherd asked if the City had ever requested a company amortize its building and exit this type of manufacturing. Mr. Williams was not aware of that occurring with a Research Park property adjacent to Barron Park. It had occurred with Fry’s Electronics and approximately ten other uses in the late 1980s in areas where the City wanted to promote residential use. Council Member Shepherd suggested that information would be useful to the Council. She was concerned about the neighbors and the habitat and having research in a safe manner. Council Member Price originally supported option one; however, discussions indicated additional study was appropriate. She was concerned about assessment and evaluation requiring too much time. She agreed with the comments regarding health and public safety. She expressed concerns about balancing Staff's workload with a sense of urgency. The best zoning practice would be not to allow this to occur next to residential properties. She assumed modeling would be reviewed in the risk assessment study by a third party. She suggested the consultant consider the feasibility of additional improvements. INDORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff return with the results of the consultant study and the subsequent City action with a goal of six months or less. Council Member Burt asked the City Manager for comments on that sort of timeframe. Mr. Keene indicated Staff's preference was to present recommendations. If that was unacceptable, he suggested the language be a goal of returning 29 04/23/2012 within six months. Staff's goal was to draft a proposal to achieve an outcome in the most expeditious manner. Council Member Burt felt the tasks set forth in the Motion could be accomplished in that timeframe. Council Member Price wanted to include language of a goal of six months or less. Council Member Klein supported the Motion. He asked why the amortization report took nine months to reach the Council. Ms. Stump indicated a variety of work was performed subsequent to receipt of the initial draft, before Staff considered it final. The Council had a closed session scheduled in December on this topic. Council Member Klein stated the health and welfare of citizens was a priority, but CPI was a valued member of the business community. He recalled none of the amortizations in the 1980s were of this size. This facility would not be approved today, and suggested CPI look for another location. The real impact on the neighborhood's health and safety could not be assumed. The Council had to weigh the risk, and an independent consultant was crucial to determining the risk. CPI was not just a plating shop; it produced products useful to society. Council Member Schmid supported the Motion. The critical factor was CPI's compliance with Title XIX, which removed some immediate pressure. That was an indication that both CPI and the City were seriously considering health and safety. There was a need for technical evaluation of standards and hazardous material zoning. Public health and safety were critical factors, and allowed the Council to focus on other land-use decisions. Council Member Holman agreed with Council Member Price regarding a timeframe. She felt the Staff Report provided three options that were not real because of legal considerations. Vice Mayor Scharff expressed concerns about perceived risk and decreasing home values. He noted the amortization schedule continued to run while the process took place. While the process took time, the time was not lost. MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Yeh Absent Attachment E Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.20
OFFICE, RESEARCH, AND MANUFACTURING (MOR, ROLM, RP and GM) DISTRICTS Sections: 18.20.010 Purposes 18.20.020 Applicability 18.20.030 Land Uses 18.20.040 Site Development Standards 18.20.050 Performance Criteria 18.20.060 Grandfathered Uses 18.20.070 Conflict with Development Agreement 18.20.010 Purposes The office research, industrial and manufacturing zoning districts provide sites for office, light industrial, research and development, and limited commercial uses. The specific purposes for each district are listed below. (a) Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) District The MOR medical office and medical research district provides for medical office, medical research, and some medical support services in areas characterized by low building intensity, large site size, and landscaped grounds. The MOR district is primarily intended for land that is designated for research and office park use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and that is near hospitals. (b) Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) District The ROLM research, office and limited manufacturing district provides for a limited group of office, research and manufacturing uses in a manufacturing/research park environment, where uses requiring larger sites and available natural light and air can locate. Office uses can be accommodated, but should not predominate in the district. The ROLM district is primarily intended for land designated for research and office park use by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and located east of El Camino Real. (c) Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing Subdistrict - Embarcadero [ROLM(E)] The research, office and limited manufacturing subdistrict [ROLM(E)] modifies the site development regulations of the ROLM research, office and limited manufacturing district to apply to smaller sites in areas with limited access or with environmental sensitivity due to their proximity to the Palo Alto Baylands in the Embarcardero Road area. (d) Research Park District [RP] The RP research park district provides for a limited group of research and manufacturing uses that may have unusual requirements for space, light, and air, and desire sites in a research park environment. Premium research and development facilities should be encouraged in the RP district. Support office uses should be limited and should exist primarily to serve the primary research and manufacturing uses. The RP district is intended for application to land designated for research and office park use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan on sites that are west of El Camino Real and held in large parcels, which may or may not also be subject to ground leases. (e) Research Park Subdistrict 5 [RP(5)] The Research Park site subdistrict [RP(5)] modifies the site development regulations of the RP research park district to regulate large sites in hilly areas. (f) General Manufacturing District [GM] The GM general manufacturing district provides for light manufacturing, research, and commercial service uses. Office uses are very limited in order to maintain the district as a desirable location for manufacturing uses. The GM district is intended for application to land designated for light industrial use in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 4884 § 2 (part), 2005: Ord. 4883 § 7 (part), 2005) Attachment F 18.20.020 Applicable Regulations The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures established by this Title 18 shall apply to all Office Research, Industrial, and Manufacturing districts. (Ord. 4884 § 2 (part), 2005: Ord. 4883 § 7 (part), 2005) 18.20.030 Land Uses (a) Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses Table 1 lists the land uses permitted or conditionally permitted in the industrial and manufacturing districts. TABLE 1
INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURING DISTRICT LAND USES MOR ROLM ROLM(E) RP RP(5) GM Subject to Regulations in Chapter: ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the principal use. P P P P Chs. 18.40,18.42 Automatic Teller Machines P P P P 18.20.030(d) Home Occupations, when accessory to permitted residential uses. P P P P Chs. 18.40,18,42 EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES Business and Trade Schools P Religious Institutions p P P Colleges and Universities P p P Private Clubs, Lodges, or Fraternal Organizations CUP CUP CUP CUP Private Schools (K-12) CUP CUP CUP CUP HEALTH CARE SERVICES Ambulance Services CUP Convalescent Facilities CUP CUP Medical Office p CUP CUP Medical Research p P p 18.20.030(c) Medical Support Retail p 18.20.030(b) Medical Support Services p 18.20.030(b) MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING USES Manufacturing P p P Recycling Centers CUP CUP CUP Research and Development CUP P p P Warehousing and Distribution P p p OFFICE USES Administrative Office Services P p CUP Financial Services CUP CUP Professional and General Business Offices p p PUBLIC/QUASI- PUBLIC USES Service and Equipment Yards p Utility Facilities CUP Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but excluding construction/storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards. CUP CUP CUP RECREATION USES Commercial Recreation CUP CUP CUP Neighborhood Recreational Centers CUP RESIDENTIAL USES Single-Family Not permitted 18.20.040(b) Two-Family Not permitted Multiple-Family CUP CUP CUP Residential Care Homes P P P CUP RETAIL USES Eating and Drinking Services, excluding drive-in and take-out services CUP CUP CUP Retail Services CUP CUP CUP SERVICE USES Animal Care, excluding boarding and kennels P Boarding and Kennels CUP Day Care Centers P P P CUP Family Day Care Homes Small Family Day Care P P P P Large Family Day Care P P P P General Business Services P Lodging Hotels providing not more than 10% of rooms with kitchens CUP Mortuaries and Funeral Homes P Personal Services CUP CUP CUP Vehicle Services Automobile Service Stations, subject to site and design review in CUP CUP accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.30(G) Automotive Services CUP Off-site new vehicle storage for auto dealerships located in Palo Alto CUP CUP TEMPORARY USES Temporary Parking Facilities, provided that such facilities shall remain no more than five years. CUP CUP CUP CUP TRANSPORTATION USES Passenger Transportation Terminals CUP P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditiona l Use Permit Required (b) Limitations on Medical Support Service and Medical Support Retail Uses in the Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) Zone (1) The intent of this limitation is to restrict medical support service and medical support retail uses in the Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) zone in order to preserve and facilitate space for medical offices and medical research facilities. (2) Floor area devoted to medical support services and medical support retail uses in the Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) zoning district shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total gross floor area within the district. (3) The director may require a report from the property owner or applicant whenever application is made to the city to develop new space for medical support service or medical support retail uses or to convert existing space to such uses. The report shall identify the gross floor area of buildings on each site within the zoning district and the gross floor area of medical support service and medical support retail uses for each site. The director may, from time to time, establish procedures and standards implementing this Section 18.20.030(b). (c) Automatic Teller Machines (1) Automatic teller machines may be allowed as an accessory use in the MOR, ROLM, ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), and GM districts when incidental to a primary use on the site and when accessible only from the interior of a building. (2) Automatic teller machines may be allowed as a permitted use in the MOR, ROLM, ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), and GM districts when incidental to a primary use on the site and when accessible from the exterior of a building. Staff level Architectural Review is required prior to issuance of a building permit. (Ord. 4884 § 2 (part), 2005: Ord. 4883 § 7 (part), 2005) 18.20.040 Site Development Standards Development in the office research, industrial, and manufacturing districts is subject to the following development standards, provided that more restrictive regulations may be required as part of design review under Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (a) Development Standards for Non-Residential Uses Table 2 shows the site development standards for exclusively non-residential uses in the industrial and manufacturing districts. TABLE 2
INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURING NON-RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MOR ROLM ROLM(E) RP RP(5) GM Subject to Regulations in Chapter: Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (sq. ft.) 25,000 1 acre 1 acre 5 acres 1 Site Width (ft.) 150 100 100 250 Site Depth (ft.) 150 150 150 250 Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may apply. Front Yard (ft) 50(3) 20 20 100 (1) Rear Yard (ft) 10(3) 20 20 40 Interior Side Yard (ft) 10 20 20 40 Street Side Yard (ft) 20(3) 20 20 70 Minimum Yard (ft) for site lines abutting or opposite residential 10(3) 20 20 . 10 18.20.060( e)(1)(D) 18.20.060( e)(1)(E) districts Maximum Site Coverage 30% 30% 30% 15% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.5:1 0.4:1(4) 0.3:1(4) 0.4:1 W 0.3:1(4) 0.5:1 Parking See Chs. 18.40, 18.42 Chs. 18.40,1 8.42 Landscaping See Section 18.20.050 (Performa nce Criteria) 18.20.0 50 Maximum Height (ft) Standard 50 35(4) 35(4) 50 Within 150 ft. of a residential zone<5) 35 35 35 35 Within 40 ft. of a residential zone(5) 35 25 25 35 Daylight Plane for site lines having any part abutting one or more residential districts. Initial Height _(2) 10 Slope _(2) 1:2 (1) For any property designated GM and fronting on East Bayshore Road a minimum setback of 20 feet along that frontage is established. (2) Daylight plane requirements shall be identical to the daylight plane requirements of the most restrictive residential district abutting the side or rear site line. Such daylight planes shall begin at the applicable site lines and increase at the specified slope until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the MOR district. (3) In the MOR district, no required parking or loading space shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (4) See subsection 18.20.040(e) below for exceptions to height and floor area limitations in the ROLM and RP zoning districts. (5) Residential zones include R-1, R-2, RE, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40 and residential Planned Community (PC) zones. (b) Development Standards for Exclusively Residential Uses Residential uses shall be permitted in the MOR, RP, RP(5), ROLM, ROLM(E), and GM zoning districts, subject to the following criteria. (1) It is the intent of these provisions that a compatible transition be provided from lower density residential zones to higher density residential or non-residential zones. The Village Residential development type should be evaluated for use in transition areas and will provide the greatest flexibility to provide a mix of residence types compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. (2) No new single-family or two-family residential development is permitted in any of the office, research and manufacturing districts. Existing single-family and two-family uses shall be permitted to remain, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 18.70 (Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities). (3) MOR District. All multi-family development in the MOR zoning district shall be permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit and compliance with the development standards prescribed for the RM-30 zoning district. (4) RP and RP(5) Districts. All multi-family development in the RP, and RP(5) zoning districts that is located within 150 feet of an R-E, R-1, R-2, RMD, or similar density residential PC zone shall be permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit and compliance with the development standards prescribed for the RM-15 zoning district, including Village Residential development types. Multi-family development in the MOR, RP, and RP(5) zoning districts that is located greater than 150 feet from an R- E, R-1, R-2, RMD, or low density residential PC shall be permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit and compliance with the development standards prescribed for the RM-30 zoning district. (5) ROLM (E) District. All multi-family development in the ROLM(E) zoning district shall be permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit and compliance with the development standards prescribed for the RM-15 zoning district. (6) ROLM District. All multi-family development in the ROLM zoning district shall be permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit and compliance with the development standards prescribed for the RM-30 zoning district. (7) GM District. All residential development is prohibited in the GM zoning district. (c) Development Standards for Mixed (Residential and Nonresidential) Uses in the ROLM, ROLM(E), and GM zoning Districts Mixed (residential and nonresidential) uses shall be permitted in the ROLM, ROLM(E), and GM zoning districts, subject to the following criteria: (1) It is the intent of these provisions that a compatible transition be provided from lower density residential zones to higher density residential, non-residential, or mixed use zones. The Village Residential development type should be evaluated for use in transition areas and will provide the greatest flexibility to provide a mix of residence types compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. (2) ROLM(E) District. Mixed (residential and nonresidential) development in the ROLM(E) zoning district shall be permitted, subject to approval of a conditional use permit, determination that the nonresidential use is allowable in the district and that the residential component of the development complies with the development standards prescribed for the RM-15 zoning district. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for mixed use development is 0.3 to 1. (3) ROLM District. Mixed (residential and nonresidential) development in the ROLM zoning district shall be permitted, subject to approval of a conditional use permit, determination that the nonresidential use is allowable in the district and that the residential component of the development complies with the development standards prescribed for the RM-30 zoning district. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for mixed use development is 0.4 to 1. (4) GM District. Mixed use (residential and nonresidential) development is prohibited in the GM zoning district. In computing residential densities for mixed (residential and nonresidential) uses, the density calculation for the residential use shall be based on the entire site, including the nonresidential portion of the site. (d) Floor Area Bonus for Child Care Facilities Floor area operated as a licensed child care facility shall not be included when calculating floor area ratios for a site. In addition, the permitted floor area on the site shall be increased by an amount equal to fifty percent (50%) of the floor area of the child care facility. The floor area bonus is not exempt from parking requirements and shall not be granted unless the director determines that on-site circulation (including for pick-up and drop-off) for the child care facility is adequate. (e) Height and Floor Area Exceptions for Equipment Storage and Access in the RP and RP(5) Districts (1) The intent of this subsection is to provide flexibility in height and floor area limitations to accommodate equipment needs for research and development and similar facilities. (2) The maximum height in the RP and RP(5) zoning districts may be increased to forty (40) feet where a) interstitial space is provided between floors to accommodate mechanical and/or electrical equipment, b) the load for such interstitial space is limited, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, to preclude conversion to habitable space, c) the building contains no more than two stories of habitable space above grade, and d) the portion of any building over 35 feet in height is located a minimum of 150 feet from the nearest property line of a residential zone or residential PC zone. Interstitial space refers to intermediate floors used for mechanical or electrical systems and access for equipment maintenance purposes. (3) Rooftop and/or basement areas used to enclose mechanical equipment shall be excluded from floor area calculations, provided that the total of any such excluded areas does not exceed one-third of the building footprint area. Rooftop equipment or rooftop equipment enclosures shall not extend above a height of fifteen (15) feet above the roof, and any enclosed rooftop equipment located adjacent to residential property shall be set back at least 20 feet from the building edge closest to the residential site or a minimum of 100 feet from the residential property line, whichever is closer. (f) Limitations on Outdoor Uses and Activities. (1) In the GM district, outdoor sales and display of merchandise and outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services are permitted subject to the following regulations: (A) Outdoor sales and display shall not occupy a total site area exceeding the gross building floor area on the site, except as authorized by a conditional use permit. (B) Areas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats, campers, camp trailers, trailers, coaches, house cars, or similar conveyances shall meet the minimum standards applicable to off- street parking facilities with respect to paving, grading, drainage, access to public streets and alleys, safety and protective features, lighting, landscaping, and screening. (C) Exterior storage shall be prohibited, unless screened by a solid wall or fence of between five and eight feet in height. This requirement is not applicable to recycling centers. (2) In the ROLM and RP districts, all outdoor activities or uses are prohibited except: (A) Outdoor activities associated with residential use; (B) Landscaping; (C) Parking and loading facilities; (D) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit; (E) Noncommercial recreational activities and facilities accessory to permitted or conditional uses; and (F) Activities and facilities accessory to conditional uses, when authorized by a conditional use permit. (3) In all industrial and manufacturing districts, equipment such as generators and air conditioning compressors is permitted outdoors so long as it is located out of setbacks adjacent to (including across a street from) a residential use, and is screened from view from the residential area. (4) Any outdoor storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of exempt quantities prescribed in Title 15 of the Municipal Code or outdoor storage, use or handling of any amount of toxic gas or materials regulated under Title 15 shall also require a conditional use permit. (g) Employee Showers. Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 4. TABLE 4
EMPLOYEE SHOWERS REQUIRED Uses Gross Floor Area ol New Construction (ftt Showers Required Medical, Professional, and General Business Offices, Financial Services, Colleges and Universities, Business and Trade Schools, Research and Development, General Business Services, and Manufacturing 0-9,999 No requirement 10,000-19,999 1 20,000-49,999 2 50,000 and up 4 (h) Nuisances and Hazards In all office research, industrial, and manufacturing districts, excluding the MOR Medical Office and Medical Research district, all uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a manner so as to preclude any nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions or characteristics, including creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes, odors, vibrations, particulate matter, chemical compounds, etiological (biological) agents, electrical disturbance, humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night illumination. Prior to issuance of a building permit or occupancy permit, or at any other time, the building official may require evidence that adequate controls, measures, or devices have been provided to ensure and protect the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety, and general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition. (i) Recycling Storage All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. 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 Chapter 18.76. (j) Designated Sites Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section 18.20.040, on those sites that are Designated Sites under the Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University approved and adopted by Ordinance No. 4870, the maximum floor area ratio shall be 0.5 to 1 as provided in that Agreement. (Ord. 4884 § 2 (part), 2005: Ord. 4883 § 7 (part), 2005) Chapter 18.23 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, MANUFACTURING AND PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS Sections: 18.23.010 Purpose and Applicability 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 18.23.010 Purpose and Applicability (A) Purpose These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. (B) Applicability of Regulations Except where otherwise noted, the criteria established in this chapter shall be applicable to all multiple family (RM-15, RM-30, and RM-40), commercial (CN, CS, CC, CC(2), and CD), and industrial (OR, MOR, ROLM, RP, and GM) zoning districts, and planned community (PC) districts that are located within one hundred fifty feet of any R-E, R-1, R-2, RM or PC district permitting single family or multi- family development within the city of Palo Alto, or of properties with existing residential uses within nonresidential zones. The determination of final approval of the architectural and design elements of any project remains with the director of planning and community environment, after recommendation by the architectural review board, pursuant to Chapter 18.76 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The director and the architectural review board retain the authority to interpret criteria on a project-by-project basis in order to most effectively fulfill the specific purposes listed in subsection (A); provided, that more restrictive regulations may be approved as part of architectural review pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). The requirements shall apply to new construction on such sites, or to modifications of existing buildings or site improvements at the time of approval or building permit issuance if no architectural approval is necessary. The criteria shall also be applied for sites abutting nonresidential zones except where the architectural review board determines the provisions are not applicable or are adequately addressed through other means. Design element regulations that are identified as requirements shall be included in the design of the project. The recommended guidelines should be included in the design of the project. At the submittal of the project to the architectural review board or for a building permit, if these guidelines are not included, it shall be necessary for the applicant to demonstrate how the project meets the design objectives set forth in this section. (Ord. 4933 § 4 (part), 2007) 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials (A) Purpose In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. (B) Requirements (i) The project shall be designed to comply with all safety, fire and building codes for the storage, use and handling of the hazardous materials involved. (ii) Any new structure that is designated an "H" occupancy (storage, use and handling of specified types and quantities of hazardous materials), or any existing structure that is converted to an "H" occupancy, as specified by the California Building Code, shall be designed in accordance with the currently adopted California Building Code and Fire Code. (iii) Where a building or area used for such storage, use and/or handling is located within 150 feet of a residential zoning district or of properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties), the business owner shall provide a report to the fire department addressing the adequacy of the emergency contingency plan, which addresses safety of the nearby residential area, including but not limited to, procedures for accidental releases or other emergencies, and other protective measures as required by Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, upon: (a) A change in the types of hazardous materials stored, used or handled on the site in quantities above the reporting threshold established in California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95; and/or (b) A 100% or greater increase in the quantities of a previously disclosed hazardous material stored, used or handled on the site above the reporting threshold established in California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95; and/or (c) Release/threatened release incidents. (iv) For any such facility outlined in (iii) above, upon application for any building permit for improvements that would result in a change in the types of hazardous materials stored, used or handled on the site or an increase in the quantities of hazardous materials stored, used or handled on the site, the city shall provide written notice to the owners and residents of all residential property within 150 feet from the property line, not later than ten days after issuance of the building permit. The notice shall inform the property owners that an application has been received, the nature of the request (such as the type of materials), that the fire department and building department have determined the project to be in compliance with relevant hazardous materials regulations, and that the application and details are on file with the fire department and/or building department. (v) If an applicant proposes a new structure or a modification of an existing structure on a development site that will entail hazardous materials stored, used or handled in excess of the threshold limits of regulated substances listed in Tables 1 - 3 of Section 2770.5 of Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations - Chapter 4.5 Public Safety, or proposes to increase the amounts of hazardous materials on- site above Title 19 threshold limits (including hazardous wastes), notification shall be provided to "affected residents" (and property owners) advising them that the proposed risk management plan (RMP) is available for public review with the Santa Clara County department of environmental health. Notification from the city shall be mailed not later than 10 days after receipt of the information by the fire department (the county allows for a comment period of at least 45 days). Comments may be submitted to the SCCDEH, which shall review the RMP and any comments received. Any user or operator of hazardous materials above Title 19 threshold limits in Palo Alto shall submit a copy to the Palo Alto fire department of the RMP they are required to prepare under Title 19 and file with the Santa Clara County department of environmental health (SCCDEH). No building or fire department permit shall be issued prior to the submittal of the RMP to the SCCDEH and the fire department and the completion of the required public review period. The applicant is required to identify in the RMP the zone where potential serious offsite consequences would occur from an accidental release of the largest quantity of a regulated substance. This zone extends from the proposed place of usage or storage to a distance where a toxic vapor cloud, heat from a fire, or blast waves from an explosion resulting from an accident at the usage or storage point would travel before dissipating to the level at which serious injuries from short-term exposures will no longer occur. "Affected residents" are those who reside or own residential property within this zone. (vi) Notwithstanding the provisions above, no new "H" Occupancy portion of a facility (building or area) designated for storage, use or handling of hazardous materials above Title 19 threshold limits, and no conversion or reconstruction of an existing facility designated for storage, use or handling of hazardous materials above Title 19 threshold limits shall be allowed except upon approval by the city council of a conditional use permit, and in no event shall such facility be located closer than 300 feet to a residentially zoned property or a property with existing residential uses in a nonresidential zone. These provisions shall also apply to facilities that propose (a) to increase the quantity of allowable hazardous materials that previously were below Title 19 threshold limits to levels that exceed Title 19 threshold limits, or (b) to increase the quantity of hazardous materials that already exceed Title 19 threshold limits to a quantity in excess of ten percent (10%) above amounts allowed by an RMP in effect as of November 1, 2006. (vii) Any facility that is no longer subject to the applicability requirements of Title 19 as described above and for which de-registration of the RMP is submitted by the owner or operator shall not re-establish the use, storage, or handling of hazardous materials in excess of Title 19 threshold limits, except in compliance with the notice and setback requirements outlined above. (viii) No facility proposing the use of BioSafety Level 4 etiological agents shall be permitted in the city of Palo Alto. (Ord. 4933 § 4 (part), 2007) Chapter 18.30 COMBINING DISTRICTS Editor's Note Chapter 18.30, Combining Districts, comprises under one general chapter heading, the city's various combining district regulations, each of which is designated by a letter as being a subchapter. Chapter 18.30(E) LANDSCAPE (L) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sections: 18.30(E).010 Specific Purposes 18.30(E).020 Applicability of Regulations 18.30(E).030 Zoning Map Designation 18.30(E).040 Use Limitations 18.30(E).010 Specific Purposes The landscape combining district is intended to provide regulations to ensure the provision of landscaped open space as a physical and visual separation between residential districts and intensive commercial or industrial uses, and in selected locations where landscaped buffers are desirable. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(E).020 Applicability of Regulations The landscape combining district may be combined with any other district established by this title, in accord with the provisions of Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.80. Where so combined, the provisions of this chapter shall apply in lieu of the corresponding provisions of the general district with which the landscape combining district is combined. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(E).030 Zoning Map Designation The landscape combining district shall be applied only adjoining site lines or property lines, where consistent with the purposes of this chapter, and shall be designated on the zoning map by the symbol "L" within parentheses, following the general district designation for the district with which it is combined. The dimension of the landscape combining district, measured at right angles to the property line, shall be indicated on the zoning map. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(E).040 Use Limitations (a) Permitted Uses Within the landscape combining district, permitted uses shall be limited to the following uses only, in lieu of any uses prescribed for the general district: (1) Landscaping and screen planting; (2) Such fences or walls adjoining the property line as may be required, by the provisions of the general district regulations. (b) Conditional Uses Within the landscape combining district, conditional uses shall be limited to the following uses only, in lieu of any uses prescribed for the general district: (1) Noncommercial recreational activities and facilities, when conducted primarily in open, unenclosed landscaped areas, and when conducted accessory to or in association with uses listed as permitted uses or as conditional uses in the general district; (2) Pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian pathways, walkways and trails, or vehicular access drives, when serving uses listed as permitted or conditional uses in the general district. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) Chapter 18.70 NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCOMPLYING FACILITIES Sections: 18.70.010 General application. 18.70.020 Nonconforming use - Expansion. 18.70.030 Nonconforming use - Change. 18.70.040 Nonconforming use - Discontinuance. 18.70.050 Nonconforming use - Maintenance and repair of facility. 18.70.060 Nonconforming use - Replacement of facility. 18.70.070 Nonconforming use - Required termination. 18.70.080 Noncomplying facility - Enlargement. 18.70.090 Noncomplying facility - Maintenance and repair. 18.70.100 Noncomplying facility - Replacement. 18.70.110 Determination of value. 18.70.120 Determination of age. 18.70.130 Certificate of use and occupancy. 18.70.140 Unsafe buildings. 18.70.010 General application. Except as provided by this chapter or otherwise provided by law, a nonconforming use may be continued, and a structure containing or used by one or more nonconforming uses may be maintained, or a noncomplying facility may be maintained. A nonconforming use is a use which existed legally under the provisions of its zoning classification prior to a rezoning action or annexation which rendered such use not in conformance with the provisions of such new zoning classification. A noncomplying facility is a facility which existed legally under the provisions of its zoning classification prior to a rezoning action or annexation which rendered such facility not in compliance with the provisions of such new zoning classification. (Ord. 3890 § 19, 1989: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.020 Nonconforming use - Expansion. (a) A nonconforming use shall not be altered, enlarged, expanded, or extended, except as provided in subsection (b). This prohibition shall include any moving, enlargement, extension, expansion or alteration of a nonconforming use which: (1) Increases the site area or floor area occupied by such use on the same or any additional site; (2) Increases the number of structures or the size of any structure housing such nonconforming use or portion thereof. (b) A nonconforming use which occupies a portion of a building may be expanded to include additional floor area within the same building; provided that: (1) Without substantial remodeling or reconstruction, the portion of building into which expansion is proposed is not reasonably susceptible to use or occupancy by a conforming use. The determination of whether a portion of a building is reasonably susceptible to use or occupancy by a conforming use shall be made by the building official and shall take into consideration, but not be limited to, the following: (A) Whether any required remodeling or reconstruction would involve structural alterations; (B) Whether the building was designed and constructed for the nonconforming use occupying the building or portion thereof, or uses of similar intensity or classification; (C) The degree of privacy, separation, and protection afforded the portion of the building into which expansion is proposed from intrusion, interference, noise, and similar effects resulting from or generated by the nonconforming use; (D) Availability of access to the portion of the building into which expansion is proposed. (2) Such expansion within the building does not create, cause, or increase any additional nonconformance or noncompliance with the requirements of this title. (3) Nothing contained in this section authorizes a change in the nature of a nonconforming use contrary to the provision of Section 18.70.030. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.030 Nonconforming use - Change. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a nonconforming use shall not be changed to or replaced by any use except a conforming use. (b) A nonconforming use may be changed to or replaced by another nonconforming use which would have been permitted under the most recent zoning classification of the property under which the nonconforming use was a conforming use and which is of no higher occupancy rating than the existing nonconforming use as defined by Title 16 subject to the following limitations: (1) The change or replacement shall not increase the extent of the nonconformity, or the nature of the activity, or the site area or floor area occupied by the nonconforming use on the site, except as may be provided by Section 18.70.020(b). (2) Any period of temporary vacancy or discontinuance associated with such change or replacement shall not exceed the limitations established by Section 18.70.040. (3) Such change or replacement of nonconforming use to or by another nonconforming use shall be permitted only if the building, or portion of a building, presently occupied by the nonconforming use is not reasonably capable of conversion to accommodate use and occupancy by a conforming use, without substantial reconstruction or remodeling. The building official shall determine whether the building, or portion of a building, is reasonably capable of such conversion. Said determination shall take into consideration, but not be limited to, the following: (A) Whether changes in the nature of the building or a portion of the building would be required by Title 16 or similar regulations in order to convert the use of the building, or portion of the building, to a conforming use; (B) Whether any reconstruction or remodeling necessary to convert the use and occupancy of the building, or a portion of the building, involves structural alterations; (C) Whether the building, or portion of the building, was originally designed and constructed for the particular existing nonconforming use or uses of similar character. (c) A nonconforming use which is changed to or replaced by a conforming use shall not be reestablished, and any portion of a site or any portion of a building, the use of which changes from a nonconforming to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.040 Nonconforming use - Discontinuance. (a) On any site having facilities thereon valued at less than one thousand dollars, any nonconforming use, other than a residential use, which is discontinued or abandoned or otherwise ceases operation and use of the site for a period of six months or longer shall not be resumed, reestablished, or continued, and all subsequent use of such site and facilities thereon shall conform to this title. (b) On any site not subject to subsection (a), a nonconforming use of facilities designed and constructed for nonresidential purposes which is discontinued or abandoned or otherwise ceases operation and use of the site for a period of one year or more shall not be resumed, and all subsequent use of such site and facilities thereon shall conform to this title. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18.70.030, or the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, in any residential district, a nonresidential, nonconforming use occupying facilities originally designed and constructed for residential use which is discontinued or abandoned or otherwise ceases operation and use of the site for a period of ninety days or greater shall not be continued or recommenced, and any subsequent use of the site and facilities shall conform to this title. This provision shall not be construed to prevent a change of ownership or management of such nonconforming use; provided, that any cessation of operation of the use is solely in connection with the transfer of ownership or management to a specifically designated person or entity and is solely for the purpose of accomplishing any transfer of title, equipment, operational control, or similar purpose. (Ord. 4016 § 43, 1991: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.050 Nonconforming use - Maintenance and repair of facility. Facilities occupied or used by a nonconforming use permitted by this chapter shall be subject to the following provisions governing maintenance, repairs, alterations, or replacement: (a) Normal and routine maintenance of any structure for the purpose of preserving its existing condition, retarding or eliminating wear and tear or physical depreciation, or complying with the requirements of law, shall be permitted. (b) Incidental alteration shall be permitted, provided the value of the incidental alterations in any one- year period shall not exceed twenty percent of the value of the facility prior to such alterations. (c) Structural alterations or enlargement of the facility shall be permitted only to accommodate a conforming use, or when made to comply with the requirements of law. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.060 Nonconforming use - Replacement of facility. A facility, used or occupied wholly or partly by one or more nonconforming uses, which is damaged or destroyed by any means except ordinary wear and tear and depreciation, may be reconstructed or replaced only for occupancy or use by a conforming use, except in the following instances: (a) Where none of the nonconforming uses is subject to termination as provided by Section 18.70.070, reconstruction or replacement for continued occupancy or use by such nonconforming use shall be permitted only in accord with the following limitations: (1) The extent of nonconformity, or the intensity of activity, or the site area or floor area occupied by the nonconforming use subsequent to reconstruction or replacement of the facility shall not exceed that existing prior to reconstruction or replacement. (2) Reconstruction or replacement shall be subject to all applicable laws, regulations, and procedures otherwise governing construction on the site. (b) When one or more of the nonconforming uses is subject to termination as provided by Section 18.70.070, reconstruction or replacement for continued occupancy or use by such nonconforming use shall be permitted only in accord with the following limitations: (1) During the first one-third of the applicable termination period of such use, the facility may be reconstructed or replaced; provided the value of such reconstruction or replacement shall not exceed seventy-five percent of the value of the facility prior to damage or destruction. (2) During the second one-third of the applicable termination period of such use, the facility may be reconstructed or replaced; provided the value of such reconstruction or replacement shall not exceed fifty percent of the value of the facility prior to damage or destruction. (3) During the last one-third of the applicable termination period of such use, the facility may be reconstructed or replaced; provided the value of such reconstruction or replacement shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the value of the facility prior to damage or destruction. (4) Any reconstruction or replacement permitted in this chapter shall not extend or otherwise modify the required termination date established by Section 18.70.070 and applied to the nonconforming use prior to such reconstruction or replacement. Said termination date shall apply to all portions of the site or structure, including those portions reconstructed or replaced. (Ord. 4016 § 44, 1991: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.070 Nonconforming use - Required termination. (a) In any district, a nonconforming, nonresidential use occupying a site having facilities thereon valued at less than one thousand dollars, shall be terminated within five years from the effective date of this section, or within five years from the date such use becomes nonconforming, whichever date is later, and within such time the improvements shall either be removed, or converted or modified to accommodate a conforming use. (b) In any district, a nonconforming, nonresidential use of a site not subject to subsection (a) of this section shall be terminated in accord with the following provisions and schedules: (1) When occupying or using facilities designed and built for residential use, the nonconforming use shall be terminated within ten years from July 20, 1978, or within ten years from the date such use becomes nonconforming, whichever date is later, and within such time the improvements shall either be removed, or converted or modified to accommodate a conforming use. (2) When occupying or using facilities designed or built for nonresidential use, the nonconforming use shall be terminated, and the facilities shall be converted or modified to accommodate a conforming use, or shall be removed at or before the time limit prescribed in subdivision (3) of this subsection; provided, however, that no such termination, removal, or conversion shall be required within fifteen years from July 30, 1978, or within fifteen years from the date such use became nonconforming, whichever date is later; provided, however, that uses which were made non-conforming as a result of the 1974 Fire Zone 1 Study, by Ordinance No. 2777, adopted March 25, 1974, shall terminate on November 23, 1990; and provided, further, that any use made nonconforming by said Ordinance No. 2777, the primary purpose of which is to prepare and deliver food to senior citizens, shut-ins and others with limited mobility may remain and shall not be subject to termination pursuant to this section. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements in accordance with applicable site development regulations, provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in any increased floor area. Notwithstanding the dates of termination of uses required by this subsection (b)(2), the required termination dates of the following uses shall be as hereinafter set forth: (A) The nonconforming use(s) of the property at 440-460 Page Mill Road for nonprofit orthomolecular and molecular medical research functions shall terminate on or before July 20, 1998. (B) The nonconforming use of the property at 464 Colorado Avenue for a dance studio and associated parking shall terminate on or before July 20, 2003. (C) The nonconforming use of the property at 440 Pepper Street for an art studio specializing exclusively in the medium of monotype printmaking and associated instructional uses shall terminate on or before July 20, 2018. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to create a vested right for the nonconforming uses to remain after July 20, 2003. (D) The nonconforming use of the property at 4277 Miranda for a gero-psychiatric skilled nursing facility shall terminate on or before January 20, 1994. (E) The nonconforming uses of the property at 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue/Olive Avenue for retail, research and development, warehouse, and storage uses are permitted in approximately the same ratio of uses existing as of October 16, 2006, subject to the following limitations: (1) retail uses shall not exceed 60,000 square feet, and (2) truck deliveries and other noisy outdoor activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekends. (F) The nonconforming use of the property at 2011 El Camino Real for tire sales and installation shall terminate on or before April 26, 2009. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements in accordance with applicable site development regulations, provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in any increased floor area or increase in intensity of the use, nor any loss of parking. (3) The following schedule shall govern the period of time for termination of nonconforming uses specified in subdivision (2) of this subsection: Type of Construction Defined by Building Code Age of Structure Computed From Date of Construction Type I – Totally noncombustible 35 years Type II – Fire resistive 35 years Type III – Noncombustible exterior, combustible interior 30 years Type IV – Heavy timber 30 years Type II – Nonrated 25 years Type V – Wood frame 20 years (4) Nothing contained in this subsection shall extend or otherwise modify any termination date provided by any previously existing ordinance for any use which became nonconforming under such ordinance prior to the effective date of this section. Such termination dates for such previously existing nonconforming uses are incorporated in this section and shall remain in effect. (c) The director of planning and community environment shall determine those properties the use of which were lawfully existing uses permitted or conditionally permitted, in the districts in which they were located immediately prior to July 20, 1978, and which uses were rendered nonconforming by reason of the adoption of this title on July 20, 1978, and those properties which, prior to July 20, 1978, were located in an R-1 district which was imposed by reason of annexation of the property to the city without benefit of prezoning, the uses of which were lawfully existing uses permitted or conditionally permitted operating subject to a conditional use permit prior to the date of annexation. Written notice of such nonconformance shall be mailed to the owner of record of each such property and to the occupant of the property. Within two years of the date of mailing of such notice, any owner of such property, lessee of such property with the written consent of owners, or purchaser of such property when acting pursuant to a contract of sale in writing duly executed and acknowledged by both the buyer and the owner of record, may apply to have such property excepted from the termination provisions of this section. Said application may be made to the director of planning and community environment in such form as may be prescribed by the director of planning and community environment. Said application shall include, but not be limited to, a statement of the location and size of the property, the nature of its use on July 20, 1978, a statement of reasons establishing that the use is compatible with and will not be detrimental to the uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan for the surrounding area and properties, a map of the subject property indicating the location of all parcels of real property within a distance of three hundred feet from the exterior boundary of the subject property, a list as shown in the last equalized assessment roll, of the name and address of the owner of record of each such parcel, and such other information as may be required by the director of planning and community environment. (1) Such application shall be accompanied by such fee as is prescribed in the municipal fee schedule. (2) Upon receipt of such application, the director of planning and community environment shall so inform the chairperson of the planning commission who shall set a date for a public hearing on the application which shall be held within a reasonable time from the date of filing of the application. Notice of the hearing shall be given by publication once in a local newspaper at least twelve days prior to the hearing and by mail to owners and occupants of real property within 300 feet of the subject property. (3) Upon the date set for hearing, the planning commission shall conduct a public hearing thereon, unless, for cause, the commission shall on that date continue the matter. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the commission shall determine whether the use of the property on July 20, 1978, is compatible and not detrimental to the land uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan for the surrounding areas of properties. In the event the commission so finds, it shall recommend to the city council that the use shall be exempted from the termination provisions of this section. The commission may recommend such conditions as it may find necessary to insure compatibility including, but not limited to, required improvement of or modifications to existing improvements on the property, limitations on hours of operation, limitation on the nature of operations, and a specified term of years for which the exception shall be granted. (4) Upon receipt of the recommendation of the planning commission, the city council shall consider the application within a reasonable time. The council may, at its option, conduct a public hearing on the matter. In the event the council finds the use of the subject property to be compatible with and not detrimental to those land uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan for the surrounding area and properties, it shall, by motion, except said use from the termination provisions of this section. In granting such exception, the council may include such conditions as are deemed necessary to insure such compatibility, including, but not limited to, the conditions set out in subsection (c)(3) of this section. (5) Any use which is excepted from the termination provisions of this section, and which is changed pursuant to Section 18.70.030 shall be subject to the termination provisions of this section as though no exception had been granted. (6) Any use excepted from the termination provisions of this section shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, without the necessity to comply with site development regulations, for continual use and occupancy by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased floor area, number of dwelling units, height, length, or any other increase in the size of the improvement. (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, any off-street parking lot which was lawfully existing and not subject to any required termination provisions of any predecessor ordinance on the effective date of this section, and which on that date was and continues to be used accessory to a lawful conforming permitted use, shall be permitted to continue in existence and use for the life of the principal use to which it is accessory, regardless of whether said parking lot and principal use are located in the same district. (Ord. 4923 § 5, 2006: Ord. 4826 § 135, 2004: Ord. 4803 § 2, 2003: Ord. 4594 § 2, 1999: Ord. 4314 § 1, 1995: Ord. 4175 § 1, 1993: Ord. 4174 § 1, 1993: Ord. 4142 § 1, 1993: Ord. 4141 § 1, 1993: Ord. 4081 § 18, 1992: Ord. 4016 § 45, 1991: Ord. 3886 § 1, 1989: Ord. 3536 § 39, 1984: Ord. 3273 § 3, 1981: Ord. 3204 § 1, 1980: Ord. 3187 § 6, 1980: Ord. 3171 § 1, 1979: Ord. 3130 § 25(e), 1979: Ord. 3108 § 7, 1979: Ord. 3070 § 2, 1978: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.080 Noncomplying facility - Enlargement. (a) Except as specifically permitted by subsections (b) and (c) hereof or by Section 18.12.050(a), no enlargement, expansion, or other addition or improvement to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted which increases the noncompliance. This section shall not be construed to prohibit enlargement or improvement of a facility, otherwise permitted by this title, which does not affect the particular degree of or manner in which the facility does not comply with one or more provisions of this title. (b) Except in areas designated as special study areas, the director of planning and community environment may permit minor additions of floor area to noncomplying facilities in the commercial CC, CS and CN zones and in the industrial MOR, ROLM, RP and GM districts, subject to applicable site development regulations, for purposes of on-site employee amenities, resource conservation, or code compliance, upon the determination that such minor additions will not, of themselves, generate substantial additional employment. Such additions may include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) Area designed and used solely for providing on-site services to employees of the facility, such as recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias and day care facilities; (2) Area designated for resource conservation, such as trash compactors, recycling and thermal storage facilities; and (3) Area designed and required for hazardous materials storage facilities, handicapped access, and seismic upgrades. (Ord. 3890 § 20, 1989: Ord. 3683 § 18, 1986: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.090 Noncomplying facility - Maintenance and repair. (a) Normal and routine maintenance of a noncomplying facility shall be permitted for the purpose of preserving its existing condition, retarding or eliminating wear and tear or physical depreciation, or complying with the requirements of law. (b) Incidental alterations to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted, provided such alterations do not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the requirements of this title. (c) Structural alterations to a noncomplying facility shall be permitted when necessary to comply with the requirements of law, or to accommodate a conforming use when such alterations do not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and requirements of this title. (Ord. 3683 § 17, 1986: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.100 Noncomplying facility - Replacement. A noncomplying facility which is damaged or destroyed by any means except ordinary wear and tear and depreciation may be reconstructed only as a complying facility, except as follows: (a) When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects only a portion of the facility that did not constitute or contribute to the noncompliance, said portion may be repaired or reconstructed to its previous configuration. (b) When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects a portion of the facility that constituted or contributed to the noncompliance, any replacement or reconstruction to such damaged portion shall be accomplished in such manner as not to reinstate the noncompliance or degree of noncompliance caused by the destroyed or damaged portion of the facility, and otherwise in full compliance with this title; however, if the cost to replace or reconstruct the noncomplying portion of the facility to its previous configuration does not exceed fifty percent of the total cost to replace or reconstruct the facility in conformance with this subsection, then the damaged noncomplying portion may be replaced or reconstructed to its previous configuration. In no event shall such replacement or construction create, cause, or increase any noncompliance with the requirements of this title. (c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) hereof, a noncomplying facility in the commercial CS, CN and CC zones and the industrial MOR, ROLM, RP and GM districts, except for those areas designated as special study areas, existing on August 1, 1989, which when built was a complying facility, shall be permitted to be remodeled, improved or replaced in accordance with applicable site development regulations other than floor area ratio, provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement shall not result in increased floor area. (d) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b) and (c) hereof, a noncomplying facility housing a conforming use in the R-1 and RE zones, which when built was a complying facility, which is damaged or destroyed by non-willful means (i.e., acts of God) shall be permitted to be replaced, on the same site, and in its previous configuration, without necessity to comply with the current site development regulations, provided that any such replacement shall not result in increased floor area, height, length or any other increase in the size of the facility. (e) Except as otherwise provided in this section with regard to replacement or reconstruction of a portion of a facility to its previous noncomplying condition, all reconstruction shall be subject to all applicable laws, regulations, and procedures otherwise governing construction on the site at the time said construction is undertaken. (Ord. 4102 § 1 (part), 1992: Ord. 4016 § 46, 1991: Ord. 3905 § 18, 1989: Ord. 3890 § 21, 1989: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.110 Determination of value. Value, as used in this chapter with respect to value of a facility, or to the value of improvements on a site, or to the value of reconstruction or replacement, means the current cost of construction, or the current cost of replacement in kind of existing facilities or improvements, excluding consideration of the value of land. Estimates or determinations of such cost for purposes of this chapter shall be made by or shall be reviewed and approved by the building official. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.120 Determination of age. The age of a facility shall be computed from the recorded date of its completion, if available, or otherwise shall be deemed to be one year subsequent to the date of issuance of a building permit for such facility. In any case where, in a single construction phase, an addition to a facility was commenced prior to July 20,1978, which had at the time of its completion a value in excess of seventy-five percent of the full cash value of the original facility, or which increased the gross floor area of the facility by more than seventy-five percent, the age of the facility shall be computed from the recorded date of the completion of such addition, if available, or otherwise such date shall be deemed to be one year subsequent to the date of issuance of a building permit for such addition. When the age of a facility cannot be determined by any of the foregoing means, the building official shall estimate the age for purposes of this chapter. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.130 Certificate of use and occupancy. The owner or occupant of any site occupied or used entirely or partially by a nonconforming use shall make application for a certificate of use and occupancy under the provisions of Title 16 and shall annually thereafter apply for renewal of such certificate. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.70.140 Unsafe buildings. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as repealing, abrogating, or modifying any provision of Chapter 16.40, or any other provision of this code, or of any law relating to requirements for construction, maintenance, repair, demolition, or removal of structures. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) MEMORANDUM Date: April 23, 2014 Subject: Survey of Industrial Zoning Practices in 18 Jurisdictions The survey of industrial and hazardous material zoning practices describes how18 different municipal codes regulate hazardous materials in industrial park and manufacturing districts, particularly when those uses are in close proximity to residential uses. The survey focused on whether the various codes specifically identify plating shops as a separate use, whether they impose on site quantity threshold requirements lower than Title 19, and whether they regulate outdoor storage area locations and on-site hazardous material loading locations. The purpose of the survey is to assist the City of Palo Alto in its evaluation of their zoning regulations regarding protection of residential areas from potentially dangerous hazards. Sixteen of the jurisdictions in the survey were in California, and two were out of state. The jurisdictions were selected on the basis that they were large enough and old enough to house a variety of industrial uses. The probability that the industrial base would include both high technology businesses along with more traditional industrial uses was also considered. The California cities included: Palo Alto, Berkeley, Dublin, Industrial City, Livermore, Los Angeles, Mountain View, Newark, San Diego, Barrio Logan, (subarea of San Diego with special industrial requirements), San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Clara, Oakland, Alameda and Sacramento. The two out of state jurisdictions were Ann Arbor, Michigan and Foxborough, Massachusetts. The survey focused on the following issues that are analyzed individually below: 1. Are plating shops called out as a separate use? If they are a separate use are they permitted, conditional, or prohibited? 2. How are hazardous materials defined? Is a hazardous material threshold (quantity) established in the code? What is the basis for that threshold? 3. Is there a standard for outdoor storage area locations (including quantified distance from property line or for storage e.g. waste for removal, cryogenic storage areas etc.)? 4. Does the industrial code regulate the distance to residential zoning districts (or uses)? Does the code address 'sensitive receptors' (schools, daycare centers, convalescent homes etc) and establish a separation? 5. Does the industrial code require physical buffer zones or landscaped areas in addition to setbacks between industrial uses using hazardous materials and residential districts or uses? Attachment G 2 6. Does the industrial code regulate on-site loading locations, particularly for toxic material delivery (gas, liquid and solid)? Are these restrictions greater for loading/unloading if the site/location is proximate to residential zoned districts or uses? 1. Are plating shops called out as a separate use? If they are a separate use are they permitted, conditional, or prohibited? Of the 18 cities surveyed, 4 specifically identify plating shops as a separate use. In two cities plating shops were permitted and in two cities plating shops were prohibited. The Newark code permits plating shops in the limited and general industrial zone but requires a conditional use permit for plating shops in the industrial park area. Permitted Conditionally Permitted Prohibited Industrial City Newark Foxborough Newark Barrio-Logan The regulations vary as noted below: Palo Alto does not specifically identify plating as a distinct use within its municipal code. The zoning regulations identify uses by general use category and performance rather than by identifying specific uses. In the code, plating falls within the category of “manufacturing” which is a permitted use in the Research Park District “RP.” Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.20.030 . In Industrial City, chromium plating is a permitted use in the Industrial Zone. Industrial City Municipal Code §17.16.010 (A)(24). In Newark, metal finishing and plating is a permitted use in the limited industrial and general industrial zones and requires a conditional use permit in the industrial park district. Newark Municipal Code §17.24.030. Barrio Logan is a neighborhood in San Diego California. It enacted specific regulations regarding plating facilities to combat serious public health effects that were caused by the plating facilities and industrial uses within residential zones. Barrio Logan’s subdistricts B & D specifically prohibit chrome plating. San Diego Municipal Code §§152.0306; 152.0312. Subdistrict B is a mixed-use district containing residential, commercial, and industrial uses. San Diego Municipal Code §152.0305. Sub-district D contains industrial and heavy commercial uses. San Diego Municipal Code §152.0311. Barrio Logan also specifically excludes chrome plating from the definition of manufacturing in the zoning regulations. San Diego Municipal Code §152.0104. 3 Foxborough, MA, specifically prohibits commercial establishments for the plating of metals or semi-conductors in the Water Resource Protection Overlay District. Foxborough Zoning By- Laws §9.4.8. 2. How are hazardous materials defined? Is a threshold (quantitative) established in the code? What is the basis for that threshold? Fifteen of the 18 jurisdictions define hazardous materials. The regulations of the cities of Dublin, Los Angeles, and Barrio Logan in the City of San Diego do not have a specific definition of hazardous material in their codes. The remaining jurisdictions use definitions based on a combination of Federal and State regulations. The cited regulations include EPA title 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 (referring to radioactive substances), and the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) standards including gases. Also frequently cited are California administrative code regulations including Title 19 (CAL ARP, RMP thresholds), Title 8, Title 22, specifically the California Health and Safety Code Hazardous Materials Business Plan thresholds including hazardous waste, and standards based on the California Uniform Fire Code. Two cities, Berkeley and Industrial City, have included public nuisance clauses in their provisions to broaden their definition of hazardous waste: “The improper maintenance of any substance which because of its quantity, concentration or physical, chemical or infections characteristics may either cause or substantially contribute to an increased risk of death or serious illness or otherwise pose a significant present or potential hazard to human health or the environment…”. On site quantities of hazardous materials are generally limited based on the Federal and State code sections cited to define hazardous waste. However, the City of Berkeley established local limit criteria that require disclosure along with criteria to include in the disclosure. This limit is 500 pounds of solid hazardous material, 55 gallons of liquid hazardous material, and 200 cubic feet at standard temperature and standard pressure for gases. Several codes are careful to note that their regulations focus on quantities greater than those found in household use. Palo Alto incorporates the threshold requirements from Title 19. Palo Alto defines hazardous material as any material that “poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the community” which is the same language used by Berkeley, San Francisco and Industrial City. Further, the Palo Alto code regulates the quantity of hazardous materials based on Title 19 (CalARP) threshold levels. 4 3. Is there a standard for outdoor storage area locations (include quantified distance from property line, type of storage e.g. waste for removal, cryogenic storage areas etc.)? Six of the sampled cities regulate outdoor storage; however only Newark addresses location of the storage areas and requires them to be located 200 feet away from any residential buildings. Foxborough makes outdoor storage an accessory use and includes specific requirements within its Water Resources Protection Overlay Division: “Toxic or hazardous materials may be stored as an accessory use provided that storage is either in a free standing container within a building or in a free standing container above ground level with protection adequate to contain a spill the size of the container’s maximum storage capacity plus ten (10%) percent.” Foxborough Zoning By-Laws §9.4.7. The other jurisdictions (Oakland, Cupertino, Palo Alto) regulate the quantity of material stored outdoors to include the following thresholds: “No highly toxic compressed gasses may be stored outside while only 10 cubic feet of toxic compressed gasses and 20 cubic feet of moderately toxic compressed gasses may be stored outside”. Sacramento does not permit any outdoor storage in the “MIP” zone. Sacramento Municipal Code §17.220.540. “The purpose of the MIP zone is to achieve a nuisance-free environment for light manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution in an industrial park setting.” Sacramento Municipal Code § 17.220.500. Newark requires that hazardous materials storage and loading facilities shall not be located within 300 feet of any residential buildings or within 50 feet of any existing or proposed public recreation area. § 17.25.030 (D) 4. Does the industrial code regulate the distance to residential zoning districts (or uses)? Does the code address 'sensitive receptors' (schools, daycare centers, convalescent homes etc) and establish a separation? Of the 18 cities surveyed, 9 regulate the distance between hazardous materials and residential uses. Three of these 9 codes only regulate the distance between hazardous waste facilities and residential uses. The other 6 cities regulate hazardous materials or hazardous land uses. See Table Distance between Residential Uses and Use of Hazardous Materials. The criteria for separation from residential uses include:  The amount of hazardous material used on site (Palo Alto), 5  The type of material, ignitable, explosive or reactive waste (Berkeley, Dublin),  Separation based on ‘undesirable uses’ (Los Angeles),  Location of hazardous material storage and loading facilities (Newark, San Francisco) and  Activities that include hazardous materials in processing (Alameda). The cited distances of separation range for residential uses range from 300 feet in Palo Alto and Newark to 500 feet in Lost Angeles and San Francisco. Separation from residential uses for ignitable, explosive or reactive waste is 2,000 feet in Berkeley and Dublin. Separation for hazardous materials processing in Alameda is 2,000 feet. Separation of residential and or sensitive receptor uses from hazardous waste facilities are addressed by six jurisdictions (Palo Alto, Berkeley, Dublin, Livermore, Cupertino, Mountain View). The distance of separation required between hazardous waste facilities and residential/sensitive receptors is the largest and ranges from 1,000 feet in Mountain View to 5,000 feet in Berkeley, Dublin and Livermore. Palo Alto’s required separation from hazardous waste facilities is 2,000 feet. In addition, in Palo Alto a minimum buffer zone of two thousand feet should be provided between the portion of a hazardous waste facility where hazardous waste will be stored, treated, or disposed and an existing or planned residence or immobile population. Palo Alto Municipal Code §18.62.050 (a). Distance between Residential Uses and Use of Hazardous Materials: Haz Mat above Title 19 Haz waste facility for ignitable, explosive, or reactive waste Haz waste facility List of Undesirable Land Uses Haz mat Storage and Loading Haz Mat Processing Palo Alto (300 ft) Berkeley (2,000 ft) Berkeley (500 ft) Los Angeles (500 ft) Newark (300 feet) Alameda (2,000 ft) Dublin (2,000 ft) Dublin (500 ft) San Francisco (500 ft) Livermore -Small (500 ft) -Large (2,000 ft) Cupertino (1,000 ft) 6 Distance between sensitive receptors and: Hazardous waste facility Stores or handles extremely hazardous materials Palo Alto (2,000 ft) Mountain View (1,000 ft) Berkeley (5,000 ft) Dublin (5,000 ft) Livermore (5,000 ft) A. Hazardous Waste Facilities Hazardous waste facilities are defined differently in different jurisdictions. Generally hazardous waste facilities refer to the treatment of by-product (waste) from the use of a variety of chemicals and materials. Alameda regulates the distance between residential uses and hazardous materials processing use at 2,000 feet. Alameda Municipal Code §30-21.A hazardous materials processing use is defined as “activities to clean, repackage, or perform another industrial operation involving hazardous waste which is brought onto a site and reprocessed, with the end product sent off-site.” Alameda Municipal Code §21-1. Berkeley and Dublin’s code contains siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Hazardous waste facilities for ignitable, explosive, or reactive wastes must be 2,000 feet from the nearest residential area. Berkeley Municipal Code §11.50.040 (A)(1); Dublin Municipal Code§ 8.60.060 (A)(1). Other hazardous waste facilities “must have a minimum setback of five hundred feet from any legal residence. Berkeley Municipal Code §11.50.040 (A)(1) ; Dublin Municipal Code §8.60.060 (A)(2). Facilities must have a minimum setback of five thousand feet from any immobile populations including, but not limited to, schools, day care centers, homeless shelters, hospitals, and convalescent homes. Berkeley Municipal Code 11.50.040 (A)(3); ); Dublin Municipal Code §8.60.060 (A)(2). Livermore’s code also contains siting criteria for off-site hazardous waste management. It provides that small scale hazardous waste transfer and storage must be 500 feet from the nearest residence. Livermore Municipal Code §6.02.080 T 6.5. Industrial scale facilities must be 2,000 feet from the nearest residence and 5,000 feet from immobile populations. Livermore Municipal Code §6.02.080 T 6.5. In Cupertino, “a minimum buffer of 1,000 feet is required between a transfer, treatment, or incineration facility and the nearest permanent residence…” Cupertino Municipal Code §9.20.290 (L). 7 B. List of Hazardous Land Uses In the case of Los Angeles and San Francisco, the codes include a list of specific land uses considered to be hazardous. These lists help define the types of issues of concern. Los Angeles prohibits certain specific uses from being located more than 500 feet from a more restrictive zone. The list includes “(a) Acid manufacture. (b) Automobile, equine or motorcycle racetrack. (c) Cement, lime, gypsum or plaster of paris manufacture. (d) Distillation of bones. (e) Drop forge industries manufacturing forgings with power hammers. (f) Explosives, manufacture or storage, subject to other provisions of this Code. (h) Fertilizer manufacture. (i) Garbage, offal, or dead animal dumping. (j) Gas manufacture. (k) Glue manufacture. (l) Petroleum refining. (m) Smelting of tin, copper, zinc or iron ores. (n) Stock yards or feeding pens. (p) Tannery or the curing or storage of raw hides.” §12.20 (37) San Francisco also provides a list of uses that may not be conducted within 500 feet of the residential zone. The list includes “Manufacture, refining, distillation or treatment of any of the following: abrasives, acid (noncorrosive), alcohol, ammonia, asbestos, asphalt, bleaching powder, candles (from tallow), celluloid, chlorine, coal, coke, creosote, dextrine, disinfectant, dye, enamel, gas carbon or lampblack, gas (acetylene or other inflammable), glucose, insecticide, lacquer, linoleum, matches, oilcloth, oil paint, paper (or pulp), perfume, plastics, poison, potash, printing ink, refuse mash or refuse grain, rubber (including balata or gutta percha or crude or scrap rubber), shellac, shoe or stove polish, soap, starch, tar, turpentine, varnish; [permitted in M2 and coextnditionally permitted in PDR -2]” San Francisco Municipal Code §226. C. Extremely Hazardous Materials Mountain View prohibits new uses of extremely hazardous materials from being located within 1,000 feet of any highly sensitive use. § A36.42.070. Extremely hazardous materials are defined as exceeding certain thresholds. See supra Section 2. 5. Does the industrial code require physical buffer zones or landscaped areas in addition to setbacks between industrial uses using hazardous materials and residential districts or uses? Nine of the jurisdictions surveyed required either buffer zones or setbacks between industrial zones and residential zones. Except for Palo Alto the five jurisdictions that required buffer areas did not require setbacks from residential land uses. Buffer areas, generally requiring landscaping and ranged in size from 10 feet with a 7 foot property line wall to 100 feet of landscaped area. In the case of Palo Alto the buffer is defined as being ‘visual’ without a specified width. In San 8 Francisco the buffer zone is a use separation, an area where residential and other uses are specifically prohibited. Required residential setbacks from industrial uses vary. San Diego and Sacramento require side and rear setbacks of 15 feet and 50 feet to Cupertino that requires side setbacks of 25 and rear setback of 150 feet. Berkeley requires a setback of 150 feet if a conditional use permit is required. Palo Alto requires a 300 foot setback if the hazardous materials on site are in excess of the CalARP threshold requiring an RMP. Buffer zones Set backs Administrative Use Permit Los Angeles (100 ft) Palo Alto (300 if RMP required Berkeley (150 ft if a permit is required) San Francisco (use buffer- prohibit res. Uses) San Diego (side 15 ft rear 50 ft) Foxborough (20 ft) Sacramento (side 25 ft, rear 150 ft. Livermore (25 ft) Santa Clara (front 15 ft min., side 10 ft min.) San Jose (10 ft with 7 ft wall) Palo Alto (visual no fixed distance) 6. Does the industrial code regulate on-site loading locations, particularly for toxic material delivery (gas, liquid and solid)? Are these restrictions greater for loading/unloading if the site/location is proximate to residential zoned districts or uses? Of the 18 jurisdictions surveyed only one, Newark, addressed the location of loading areas for hazardous materials. The Newark code requires loading areas be separated from residential uses by 300 feet. The citation is: “Hazardous materials storage and loading facilities shall not be located within three hundred feet of any existing or proposed off-site residential buildings nor within fifty feet of any existing or proposed public recreational field “(CS 17.25.030 (D). Attachment H VILLA-MARIPOSA AREA PRECISE PLAN ADOPTED BY THE MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 13, 1983 RESOLUTION NO. 13912A AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. SUMMARY February 13, 1985 14125 Include a 5,600 square foot parcel in the Plan area. September 29, 1992 15467 15468 Allow a two-year amortization extension and a 30-unit/acre density. -1- VILLA-MARIPOSA AREA PRECISE PLAN DECEMBER 1983 I. BACKGROUND This approximately 23-acre area is bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad, Shoreline Boulevard, Villa Street and the rear lot lines of residential properties fronting Higdon Avenue. The property is zoned P (Planned Community) and covered by the Villa-Mariposa Area Precise Plan. The property was rezoned from the MM (General Industrial) District, when the original Precise Plan was adopted in 1970. Minor amendments to the Plan occurred in 1972 and 1975. The majority of the property (85 percent) has been occupied by the Pacific Press Publishing Association, a very low-intensity industrial printing/publishing house for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. In 1983, the Press announced that it was considering closing its Mountain View facility. The Villa-Mariposa Area is part of a moderate-density residential neighborhood which essentially surrounds this pocket of industrial development. The 1978 Central City Area Plan reinforced the policy to preserve and enhance the residential character of this area. Primary access to the Area is along Villa Street, a residential collector street. Secondary access is provided via several local residential streets. II. PURPOSE With the anticipated move of the Pacific Press operation, reconsideration of the basic land use provisions within the Area Plan is appropriate. In consideration of this special location and the nature of existing improvements, the Precise Plan provides for the transition of this older industrial complex into a primarily residential area, either with a purely residential development in keeping with the adjacent, surrounding land uses; or, alternatively, as a combination-use project with nonresidential use of the easterly portion (up to 11-1/2 acres) when such use is consistent with and facilitates the development of residential use of the remaining major part of the site. This Precise Plan provides for the amortization of existing industrial uses and buildings; specifies reuse criteria for those buildings during the amortization period; defines criteria (including densities) for new residential uses; provides for possible industrial/office use of part of the site; and establishes broad design parameters to facilitate and require the orderly transition of all, or a portion of, the Area into development which is more in keeping with the character and best interests of this residential neighborhood. -2- Specific objectives of this Plan are: A. To facilitate a large-scale, integrated approach to development on the site by encouraging aggregation of lands and coordinated planning and development. B. To facilitate to the maximum extent possible residential development on the property, if the low-intensity Pacific Press operation ceases. C. To allow continued use of existing buildings, or development of new buildings, for nonresidential use on the east end of the Plan Area, if such allowance facilitates the residential development on the west end of the Plan Area. III. LAND USE A. Uses Without a Master Development Plan 1. The principally permitted use on the property shall be residential at a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. 2. Accessory uses, as listed as "accessory" or "conditional" uses in Section 36.11, the R3* (Multi-Family Residential) District, may be authorized by the Zoning Administrator. 3. Printing and publishing operations on a minimum 20-acre site involving no more than 350 employees and requiring no more than five truck trips per week. 4. All other industrial/office uses including existing uses in existing buildings and new uses in existing buildings, unless approved in Section B, hereby become nonconforming. Nonconforming uses may be replaced by new industrial/office uses only when such new use is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator to be of the same or less intensive nature than the existing use in the particular building involved. Specifically included in the evaluation of intensity of use shall be the traffic generation, parking need and employee density of the new use(s). (See list of existing uses by building included as Attachment 1 to this Plan.) All nonconforming uses shall be terminated within 15 years of the adoption of this Plan (except for high-hazard occupancies (Group H occupancies in the Uniform Building Code), which shall be terminated in 10 years) unless newly approved under Section B of this Plan. -3- One two-year extension may be granted to high-hazard industrial uses if the following conditions are satisfied to minimize the risk: a. Provide a fire safety report by a qualified fire protection consultant and implement the report's recommendations. The consultant and the content of the report shall be acceptable to the City's Fire Chief. b. Submit a formal closure plan to the City's Fire Department 1-1/2 years prior to vacating the site, scheduling the safe removal of tanks, equipment and buildings when the site is vacated. c. Implement any necessary storm drain system as required by the City's Utilities Department. d. Mitigate hazards related to vehicular delivery of high-hazard chemicals by repairing and maintaining areas designated for vehicular traffic, including driveways, sidewalks, curbs, etc. B. Uses Requiring Master Development Plan There is a significant amount of office and printing/production floor area existing on the east end of this Precise Plan Area. In consideration of this existing resource and the long-term presence of an employment base at this location, nonresidential or mixed-residential use of the easterly 11-1/2 acres of the site may be considered through approval of a Master Development Plan. A Master Development Plan shall be required for any nonresidential use and shall determine more precisely the amount and configuration of the nonresidential development with the burden of proof resting with the applicant to justify the amount of development up to the maximum of 11-1/2 acres. 1. Within the Master Development Plan, it must be demonstrated by the applicant for such office, research and development, engineering or software development, or limited, nonhazard manufacturing use that: a. Such use of existing facilities or land will aid the integration of the remaining site under one residential development (e.g., existing property lines will be removed so that at least the holdings of Pacific Press in 1983 will be retained as one property to allow easy residential development of the remaining acreage). b. The proposed industrial/office uses will not adversely affect either the existing residential neighborhood or the new residential area to be developed on the westerly 11-1/2 acres of the Precise Plan Area. -4- Included in this evaluation are traffic volume and location, employee density, noise, odors, potential use of hazardous materials and hours of operation. c. The allowance of industrial/office use will facilitate residential development on the remaining acreage; for example, by financially enabling the developer to clear the residentially designated land, by enabling earlier relocation of remaining nonconforming industrial uses out of the residential section, etc. d. It is the responsibility of the applicant to present a Master Development Plan that demonstrates how permanent, nonresidential use of the easterly 11-1/2 acres will foster residential development on the remainder of the Plan Area, compared to allowing only residential use throughout as provided in Section III-A. 2. Industrial/office use shall generally follow the uses allowed in the ML District (Section 36.19) provided, however, that any occupancy by R&D or any manufacturing use shall be limited to those which are safe and do not use toxic or hazardous materials, except as such materials may be needed for limited application, if authorized in accordance with applicable hazardous material control ordinances and special review procedures designated by the City. Any occupancy of the building by R&D or any manufacturing uses (as determined by the City) shall be conditioned upon City approval of a written, tenant-specific Use Compatibility Report, unless the project owner certifies to the satisfaction of the City that the proposed use and user will not involve any hazardous substances or activities. Said report shall be performed by a qualified independent consultant approved by the City and retained by the owner and shall demonstrate to the degree appropriate to the use that the health, safety and welfare of residents of the adjacent neighborhood as well as other project tenants will be protected. Very special attention shall be paid to any use of hazardous gases which this Plan specifically discourages. Optical (e.g., lasers) and similar techno- logical hazards shall be evaluated, and special attention to fumes from volatile solvents (even if odorless and colorless), must also be addressed and minimized. Primary responsibility for initial clearance of perspective tenants and ongoing monitoring shall rest with the owner but be monitored by the City. Said provisions shall ensure continuity of monitoring in the event of sale or other such action. Procedures for establishing various uses not involving hazardous materials shall require approval as outlined under the Administrative -5- Section. It will be incumbent upon the applicant to prove that the proposed use will not be injurious to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Zoning Administrator may establish appropriate conditions to assure this end. 3. Public and quasi-public service uses (e.g., theater, government administrative offices, recreation, schools and other similar uses) shall also be permitted. 4. The 15-year amortization period for nonresidential uses and structures (10 years for high-hazard uses) shall apply to areas not specifically accepted for permanent nonresidential use through approval of a Master Development Plan in accordance with Section IV-B and addressing the issues identified in Section III-B.1. IV. DESIGN STANDARDS A. Residential Development The development standards of the R3* District shall apply. Particular attention must be given to buffering the development from noise from the Southern Pacific Railroad and Central Expressway and to minimizing traffic impacts on the existing neighborhood. Special design quality of this major project is required. B. Industrial/Office Development New construction or other permanent industrial/office occupancy of the east end of the Villa-Mariposa Area shall be permitted only in accordance with a Master Development Plan covering the entire Plan area which shows graphically and procedurally how the industrial/office portion can be located here and not adversely affect the residential quality of this neighborhood. The development standards of the ML District shall apply, with the entire development being considered one corner site with respect to minimum landscaping, yard and setback requirements. It is noted that the nonresidential building floor area on this site in 1983 is approximately 43.6 percent of the total land area, requiring that some buildings must be removed to yield a final nonresidential floor area to land area ratio (FAR) of 35 percent. It is also noted that substantial upgrading of the landscaping, building appearance, provision of parking, truck loading and circulation will be needed to meet ordinance development requirements as part of any project proposal. -6- New construction is permitted only if: (1) total floor area remains within the 35 percent FAR on the nonresidential land area; (2) proposal is accompanied by an evaluation of the architectural and historical significance of existing buildings (especially the existing one-story offices and the auditorium/chapel building); and (3) proposal includes removal of other nonresidential floor area within the residentially designated westerly 11-1/2 acres of the site on a square foot to square foot basis as needed to facilitate that residential development and as needed to mitigate the excessive nonresidential FAR in excess of 35 percent calculated on the entire Plan Area. Existing industrial/office developments shall be required to be painted on the exterior and to have exterior buffer landscaping between any such use and residential use prior to approval of any new tenant. C. Traffic and Access All designs shall provide a means to minimize traffic on adjoining residential streets and shall make provisions for adequate right-of-way for future construction of an off-ramp from Central Expressway to Shoreline Boulevard. V. ADMINISTRATION Any combined use Master Development Plans (and amendments to same), as well as new residential development proposals shall be approved by the City Council as per Sections 36.22.6 to 36.22.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. Once a combined use Master Development Plan has been approved, uses which are identified as provisional uses within this Plan, reuse of existing buildings, building expansions or modifications, and sign program changes may be granted by the Zoning Administrator after appropriate public hearings as per Sections 36.22.6 through 36.22.8. Upon granting of the Planned Community Permit, approval of minor sign changes, approval of specific signs, approval of minor site changes, and building design alterations for new or remodeled buildings, including building material changes, and changes in tenants with no change of use category in the existing buildings, or changes in use of new buildings which are in conformity with the Precise Plan, may be authorized through the Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) process. All existing nonresidential uses and buildings are hereby declared to be nonconforming and subject to the provisions of Sections 36.29 through 36.29.3, except that the amortization period shall be 15 years (10 years in the case of high- hazard, Group H occupancies, with one extension as provided in Section III.A.4) -7- due to the substantial conflict of existing and potential industrial uses with the adjacent residential neighborhood, the degree of hazard to people living in the area caused by the existing uses and due to the above-average age of the existing buildings. Said nonconforming status shall in no way reduce the City's right to enforce existing or future conditions of approval or other requirements protecting the public's health, safety or general welfare. LL/PRE PLAN-1 860-07-08-92PP^ -1 - AT T A C H M E N T 1 DE S C R I P T I O N O F E X I S T I N G B U I L D I N G S Bu i l d i n g Nu m b e r Fl o o r A r e a (S q u a r e F e e t ) Ex i s t i n g U s e St r u c t u r e T y p e Ap p r o x i m a t e Ag e ( Y e a r s ) Vi s i b l e S t r u c t u r e Qu a l i t y 1 42 , 2 0 0 Wa r e h o u s e — p a p e r s t o c k Ma s o n r y t i l e w a l l s c l a d w i t h co r r u g a t e d m e t a l , w o o d - t r u s s e d ro o f , m e t a l s h e a t h i n g 50 - 6 0 Fa i r t o p o o r 2 9, 0 0 0 57 6 - s e a t a u d i t o r i u m / th e a t e r Co n c r e t e a n d s t u c c o , t i l e r o o f 50 E x c e l l e n t ; i n t e r i o r re c e n t l y r e m o d e l e d 3 16 , 5 0 0 Of f i c e Tw o - s t o r y c o n c r e t e 15 - 2 0 V e r y g o o d 4 3, 9 0 0 Of f i c e St u c c o , t i l e r o o f 30 - 4 0 Go o d — v e r y g o o d 5 5, 5 0 0 Sh i p p i n g a n d w a r e h o u s e Co n c r e t e w i t h o n e - h a l f m e t a l r o o f an d o n e - h a l f t i l e r o o f 20 - 3 0 Go o d 6 1 3 , 4 8 5 +6 , 0 0 0 l o f t Wa r e h o u s e , r e p a i r a n d bu i l d i n g e n g i n e e r i n g of f i c e Co n c r e t e w i t h m e t a l r o o f 20 - 3 0 G o o d 7 5, 3 0 0 Re s i d e n t i a l , d o r m i t o r y , of f i c e Wo o d 10 0 F a i r 8 6, 5 0 0 Of f i c e , j a n i t o r i a l s e r v i c e s , st o r a g e St u c c o o v e r w o o d f r a m e 30 - 3 5 Fa i r B u i l d i n g F l o o r A r e a A p p r o x i m a t e V i s i b l e S t r u c t u r e N u m b e r ( S q u a r e F e e t ) E x i s t i n g U s e S t r u c t u r e T y p e A g e ( Y e a r s ) Q u a l i t y -2 - 9 4, 3 5 5 Da y c a r e r o o m , re s i d e n t i a l o c c u p a n c y St u c c o o v e r w o o d f r a m e 35 - 4 0 Fa i r t o p o o r 10 3 , 0 7 2 Wa r e h o u s e , u s e d c l o t h i n g sa l e s a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n St u c c o o v e r w o o d f r a m e 35 - 4 0 Fa i r 11 3 r e s i d e n t i a l un i t s Si n g l e f a m i l y , o n e d u p l e x Wo o d 60 - 8 0 30 - 4 0 Fa i r 12 16 , 2 0 0 Wa r e h o u s e Co n c r e t e t i l t u p 10 - 1 5 Go o d 13 3, 0 0 0 Wa r e h o u s e Ma s o n r y , w i t h e x t r a 40 - 5 0 Go o d 14 22 , 4 0 0 Wa r e h o u s e w i t h s m a l l of f i c e Co n c r e t e t i l t u p 10 - 1 5 Go o d Bu i l d i n g s 1 5 t h r o u g h 1 8 a r e d i f f e r e n t s e g m e n t s o f w h a t n o w a p p e a r s t o b e o n e b u i l d i n g . S i n c e t h e n u m b e r e d p o r t i o n s w e r e b u i l t at di f f e r e n t t i m e s a n d h a v e d i f f e r e n t u s e a n d r e u s e c a p a b i l i t i e s , t h e y a r e t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y . 15 49 , 2 0 0 Bo o k b i n d i n g , ma n u f a c t u r i n g Co n c r e t e w a l l s , m e t a l r o o f 20 - 3 0 Fa i r t o g o o d 16 23 , 8 0 0 Ma i l i n g , f o l d i n g — ma n u f a c t u r i n g Co n c r e t e w a l l s , m e t a l r o o f 30 - 4 0 Fa i r t o g o o d 17 51 , 5 0 0 Pr e s s r o o m , ma n u f a c t u r i n g Ma s o n r y w a l l , b u i l t - u p r o o f 40 - 5 0 Go o d 18 23 , 4 0 0 Of f i c e Ma s o n r y w a l l , s t u c c o c o v e r i n g an d t i l e r o o f 50 - 8 0 Go o d t o v e r y g o o d B u i l d i n g F l o o r A r e a A p p r o x i m a t e V i s i b l e S t r u c t u r e N u m b e r ( S q u a r e F e e t ) E x i s t i n g U s e S t r u c t u r e T y p e A g e ( Y e a r s ) Q u a l i t y -3 - LL / P R E P L A N - 1 / 8 6 0 - 0 7 - 0 8 - 9 2 T ^ Fire Department Response to AECOM Risk Assessment Recommendations  • CPI should develop an action plan for these recommendations and oversight should be provided by the PAFD and/or SCDEH. The Fire Department supports the recommendations. Please refer to the comments on each of the recommendations. • CPI should provide evidence that deficiencies and improvements recommended by the PAFD have been made. PAFD conducted an inspection at the facility on March 15, 2012 (Attachment A) and all deficiencies have been corrected. PAFD conducted another facility inspection on January 21-23, 2014 (Attachment B) and a re-inspection on August 1, 2014 (Attachment C). All the deficiencies have been corrected with the exception of a sprinkler retrofit in a furnace area of Building 4. This is an item which needs additional time with design work and plan submission and review, and the Fire Department has set a compliance schedule of November 1, 2014. • CPI should explain the omission of oxygen from the list of special management chemicals. In compliance with Fire Department regulations, CPI included liquid oxygen (1,000 gallon in Building 1B) and oxygen (6,281 cubic feet in Building 4) in its Hazardous Materials Business Plan. The inclusion of oxygen in the list of special management chemicals is a good idea. • CPI should correct the sagging piping connected to the concentrated acid waste tank. CPI has repaired two incidences of sagging pipes. The sagging pipe described in a 2005 Fire Code Plan Check was repaired in 2005. The Schedule 40 PVC pipe was replaced with Schedule 80 PVC pipe and an additional pipe hanger was installed in this section. The sagging pipe reported by AECOM in 2014 was a different pipe. It was a pipe going to the Wastewater Treatment System (WTS) and not the Concentrated Acid Waste tank as reported by AECOM. The pipe was a 7-foot section sagging approximately 6 inches. CPI replaced the sagging Schedule 40 PVC pipe with thicker Schedule 80 PVC and added additional support. • CPI should develop and implement a robust CMP at the CPI facility to handle, use and dispose of the special management chemicals. Timelines should be developed to complete and implement components of the CMP and oversight of this process should be provided by the PAFD. Some of these items require that operating procedures be developed and preventive maintenance of equipment be performed by trained personnel on a regular schedule. Records of the preventive maintenance performed on equipment should be recorded and maintained. Attachment I The Fire Department oversees the safe storage and handling of hazardous materials through the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) program. CPI has complied with all the requirements of the HMBP program. The Critical Management Program (CMP) goes beyond our regulatory authority. It is a useful tool for the company. • CPI personnel should be adequately trained and records of this training should be maintained. Additionally, emergency action planning should incorporate a potential release involving the cryogenic liquid hydrogen tanks and this modification should be undertaken with the PAFD. Adequate training and recording keeping is a component of the HMBP program administered by the Fire Department. We do conduct pre-fire planning with businesses and will gladly work with CPI to conduct a pre-fire planning and drill involving the potential release of liquid hydrogen • To avoid and minimize the offsite risks from an extreme event, CPI should implement proper prevention measures to limit a release of nitric acid such as installing locking caps for piping contained in the loading rack. The Fire Department supports additional safe-guards for the loading process. • CPI needs to submit an annual update of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the PAFD. This update should include any changes to the business activities and operations, chemical inventory and contingency action plan. In addition, the PAFD should perform an annual inspection of the facility to confirm the information provided in the HMBP update and assure that the quantities of acutely hazardous materials are below the RMP threshold planning quantities. CPI has submitted HMBP updates on February 28, 2014, and an inspection was performed on January 21, 2014 (see previous item). A surprise inspection was conducted on August 1, 2014, and the Fire Department verified that the quantities of acutely hazardous materials were below the RMP thresholds (Attachment D). Attachments: A. March 15, 2012 Inspection Report B. January 21-23, 2104 Inspection Report C. August 1, 2014 Re-inspection Report D. August 1, 2014 Surprise Inspection Report August 18, 2014 J.N.: 2289.00 Communications & Power Industries LLC c/o Mr. Mark W. Steres, Partner Aleshire & Wynder LLP 2361 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 475 El Segundo, California 90245 Subject: Seismic Risk Assessment, Building No. 2, 811 Hansen Way, Palo Alto, California. Dear Mr. Steres, In accordance with our proposal dated May 29, 2014, Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. (AKA) is pleased to present our seismic risk assessment of the subject structure. We understand that AECOM was hired by the City of Palo Alto to calculate the toxic endpoint of a gas plume that would result from the complete mixing of the nitric acid and potassium cyanide located in the plate shop on the second floor of Building No. 2. The results of their evaluation were reviewed in a draft of the referenced report. According to this document, AECOM made the following assumptions due to “a major seismic occurrence at the CPI facility:” Significant damage to Building 2 and the associated plating shop, Quantities of potassium cyanide and nitric acid released during the earthquake include the aqueous solutions contained in the plating shop, Release and mixing of potassium cyanide solution and nitric acid solution occurs in the plating shop due to the rupture and failure of the containment barriers, and, Scrubbers are damaged rendering them inoperative. AECOM also indicates their evaluation assumes the complete and uniform mixing of all nitric acid (528.2 lbs) and potassium cyanide (73.1 lbs) that could be contained in the plating shop. For the assumed event to occur, a complete failure of the containment barriers would have to occur, in addition to other assumed factors such as complete, uniform mixing of all the reactants for which AECOM states is “highly unrealistic.” The complete mixing of reactants would be inhibited by debris that would tend to trap pools of reactants and keep some portions from mixing. A complete failure of the containment barriers would require the complete failure of the upper floor of Building 2 due to a strong ground motion event. AECOM acknowledged that CPI has completed a seismic retrofit of Building 2. However, AECOM made no specific quantitative assessment of the seismic retrofit work or the likelihood of the assumed structural failure event. To have a complete understanding of the risks associated with the assumed event by AECOM, a probabilistic assessment of the likelihood of complete failure of the second floor was needed. The purpose of our evaluation was to complete a quantitative evaluation of the likelihood of structural failure that could hypothetically lead to a mixing of chemicals on the second floor of Building 2. The triggering event is assumed to consist of the upper floor system undergoing complete collapse during a strong ground motion event. Attachment J Communications & Power Industries LLC August 18, 2014 J.N. 2289.00 Page 2 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. The scope of our work consisted of the following: 1. Performed a review of general geologic data for the general area and any geotechnical reports readily available that pertain to the site or nearby sites. 2. Performed a qualitative evaluation of liquefaction potential based on data collected. 3. Performed analyses to estimate the site ground accelerations at various levels of probability of being exceeded. 4. Reviewed existing structural drawings, including the seismic strengthening work performed on Building No. 2, as provided to us to determine configuration, member sizes, and material properties. The drawings that were reviewed are listed in the references. 5. Performed calculations to estimate the capacity of the structural elements and connections within the lateral force resisting system per the original construction drawings and the seismic strengthening drawings provided to us. 6. Estimated the distribution of earthquake-generated inertial forces within the structure in order to establish the critical elements and connections within the lateral force resisting system. 7. Calculated capacities of critical members and connections then determined the overall lateral structural load required to induce the individual member loads at capacity. 8. Estimated the probability of exceeding the site acceleration causing the overall lateral structural load required to reach the capacity of critical members and connections. 9. Preparation of this report. GEOTECHNICAL SITE CONDITIONS Review of the USGS web site indicates the site is underlain by Pleistocene (older) alluvium. Below these materials at depth, the site is likely underlain by early Pleistocene and/or Pliocene (very old) alluvial deposits which in turn are underlain by sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Miocene era. Historical shallowest ground water levels have been interpreted as being approximately 15 feet below grade (CGS 2006). LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL According to the U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2006-1037, the site is classified with a Moderate potential for liquefaction. This designation is essentially a rating of 3 on a scale of 1 to 5. Communications & Power Industries LLC August 18, 2014 J.N. 2289.00 Page 3 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FAULTING AND SEISMICITY Based on the USGS web site, the closest active fault to the site is the Monte Vista-Shannon Fault Zone located approximately 3 miles southwest of the site. The most significant fault in proximity to the site is the San Andreas-Peninsula Section located approximately 5 miles southwesterly of the site. Other significant faults within 25 miles of the site consist of the Hayward-Rogers Creek fault, the San Gregorio Fault, the Calaveras Fault, and the Zayante-Vergeles Fault. We have performed probabilistic seismic analyses utilizing computer program OpenSHA developed by Field, E.H., T.H. Jordan, and C.A. Cornell (2003). OpenSHA is an open-source, Java-based platform for conducting seismic hazard analysis. As an object-oriented framework, OpenSHA can accommodate arbitrarily complex (e.g., physics based) earthquake rupture forecasts (ERFs), ground-motion models, and engineering-response models. A total of four attenuation relationships were used to model the ground acceleration as listed below: 1. Abrahamson & Silva 2008 2. Boore & Atkinson 2008 3. Campbell & Bozorgnia 2008 4. Choi & Youngs 2008 The resulting Peak Ground Accelerations (PGA) versus the probability of exceedance for each attenuation relationship are provided in Figure 1 below. Figure 1- Probability of Exceedance Communications & Power Industries LLC August 18, 2014 J.N. 2289.00 Page 4 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. STRUCTURAL EVALUATION In order to calculate the ground accelerations that would initiate failure of the structural systems at the project, including consideration of the seismic retrofit elements to Building No. 2, we established the distribution of lateral forces, both vertically and horizontally, through the structure. A standardized lateral force was applied to the structure at each level and was distributed to the various lines of resistance containing the vertical elements of the lateral force resisting system. Distribution of the lateral forces was done considering the relative stiffness of the elements where there is a rigid diaphragm (floor slab) and by tributary area where there is a flexible diaphragm (roof sheathing). Once the standardized force was distributed to the various lines of resistance, the force was then distributed within the line of resistance according to the relative stiffness of each vertical element. Based upon the distribution of the standardized force, the most heavily-loaded elements and connections were determined. These elements and connections were then analyzed for their capacities at failure level. Capacities of each element were based upon strength calculations for the members using the material properties specified in the referenced structural plans (i.e. no material testing was done), dimensions, and reinforcing details. Capacities were determined using accepted engineering principals for the various columns, beams, braces, and shear walls. The capacity of each of the most highly-stressed members was determined for compression, tension, shear, and/or flexure. Capacities were then increased by accepted “overstrength” factors for each of the types of internal stress (e.g. 2.0 for flexure, 1.25 for shear) to account for intangibles. The connection overstrength factor was taken as 1.0 (i.e. the calculated capacity equals the ultimate strength of the connection). Once the capacity of the most highly-stressed elements was determined, the lateral force needed to act on the structure to cause these stresses was calculated working in reverse towards the first step where the standardized force was applied. This analysis then gave the lateral force that would cause failure of the element under consideration. Failure of one element does not necessarily mean failure of the structure as a whole, as other elements within the system will attempt to compensate for the initial failed element. Therefore, a second analysis was performed wherein a redistribution of the lateral force was made without any contribution from the first failed element. The new distribution of lateral force was then used to determine the most highly- stressed elements. This new force combined with the force that caused the first element to fail was used to work in reverse to determine the lateral force that would cause the second element to fail. This procedure was repeated until an overall failure of the structure was determined to occur. Having calculated the force that would cause failure, the level of ground acceleration applied at the base of the structure required to produce this force was determined based upon the mass of the structure, giving consideration to the vertical distribution of the ground acceleration. In the above considerations, the seismic retrofit elements were deemed to be the limiting elements that, when failed, would cause global failure of the second floor level. Our analyses indicate that an effective lateral force (pseudostatic) of 0.8g to 1.0g applied to the structure would be required to cause a whole-sale failure of these critical elements. Communications & Power Industries LLC August 18, 2014 J.N. 2289.00 Page 5 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONCLUSIONS For the purposes of our evaluation, the triggering event would consist of the upper floor system undergoing complete collapse during a strong ground motion event. The site has a moderate potential for liquefaction which could lead to ground subsidence during an earthquake. However, the general nature of the underlying soils is unlikely to lead to large-scale subsidence that could cause significant structural damage. The site is also relatively level with no significant open channels in the proximity into which the site could slide toward in a lateral spreading event. As such, liquefaction is not considered the controlling mechanism of the triggering event. The proximity of nearby faults, however, could expose the site to strong ground shaking. The mechanism of strong ground shaking is considered the most likely mechanism to trigger the event. The results of our structural evaluation indicate that an effective lateral force in the range of 0.8g to 1.0g would be required to cause whole-sale failure of the second level floor. The actual Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) that could induce this magnitude of force was conservatively assumed to be 1⅓ times greater than the effective lateral force since the true ground motion is cyclic while the effective force is constant (psuedostatic). Therefore, the PGA required to bring about whole-sale failure is estimated to be 1.07g to 1.33g. Reviewing the results of our seismicity evaluation, the four attenuation curves yield a probability range of 0% to 4% (average of 1.1%) over 50 years for the lower bound acceleration of 1.07g. The four attenuation curves also yield a probability range of 0% to 3% (average of 0.4%) over 50 years for the upper bound acceleration of 1.33g. Taking the middle of the two bounding PGA values, we obtain a probability of exceedance equal to 0.75% over 50 years. These results are also depicted on Figure 2. For comparison, the current California Building Codes (CBC) require similar structures to be designed for earthquake events having a probability of exceedance equal to 2% in 50 years. Sincerely yours, Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. David E. Albus Robert D. Boyens Principal Engineer Principal Engineer GE 2455 SE 2916 Communications & Power Industries LLC August 18, 2014 J.N. 2289.00 Page 6 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Figure 2- Probability of Triggering Event Communications & Power Industries LLC August 18, 2014 J.N. 2289.00 Page 7 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. LIMITATIONS This report is based on the data and information as described herein. The conditions described in literature and plans by others are believed representative of the total project area, and the conclusions contained in this report are presented on that basis. None of the data relied upon for this evaluation was verified by us through subsurface geotechnical investigations or destructive testing of the structure to verify the assumed conditions. Although not expected, significant variations in the site conditions from those assumed herein could impact our conclusions. This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty. This report has been prepared for the use of Communications & Power Industries LLC and their consultants. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. REFERENCES Publications Abrahamson, Norman, Silva, Walter 2008, Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA Ground-Motion Relations, Earthquake Spectra: February 2008, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 67-97. Boore, D. M.; Atkinson, G. M. 2008, Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01 s and 10.0 s, Earthquake Spectra: February 2008, Vol 24, pp. 99-138 California Geological Survey (CGS) 2006, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Palo Alto 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California, Seismic Hazard Zone Report 111 Campbell, Kenneth W., Bozorgnia, Yousef 2008, NGA Ground Motion Model for the Geometric Mean Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, No. 1, pages 139–171. Chiou, Brian S. and Youngs, Robert R. 2008, An NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 24, No. 1, pages 173-215, February 2008. Field, E.H., T.H. Jordan, and C.A. Cornell, OpenSHA: A Developing Community-Modeling Environment for Seismic Hazard Analysis, Seismological Research Letters, 74, no. 4, p. 406-419, (2003). U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2006-1037 Version 1.1 Communications & Power Industries LLC August 18, 2014 J.N. 2289.00 Page 8 ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Plans Vacuum Tube Bldg., Varian Assoc., Palo Alto, Califor., prepared by I. Thompson-Structural Engineer and Michael A. Gallis- Architect, dated 9-11-56, sheets S1 through S15 Building #2 INC 2, Varian Associates, Palo Alto, California, prepared by I. Thompson-Structural Engineer and Michael A. Gallis- Architect, dated 1-18-60, sheets S2 through S10 Building No. 2 – INC 3, Varian Associates, Palo Alto, California, prepared by I. Thompson-Structural Engineer and Michael A. Gallis- Architect, dated 9-11-61 delta revised date 1-10-62 Building 2 Upgrade, prepared by Rinne & Peterson, Structural Engineers, dated 6-26-91, delta revised date 6- 13-94, 19 sheets Documents Seismic Upgrade, Structural Calculation for Varian Building 2, Palo Alto, California, prepared by Rinne & Peterson, Structural Engineer, dated June 25, 1991 Air Dispersion Modeling of Alternate Extreme Event, DRAFT report prepared by AECOM Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: DORIS SENCENBAUGH <dgsen@sbcglobal.net> Monday, September 29, 2014 8:06 AM Council, City CPI I live directly in back of the CPI Industrial building 2 where their plating shop is on the second floor and where hazardous chemicals are stored and used. As the council is considering the amortization plan I implore you to think of all of us here so close to this facility. In the meantime the chemicals and shop should be moved to another much farther location away from this residential area as this is a big danger to all of us here. (there have also already been several leaks in the past and this can happen again causing serious circumstances). In the event of an earthquake like the recent one in Napa we could also be in extreme danger. I am in my 90s and there is no way I could quickly get away from my home-how would you feel in a situation like mine? Please consider this situation seriously. Than,k you. Doris Sencenbaugh 678 Chimalus Dr Palo Alto, Ca 94306 ATTACHMENT K Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: All, OITY taF PALO ALTO. CA enY CLERK'S IDFFIG& Bill Kelly <bill@kellys.org> lt. SEP 30 PH 5: IJS Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:14 PM Council, City; Keene, James Art Liberman; Jeff Dean; Romola Georgia; chimalus@yahoogroups.com CPI and the city councils legacy of inaction On February 2nd, 2006 our neighborhood got a rude awakening with the release of toxic chemicals from our immediate neighbor, CPl. For me, as a then 15 year resident of Chima Ius Drive it was a rude awakening to the reality of Palo Alto Zoning, poor council oversight and lax zoning laws, and land which was annexed to Palo Alto without proper zoning oversight. The reality of the situation I became aware of in the spring of 2006, was I had a cyanide and other toxic chemical storage facility 50 feet from my home. I thought the industry behind my home was fighting cancer (Varian), not creating it! We purchased our home on Chima Ius drive before real estate disclosures where forced to disclose neighborhood hazards. None of my neighbors knew what business CPI was in. As we research this more as a neighborhood, I found out that the City had allowed CPI to fully rebuilt their plating shop in 2004 without a thought that 1) they were on the 2nd floor of a building and 2) they were 50 feet from a residential neighborhood. How could the city have failed it's residents so completely? When we as neighbors approached Stanford, the owner of the land, Stanford showed us a 60 year old lease that was one page with no restrictions. The lease runs until 20~0. Was asked them whether they would allow a plating shop on their land today, they said NO!. Finally, I find that CPI has been a poor partner in looking for a resolution. Plating shops have a lifespan of 15-20 years before they need to be rebuilt. This one was built in 2004 which means that in 2024 the shop will need to be refreshed. They want to stay until we are all dead. While I want CPI to be gone today, I'm a realist and realize that we need to go through an amortization process, but PLEASE find the fast way to remove this threat to the neighborhood. The council promised a solution in 2012 which was 6 months away, Mr Burt told me personally, that this problem would be solved in 8 months or less in april of 2012. We've waited a long time and had entire city councils turn over while we wait. It's time to decide whether the council supports toxic chemicals, or neighborhood. Please vote to amortize CPI away as soon as possible. Thank You Bill Kelly 632 Chimalus Dr 650-424-8821 Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Council Members, chimalus@gmail.com on behalf of Jeff Dean <jadient@gmail.f&'bCT _ f Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:12 PM Council, City CPI rezoning When CPI moved its manufacturing and plating facilities from an industrial area in San Carlos to their facility on Hansen Way in the Stanford Research Park, they vastly increased the quantities ofhazardous materials in a location adjacent to Barron Park. Yet there were no notifications and no public review, no chance for neighbors or the Council to ask the question about the safety or suitability of such a move. Many of us have lived in the neighborhood prior to CPI, and others have moved in to the neighborhood unaware of what was going on there. The CPI facility used to be part of Varian; it was spun off and sold to CPI in the 1990's. The employees may be the same, but the management is nothing like that of Varian. CPI has made a series of poor decisions, first about relocating their facilities, then withholding notification of the 2006 toxic plume from the City and the neighborhood. Since we started working on the CPI issue after the incident in 2006, CPI has made some progress in reducing quantities of nitric acid and potassium cyanide, and for that, we are thankful. CPI managed to reduce their quantities of these hazardous materials just below the Title 19 thresholds, just enough to avoid additional regulatory scrutiny by the state/county. However, large quantities still remain. In addition, CPI has increased the frequency of deliveries, so there are now more frequent trips of trucks carrying hazardous materials driving around Palo Alto. The placement ofthis facility makes no sense and I am confident that the Council would recognize this ifCPI were first applying for a permit today. It is not our intent to shut down CPl. They can move this plating facility away from a residential area, just like they made the move into the area. However, they won't do this voluntarily, and for this we ask for your assistance. Please update the zoning ordinance to prevent plating shops from being so close to residential areas. Please make CPI a non-conforming use and establish an amortization schedule so that CPI will be required to move their toxic chemicals as soon as possible. Thank you. Jeff Dean 710 Chimalus City of Palo Alto (ID # 5143) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Policy discussion about conducting open session for Management & Professional Compensation Plan Title: Policy Discussion on Whether to Conduct a Closed Session Prior to an Open Session to Discuss the 2014-2015 Management & Professional Compensation Plan; Possible Referral to Policy & Services Regarding Closed/Open Session Practice for Compensation Matters From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Continue the current practice of discussing appropriate elements of the FY 2015 proposed Management & Professional Compensation Plan (“Plan”) in closed session as permitted under the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”), followed by a presentation, discussion and adoption of the Plan in open session as an Action Item. 2) Refer to the Policy and Services Committee the discussion of alternatives regarding the use and sequence of closed and open sessions for discussing compensation and benefits changes for the various labor groups and the unrepresented Management and Professional group. Executive Summary Council voted on September 22, 2014 not to follow its traditional practice of holding a scheduled closed session to review its position on recommended compensation and benefits changes for the unrepresented Management and Professionals employee group with instructions to the City’s representative (City Manager), in advance of conducting an open session on the matter. Instead, Council agreed to consider on Oct. 6 the City's policies and practices regarding the use and sequence of closed and open sessions to consider compensation and benefits changes. Background The Brown Act, Gov. Code Sections 54950 through 54963, requires local government bodies to meet in public to discuss items of business, take public input and take action. The Brown Act provides exceptions for certain topics that may be discussed in closed sessions. One such exception is salaries, compensation and benefits for represented and unrepresented employees City of Palo Alto Page 2 (and other matters within the scope of representation for represented employees). A city council may meet in closed session to review its position on these matters and instruct its designated representative. Final action on these matters must be taken in open session. At the September 22 City Council meeting, Council voted not to hold a scheduled closed session to discuss recommended compensation and benefits changes of the unrepresented management and professionals employee group. Instead, Council agreed to consider on Oct. 6 the City's policies and practices on the use and sequence of closed and open sessions, prior to scheduling discussion on the Management and Professional Compensation Plan for FY 2015. Discussion Of the cities in the San Francisco Bay area, almost all treat salary discussions in the same manner as Palo Alto has historically done, with discussion of salary and benefits recommendations in Closed Session, followed by negotiations or consultations, and ultimately discussion and adoption of changes in Open Session. Based on a preliminary review, only the City of San Jose has experience with public discussion of compensation in open session, applying to both represented and unrepresented employees. This practice was instituted as San Jose wrestled with annual $100 million plus budget shortfalls during the Great Recession. Staff recommends referring this discussion to Policy and Services to further evaluate the San Jose process, allow sufficient time to collect experiences from other cities and School Districts, research other relevant trends, explore the policy and practical implications of a change in process, and review the procedures that would apply if a change is contemplated for represented groups. Following the Council’s direction on September 22, the City Manager met with employee representatives on the Management Compensation Committee. There was significant concern expressed about this potential change in direction and that unrepresented employees were being singled out and treated differently from other employee groups. Added to the fact that the Management and Professional Compensation decisions again this year trailed decisions made for SEIU, the contrast between going last on compensation decisions but going first on such a policy change was not well received. Staff expressed that they thought this should be a larger policy discussion related to all employees. That said, a timely decision on FY 2015 compensation for this group (we are already in the second quarter of the fiscal year) would be in order. For these reasons the City Manager recommends proceeding with the closed session for direction on Management/Professional compensation for FY 2015, followed by an open session, with the open/closed session on labor/compensation policy for all employee groups referred to Policy and Services Committee. Timeline If Staff’s recommendation is accepted, Staff intends to return to closed session regarding compensation and benefits changes for the Management and Professional employee group on Nov. 17, to be followed thereafter by an open session. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Further, if procedures for conducting closed and open sessions regarding labor negotiations and compensation are referred to the Policy and Services Committee, staff suggests adding this to the agenda for theDecember 9, 2014 committee meeting Resource Impact Resources required for this policy discussion will be absorbed by existing Staff. Policy Implications Environmental Review (If Applicable) This item is not a project subject to environmental review.