Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2013-10-21 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL Special Meeting Council Conference Room October 21, 2013 5:30 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 October 21, 2013 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Study Session 5:30-6:30 PM 1. Potential List of Topics for the Study Session with Senator Jerry Hill Closed Session 6:30-7:30 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 2. 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 2 October 21, 2013 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Pam Antil, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Hamid Ghaemmaghami, Greg Betts, Rob De Geus, Thomas Fehrenbach, Aaron Aknin, Molly Stump Negotiating Parties: City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Unified School District Under Negotiation: Lease and/or Purchase/Sale* Price and Terms of Payment *Purchase/sale is listed to comply with Brown Act legal requirements, and include various types of transactions including but not limited to easements, options, rights of first refusal and land exchanges. CHAMBERS Special Orders of the Day 7:30-7:40 PM 3. Community Partner Presentation: Palo Alto Players at the Lucie Stern Community Theatre Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker. City Manager Comments 7:40-7:50 PM Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 7:50-8:00 PM Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Oral Communications 8:00-8:15 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 8:15-8:20 PM August 19, 2013 3 October 21, 2013 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Consent Calendar 8:20-8:25 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4. Approval of a Stewardship Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council (FSC) in the Amount of $50,000 from the Public Works CIP PO-12003 for the Initial Year of Services for Treatment Work Indicated in the Foothill Fire Management Plan (FFMP) 5. Policy and Services Recommendation to Accept the City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Work Plan and Risk Assessment 6. Policy and Services Recommendation to Accept the Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations (June 2013) 7. Policy and Services Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2013 8. Approval of a Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with Efacec Advanced Control Systems, Inc. in the Amount of $107,647 for Software and Hardware Support Services for the City's Utility SCADA System (EL- 02010) and 10% Contingency of $10,700 for Related, but Unforeseen Work; for a Total Authorized Amount of $118,347 9. Approval of Annual Report of Williamson Act Contracts Within the City of Palo Alto 10. Council Direction on Selection of Voting Delegate for the National League of Cities Annual Business Meeting on Saturday, November 16, 2013 Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 8:25-9:05 PM 11. Public Hearing: Parking Exemptions Code Review: Review and Recommendation to City Council to Adopt: 1. Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance 5167 and Amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Delete Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) Related to Parking Assessment Districts to Eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking Exemption Which Allows for Floor Area up to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be Exempt From Parking Requirements Within the 4 October 21, 2013 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Downtown Parking Assessment Area and Floor Area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be Exempt Within the California Avenue Area Parking Assessment District. 2. Interim Ordinance to Amend Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD) District, and 18.52, (Parking and Loading Requirements) to Make the Following Changes to be Effective for a Period of Two Years: a. Delete Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to Eliminate the 200 Square Foot Minor Floor Area Bonus and Related Parking Exemption for Buildings not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus. b. Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to Eliminate the Parking Exemption for On-site Use of Historic and Seismic Bonus. c. Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to Remove the On-site Parking Exemption for Historic and Seismic Transfer of Development Rights up to 5,000 Square Feet of Floor Area to a Receiver Site in the CD or PC Zoning Districts. d. Amend Section 18.18.120(a)(2) and (b)(2) Related to Grandfathered Uses and Facilities to Clarify that a Grandfathered Use May be Remodeled and Improved, But May Not be Replaced and Maintain its Grandfathered Status. e. Amend Section 18.52.070(a)( 3) Related to Remove the Sentence Allowing Square Footage to Qualify for Exemption That Was Developed or Used Previously for Nonresidential Purposes but was Vacant at the time of These actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061 and 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines 9:05-9:20 PM 12. Public Hearing: Adoption of Eight Ordinances: (1) Repealing Chapter 16.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.04, California Building Code, California Historical Building Code, and California Existing Building Code, 2013 Editions, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; (2) Repealing Chapter 16.05 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.05, California Mechanical Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; (3) Repealing Chapter 16.06 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.06, California Residential Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; (4) Repealing Chapter 16.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.08, California Plumbing Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; (5) Repealing Chapter 16.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.14, California Green Building Standard Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; (6) Repealing Chapter 16.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt 5 October 21, 2013 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. a New Chapter 16.16, California Electrical Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; (7) Repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.17, California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; and (8) Repealing Chapter 15.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 15 to Adopt a new Chapter 15.04, California Fire Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings 9:20-9:35 PM 13. Approval of Contract for the Downtown Development CAP to Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners in the Amount Not to Exceed $200,000 (Continued from October 17, 2013) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 6 October 21, 2013 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Meeting Cancellation 10/22/13 Council Appointed Officers Meeting 10/23/13 Brown Act Training 10/23/13 Regional Housing Mandate Committee Cancellation 10/24/13 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report 2012 - 2013 Annual Review of Compliance with the "Mayfield" Development Agreement with Stanford University City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the First Quarter, Fiscal Year 2014 Submission of Measure N (General Obligation Bond) Library Report City of Palo Alto Utilities Quarterly Update for the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2013 Brown Act and Public Records Training for Council Boards and Commissions 2013 League of California Cities Final Report of Approved Resolutions 7 October 21, 2013 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Background Information in Preparation for City Council's Discussion on Infrastructure Committee Recommendations at October 28, 2013 City Council Meeting Public Letters to Council SET 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4195) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 10/21/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Study Session with Senator Jerry Hill Title: Potential List of Topics for the Study Session with Senator Jerry Hill From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Potential List of Topics for the Study Session with Senator Jerry Hill 1. End of Session Wrap Up (Senator Hill) 2. Future of CEQA Reform Legislation 3. Legislation to Reduce Voter Approval Thresholds for Infrastructure Projects 4. CA High Speed Rail Authority – Anticipated Direction 5. AB 1229 Governor Veto – Future Tools for Cities to Build Affordable Housing 6. Preserving Local Control (Note: Above average number of bills introduced this year (such as SB7 Prevailing Wage, SB311 Local Election, Charter Amendments, AB325 Housing Element Litigation, SB562 Economic Development Subsidies, SB537 Impasse Procedures, etc. taking away local control)/Trend in Coming Years? 7. Perspective on “Covered California” (CA new "health insurance marketplace" created to meet the requirements of the federal Affordable Care Act.) 8. Looking Ahead to the 2014 Legislative Session - Challenges and Opportunities 9. Other Topics Special Notes: The City would like to congratulate Senator Jerry Hill on his appointment to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on March 6, 2013, to replace Senator Michael Rubio. In addition the City would like to thank Senator Hill for his leadership on: Water issues relating to the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency, including the approval in the last session of Assembly Bill 2167, which allowed the BAWSCA agencies, including Palo Alto, to prepay funds owed to San Francisco with annual savings to the BAWSCA agencies of $3.4 million. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The timely completion of the Water System Improvement Program to ensure the City continues to receive high quality, reliable water from the San Francisco Regional Water System. Several proposals to reduce the $11 billion water bond. The City was pleased to support the League of Cities Resolution on the water bond prioritizing water conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater and urban runoff. SB 557 (Peninsula Protection Act). This bill enacted into law further assurances regarding a potential future High Speed Rail Blended System on the Peninsula. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4190) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 10/21/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Partnership Presentation: Palo Alto Players Title: Community Partner Presentation: Palo Alto Players at the Lucie Stern Community Theatre From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services The Palo Alto Players will outline their schedule of performances for the 2013/2014 theatre season, initiatives to expand the diversity of program offerings, and their history in successfully staging great performances at the Lucie Stern Theatre over the past 83 years. Attachments: Palo Alto Players Fact Sheet (PDF) FACT SHEET, 2013 Palo Alto Players • 1305 Middlefield Rd • Palo Alto, CA 94301 www.paplayers.org • 650.329.0891 MISSION Palo Alto Players is committed to providing a meaningful theatre experience for both audience and production participants. Intrinsic in this is the belief that theatre benefits the community-‐at-‐large and enhances the quality of life of those who are touched by it through education, enlightenment and enrichment. In support of this mission, we are committed to: 1) Diversity in programming; 2) Accessibility to all those interested; and 3) Support of theatrical training and career development. BRIEF HISTORY Born in the Great Depression, Palo Alto Players became the Peninsula’s first theatre company in 1931 when a group of 100 like-‐minded citizens gathered together to create a theatre dedicated to its community. Truly a home-‐grown organization, Palo Alto Players productions are seen by over 1,000 season subscribers and more than 12,500 residents throughout the Peninsula. Palo Alto Players has been shaping the artistic scene in Silicon Valley long before there was a Silicon Valley, and this opportunity to impact the artistic landscape of California is a responsibility the Players takes seriously. True to its mission, Palo Alto Players casts local actors in all five main-‐stage productions, highlights the work of local directors and designers, and fills its orchestra pit with local musicians. Much has changed in the 83 years since Palo Alto Players first began, but the Players is proud to continue its storied tradition of live theatre, born of the community and performed for the community. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMMING Palo Alto Players is the oldest theatre group on the Peninsula, currently in its 83rd year of producing diverse programming that highlights local talent and tells stories of particular resonance for the local community. Palo Alto Players’ 83rd Season highlights a season of powerful change. Break through to a world of possibilities with these five wonderful shows! In the Heights – an exhilarating ground-‐breaking musical for the 21st century; God of Carnage – a comedy of manners… without the manners; The Heiress – a timeless drama of wealth, class, and the true cost of love; Young Frankenstein – a monstrously good musical super-‐charged with laughter and fun; The Farnsworth Invention – a season finale forever altering the way we view the world. BUDGET Palo Alto Players’ annual budget for staffing, general operations, and direct production costs for its season of five plays and musicals at the City-‐owned Lucie Stern Theater is approximately $625,000. An estimated 60% of each annual budget is earned in ticket sales and other earned income, 20% is contributed, and the remaining is derived from investments. In addition, per the agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Players, all tickets sold are assessed an additional “facility usage fee” of $2.00 per ticket. These fees are collected and remitted to the City. In the 2013-‐2014 season, they totaled nearly $24,000.. HOW TO PARTICIPATE! Individual tickets and season subscriptions can be purchased by calling our Box Office (650.329.0891) or visiting us online at www.paplayers.org. Individual tickets range from $23-‐$45, and are priced according to a three-‐tiered seating chart. Discounted tickets may be available to Seniors (62+), Students (w/current ID), and groups. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4106) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/21/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Fire Safe Council Stewardship Agreement Title: Approval of a Stewardship Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council (FSC) in the Amount of $50,000 from the Public Works CIP PO-12003 for the Initial Year of Services for Treatment Work Indicated in the Foothill Fire Management Plan (FFMP) From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the City’s agreement with the Fire Safe Council (FSC), for stewardship services to fulfill the treatment work indicated in the Foothills Fire Management Plan (FFMP), for a term of five years and approve the compensation of $50,000 from the Public Works Capital Improvement Program Project (CIP) PO-12003, Foothills Wildland Fire Mitigation for year one of the agreement subject to annual appropriation of funds. (Attachment A) Executive Summary On October 26, 2009, the City adopted the FFMP (CMR:09, Attachment B), which identified several areas in the Palo Alto Foothills that require treatment to address life safety, structure and infrastructure protection, ignition prevention, fire containment and natural resource protection and enhancement. This is a recommendation to enter into a stewardship agreement with the FSC for the aforementioned treatment work and emergency preparation education in the Foothills. The FSC has demonstrated the ability to provide these services in other areas of the County; therefore Staff recommends that we enter into a five-year agreement with the FSC. Background When the Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the FFMP, City of Palo Alto Page 2 treatment work was identified and funds provided through a Public Works CIP. These documents define a Fire Hazard Assessment and Fuel Management Plan/Projects for the wildland/urban interface located in the foothills of Palo Alto. The Council gave direction to staff to explore options to complete this work. A committee was formed to evaluate best practices and to determine the most efficient and effective way to address these plans. The committee consists of staff from the following departments: Community Services, Public Works, Fire, Office of Emergency Services and Utilities. Together this group determined that the non-profit organization the Santa Clara County FSC would be an ideal partner to complete the treatment plans. The FSC was created in 2001 through an initiative by CalFire. Local agencies came together with a small group of community members to discuss wildfire risks and protection for communities in Santa Clara County. The programs that the FSC provides protect thousands of residents and homes and bring together individuals, public and private agencies and companies that share a common, vested interest in preventing and reducing losses from wildfires. Using the Stewardship Agreement with Acterra (CMR 199:97) as a model, the group pursued a plan to initiate a relationship with the FSC with the intention of a long-term public/private partnership. The attached agreement provides both parties an annual opportunity to review progress, define a work plan for the upcoming year and settle on an appropriate financial compensation. It also allows the FSC to do what they do best and that is to provide educational opportunities to the citizens who reside in the affected areas. They have an established “chipping program” that encourages private citizens to annually trim their vegetation and the FSC provides a chipper and volunteers to clean up and dispose of the debris. Their goal would be to expand this program into the north Santa Clara County area and Palo Alto thus enhancing the treatment work for the private lands defined in the FFMP. The first year of the agreement would commence immediately upon approval of the agreement. The treatment area that the FSC would address first has been defined and identified using the maps within the FFMP. The amount of $50,000 was determined to be an appropriate compensation for the FSC to carry out their plan. Future dollar amounts will be based on progress, continued needs and the FSC’s ability to provide the services. Discussion The FFMP committee has done the necessary research to recommend that we enter into this agreement with the FSC who will in turn provide treatment work, education and a valuable service to the City. Resource Impact An allocation of $50,000 for the first year of the five‐year stewardship agreement with the FSC, City of Palo Alto Page 3 including basic treatment activities, is included in the Public Works CIP PO-12003 that was established for the purposes of carrying out the FFMP. Future year costs, through FY 2018, will be based on progress, continued needs, and the FSC’s ability to provide the services. The CIP currently has $107,135 in available funding, so the cost of this contract should be funded through FY 2015; however, additional funding for this contract will need to be allocated as part of future budget processes. Policy Implications The proposal to have a nonprofit organization provide services to assist the City in the accomplishment of the goals of the FFMP is consistent with the public/private partnership policy. Environmental Review The Stewardship Agreement represents a continuation of the same use of existing facilities; therefore, it carries a Class I facility exemption under Section 15301 of CEQA. Attachments: ATTACHMENT A - CIP PO-12003 (PDF) ATTACHMENT B - Foothills Fire Management Plan (PDF) ATTACHMENT C - Stewardship Agreement 092713 (PDF) Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update WILDLAND FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM DRAFT Submitted to: City of Palo Alto Attention: Kelly Morariu 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Submitted by: Wildland Resource Management, Inc. Wildland Resource Management 134 Journeys End Alamo, CA 94507 January 15, 2009 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part A - FIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN/ PROJECTS 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12 2.1 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Planning History ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.3 Scope of the Plan .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Planning Process ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 3 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................................................................. 19 3.1 Fire Hazard ................................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.1 Vegetation and Fire Fuels ................................................................................................................................. 19 3.1.2 Fire Behavior .................................................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.2.1 Fire Behavior Modeling .......................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.2.2 Spatial Input Files ................................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.2.3 User-Defined Inputs ................................................................................................................................ 22 3.1.2.4 FlamMap Results .................................................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Fire Suppression Capabilities ........................................................................................................................................ 27 3.3 Access ........................................................................................................................................................................... 28 3.4 Sensitive Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 28 3.4.1 Social and Cultural Features ............................................................................................................................. 31 3.4.2 Environmental Features .................................................................................................................................... 31 3.4.2.1 Species and Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 32 3.4.2.2 Soils and Geology ................................................................................................................................... 37 4 Fuel Management in City Parks .............................................................................................................................................. 39 4.1 Identifying Potential Treatment Areas .......................................................................................................................... 39 4.2 Establishing Project Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 39 4.3 Current Fuel Management Program .............................................................................................................................. 41 4.4 Project Description........................................................................................................................................................ 46 4.4.1 Scope of Recommended Fuel Management Projects ........................................................................................ 46 4.4.2 Project Description Summary ........................................................................................................................... 46 4.4.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 46 4.4.4 Priority .............................................................................................................................................................. 47 4.4.5 Project Locations............................................................................................................................................... 47 4.4.6 Project Dimensions and Post-Treatment Standards ........................................................................................... 53 4.4.7 Roadside and Driveway Fuel Modification for Safe Access and Egress ........................................................... 54 4.4.7.1 Specific Goal of Action ........................................................................................................................... 54 4.4.7.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 54 4.4.8 Fuel Modification for Firefighter Safety Projects ............................................................................................. 57 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 3 4.4.8.1 Specific Goal of Action ........................................................................................................................... 57 4.4.8.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 57 4.4.9 Structure and Infrastructure Projects – Defensible Space ................................................................................. 57 4.4.9.1 Specific Goal of Action ........................................................................................................................... 57 4.4.9.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 58 4.4.10 Ignition Prevention Fuel Management Projects ................................................................................................ 59 4.4.10.1 Specific Goal of Action ........................................................................................................................... 59 4.4.10.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 59 4.4.11 Fuel Modification for Containment Ease .......................................................................................................... 59 4.4.11.1 Specific Goal of Action ........................................................................................................................... 59 4.4.11.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 60 4.4.12 Fuel Modification for Ecosystem Health .......................................................................................................... 62 4.4.12.1 Specific Goal of Action ........................................................................................................................... 62 4.4.12.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 62 4.4.13 Cooperative Fuel Management Projects for Offsite Fire Containment and Evacuation Ease ........................... 63 4.4.13.1 Specific Goal of Action ........................................................................................................................... 63 4.4.13.2 Location and Description of Projects ...................................................................................................... 63 5 Implementation Plan ............................................................................................................................................................... 64 5.1 Implementation Strategies ............................................................................................................................................. 64 5.2 Priorities ........................................................................................................................................................................ 65 5.3 Fuel Management Project Costs .................................................................................................................................... 66 5.3.1 Project Cost Estimates....................................................................................................................................... 67 5.4 Funding Strategies to Support Fuel Management ......................................................................................................... 71 5.5 Grant Opportunities ...................................................................................................................................................... 72 6 Treatment Standards and Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 74 6.1 Treatment Standards for Vegetation Types ................................................................................................................... 74 6.1.1 Prescription for Grasslands ............................................................................................................................... 74 6.1.2 Prescription for North Coastal Scrub and Chaparral ......................................................................................... 74 6.1.3 Prescription for Oak Woodlands ....................................................................................................................... 76 6.1.4 Prescription for Riparian Forest ........................................................................................................................ 76 6.1.5 Defensible Space Guidelines ............................................................................................................................. 77 6.2 Description of Treatment Methods ............................................................................................................................... 78 6.2.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 78 6.2.2 Timing of Treatments ........................................................................................................................................ 78 6.2.3 Hand Labor ....................................................................................................................................................... 79 6.2.4 Mechanical Treatments ..................................................................................................................................... 79 6.2.5 Grazing with Sheep and Goats .......................................................................................................................... 81 6.2.6 Broadcast Prescribed Burns .............................................................................................................................. 81 6.2.7 Eucalyptus Tree Removal ................................................................................................................................. 82 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 4 6.2.8 Herbicide Application to Control Invasive Plants ............................................................................................. 83 6.3 Best Management Practices .......................................................................................................................................... 84 6.3.1 Hand Labor ....................................................................................................................................................... 84 6.3.2 Mechanical Treatments ..................................................................................................................................... 85 6.3.3 Grazing with Sheep and Goats .......................................................................................................................... 86 6.3.4 Broadcast Prescribed Burns .............................................................................................................................. 86 6.3.5 Herbicide Application ....................................................................................................................................... 87 P ART B – PO L I C Y REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Evacuation and Refuge ........................................................................................................................................................... 89 1.1 Identification and Notification ...................................................................................................................................... 89 1.2 Regional Cooperation ................................................................................................................................................... 90 1.3 Temporary Refuge ........................................................................................................................................................ 90 2 Codes and Regulations ............................................................................................................................................................ 91 2.1 Existing Codes and Ordinances .................................................................................................................................... 91 2.1.1 Fire Code ........................................................................................................................................................... 91 2.1.2 Building Code ................................................................................................................................................... 93 2.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................... 93 2.3 Exterior Hazard Abatement .......................................................................................................................................... 95 2.3.1 For parcels of land one acre or less maintain parcel in complete abatement. .................................................... 95 2.3.2 For parcels larger than one acre in size ............................................................................................................. 96 3 Fire Protection – Station 8 ...................................................................................................................................................... 98 3.1 Description .................................................................................................................................................................... 98 3.2 Appraisal ....................................................................................................................................................................... 99 3.3 Recommendation ........................................................................................................................................................ 100 4 Trail Plan Update .................................................................................................................................................................. 101 4.1 Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Trails Management Plan (March 2001) ...................................................................... 101 4.1.1 Recommended Revisions ................................................................................................................................ 101 4.1.2 Existing Fire Mitigation and Fuel Management in the Arastradero Trails Management Plan ........................ 103 4.1.3 Vegetation Management ................................................................................................................................. 107 4.1.3.1 Brushing and Clearing Defined ............................................................................................................. 107 4.1.3.2 Techniques for Maintaining a Clear Passageway .................................................................................. 107 4.2 Foothills Park Trails Maintenance Plan (January 29, 2002) ....................................................................................... 109 4.2.1 Recommended Revisions ................................................................................................................................ 109 4.2.2 Existing Fire Mitigation and Fuel Management in the Foothills Park Trails Maintenance Plan ..................... 110 5 References ............................................................................................................................................................................ 113 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: City of Palo Alto Overview. ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 2: 1997 Fire Management Zones. ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 3: Wildland Surface Fuels. .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 4: Spatial Data Required for Fire Behavior Modeling. ........................................................................................................ 22 Figure 5: Comparison of Torching and Active Crown Fire. ........................................................................................................... 23 Figure 6: Crown Fire and Torching Potential. ................................................................................................................................ 24 Figure 7: Predicted Flame Length................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 8: Predicted Rate of Spread. ................................................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 9: Locations of Cultural and Environmental Sensitive Resources in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. .................................. 29 Figure 10: Locations of Cultural and Environmental Sensitive Resources in Foothills Park. ........................................................ 30 Figure 11: Sensitive Species Known or Potentially Occurring in Foothills Park or Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. ...................... 37 Figure 12: Soil Types in Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. .................................................................................. 38 Figure 13: Project Goals and Actions. ........................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 14: Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Current Fuel Management Areas. .................................................................................. 42 Figure 15: Foothills Park Current Fuel Management Areas. .......................................................................................................... 43 Figure 16: Recent Treatments in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. .................................................................................................... 44 Figure 17: Recent Treatments in Foothills Park. ............................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 18: Listing of Project Locations. ......................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 19: Proposed Treatment Locations in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. ................................................................................. 51 Figure 20: Proposed Treatment Locations in Foothills Park. .......................................................................................................... 52 Figure 21: Treatment Methods and Intervals. ................................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 22: Listing of Project Locations for Evacuation and Access. .............................................................................................. 55 Figure 23: Evacuation Routes External to Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. ....................................................... 56 Figure 24: Listing of Project Locations for Fire Fighter Safety Fuel Modification. ....................................................................... 57 Figure 25: Listing of Project Locations for Defensible Space. ....................................................................................................... 59 Figure 26: Listing of Project Locations for Ignition Prevention. .................................................................................................... 59 Figure 27: Listing of Project Locations for Containment Ease. ...................................................................................................... 61 Figure 28: Listing of Project Locations for Ecosystem Health. ...................................................................................................... 62 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 6 Figure 29: Unit Costs for Fuel Reduction Treatment Methods. ...................................................................................................... 67 Figure 30: Funding Mechanisms. ................................................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 31: Initial Priority of Removal for Brush. ........................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 32: Pruning Example. .......................................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 33: Pruning Example. .......................................................................................................................................................... 95 Figure 34: Shrub Spacing. .............................................................................................................................................................. 96 Figure 35: Fire Protection Resources. ............................................................................................................................................. 98 Figure 36: Emergency/Maintenance Access Points. ..................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 37: Vehicle Turn-around Design Summary. ...................................................................................................................... 109 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 7 PART A – FIRE HAZARD ASSESSMENT AND FUEL MANAGEMENT PLAN/ PROJECTS City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 8 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fire Management Plan update process addresses a broad range of integrated activities and planning documents to address and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards in the Palo Alto Foothills Area. The area of interest includes the areas west of Foothills Expressway to the city limits of Palo Alto. Fire mitigation project areas include the boundaries of Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve within this area of interest. The Fire Management Plan Update addresses the following key items: • Fire Hazard Assessment • Regional Evacuation Routes • Review of Municipal Ordinances • Staffing of Station 8 • Wildland Fire Management Recommendations and Mitigations • Updates to Pearson-Arastradero Trails Master Plan and Foothills Trail Maintenance Plan • CEQA Documentation • Implementation Plan and Potential Funding Community Participation. Community participation in the development of the plan began with the refinement of the scope of work and selection of the consultant team. Three community meetings were held at key points in the planning process to gather continued input from the community. A stakeholder group made up of adjacent jurisdictions, neighborhood associations, special interest groups, volunteers etc. also participated in the planning process. An environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was undertaken by City Staff in conjunction with the plan development. Fire Hazard Assessment. There are many ways to assess fire hazard. Most utilize the three main factors of fuels, weather, and topography, with possible inclusion of elevation or fire history. Fire behavior was chosen as the means to assess fire hazard since it can identify locations where containment may be easiest, and where access may be precluded during the time of a fire. In addition, fire behavior outputs can identify locations where structures or natural resources may be unduly harmed by a wildfire, as well as locations where fire effects may be inconsequential to natural resources. Not every area identified as a potential fire hazard can be modified to produce low-intensity fires. Not only would this be too costly, but environmental impacts would also be unacceptable. Results of Fire Behavior Analysis. Fire behavior was analyzed for the entirety of the Foothills Area, including adjacent neighborhoods, property owned by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), and Stanford University. Flame length, rate of fire spread and potential for crown fire were three characteristics considered in the analysis. The following are generalities observed: Flame lengths follow fuel types, with long flame lengths in chaparral and untreated grass, and short flame lengths in woodlands and mowed grass. The largest areas of long flames are located in Foothill Park and Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. Low fire spread rates were predicted in woodlands and forests, and fast City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 9 spread rates in untreated grass and chaparral. There is very little active crown fire predicted within the Foothills area, however, the potential for trees to torch is high throughout the treed portion of the Foothills area. Torching is caused by low-hanging limbs, or ladder fuels. Wildland Fire Management Recommendations and Best Management Practices Treatments were strategically placed to achieve the following goals: • Life Safety • Structure and Infrastructure Protection • Ignition Prevention • Fire Containment • Resource Enhancement Treatments were identified for 51 project areas. The most visible recommended set of projects will be to conduct roadside treatments along Page Mill Road, Arastradero Road, Los Trancos Road, and Skyline Boulevard. Other projects entail the continuation of mowing along trails and some boundaries, grazing along the selected segments of the perimeter of both Parks/Preserves, treatments to install and maintain defensible space around structures, treatments around barbeques to minimize the chance of ignitions, and treatments to bolster the success of fires containment efforts within the parks. Fuel management treatments can also enhance natural resources, through targeting non-native invasive plants as part of biomass removal – potentially with grazing animals, mechanical mowing and hand labor - and conducting prescribed fires in selected areas under conditions consistent with fire control. Best management practices are included for each treatment type, based on the sensitivity of the resource. These include practices that consider the timing intensity of the treatment, or selection of the type of treatment methods (e.g., whether the project would entail mowing or grazing, hand labor or mechanical equipment), the strata of treatment (e.g., whether the project would remove lower tree limbs, or instead involve grass mowing), and the scale of the treatment (e.g., to treat small or large patches). Review Recommendations Regarding Pearson-Arastradero Trails Master Plan and Foothills Trail Management Plan • Addition of fuel management and fuel reduction zones • Location of prescribed burns • Modify fuel break width for performance standards • Modify roadside treatment standards • Include fire hazard in regulatory, warning and education signs (especially prescribed fires) Regional Evacuation Routes The Palo Alto Police Department has responsibility within City limits for evacuation operations under state law. However, multiple jurisdictions will likely be involved in an event in the Foothills. Evacuation routes City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 10 should not be blocked anywhere, regardless of jurisdiction or ownership; this is especially important because most of the regional evacuation routes span multiple cities, ownership categories and protection jurisdictions. The following recommendations will help reach a reasonably safe condition along the regional evacuation routes. • Formalize agreements with adjacent landowners for ingress and egress routes (from parks) and offsite refuge areas • Develop partnerships to address regional evacuation routes from residential and public areas (Regional Evacuation Plan, Community Notification (multi-jurisdictional) and Unified Command) Analysis and Recommendations Regarding Staffing of Station 8 An analysis of the staffing level of Station 8 was conducted that considered the distribution and concentration of fire personnel and equipment in relation to the incidents. The recommendation was to maintain current staffing levels. Response times for incidents are significantly longer from other stations, even when considering mutual aid offered by other jurisdictions. The fire behavior analysis indicates the potential for fast-moving fires of high intensity, further justifying the current staffing levels. Review of Municipal Ordinances The existing code is comprehensive; only minor changes are recommended. These include: • Expand Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area (between Foothill Blvd & Highway 280) • Fire Protection Planning: Begin early in permitting process • Expand Defensible Space Requirements: Maintain roof free of materials • Expand Access Requirements: bridge load limits, parking restrictions • Additional guidance for Maintenance of Defensible Space • Ignition Source Control • Fencing • Signage • Mechanical Equipment Ignition Prevention • Restriction on Smoking at Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Implementation Plan and Potential Funding for Fire Management Recommendations Implementation of this plan will be managed by the City of Palo Alto staff, including the Fire Department, the Police Department (evacuation, notification, neighborhood preparedness coordinators), and Open Space (rangers). Volunteer groups, such as Acterra, Friends of Foothills, and other groups should continue to be involved and encouraged to help with the implementation. Further, the City should work with mutual aid government agencies and other stakeholders on an ongoing basis. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 11 Prioritization of Treatments The following is the priority of treatment types: 1. Life Safety 2. Structure and Infrastructure Protection 3. Ignition Prevention 4. Fire Containment 5. Resource Enhancement Cost Estimates The total five-year cost to implement the recommended projects is estimated at slightly less than $700,000. The largest cost, at slightly more than $400,000, is to manage 19 containment areas. The initial treatment for segments of major evacuation routes is estimated to cost almost $178,000. The use of California Youth Authority Crews may offer a means to reduce costs for the hand labor-based treatments. Without volunteers pre-treatment surveys and follow-up may cost $100,000 over the next five years. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 12 2 INTRODUCTION The Palo Alto Foothills consist of a mix of urban, semi-urban and open space lands on the eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Within the city limits of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Foothills area west of the Foothills Expressway and Junipero Serra Boulevard represents a Wildland Urban Interface area (WUI) with significant impacts to public safety, cultural and economic activities, and environmental and natural resource management. The Palo Alto Foothills Area includes two city-managed areas: Foothills Park and the Pearson- Arastradero Preserve. In an effort to implement an updated Fire Management program for the Foothills, the City of Palo Alto conducted a review of the fire hazards, mitigation activities, and environmental considerations for the area to develop recommendations for wildland fuels and fire management. Figure 1: City of Palo Alto Overview. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 13 2.1 Goals and Objectives The City of Palo Alto developed, maintains, and executes a Fire Management Plan focused on reducing losses from wildland fire. In support of this long-term objective, the City of Palo Alto initiated an update process for the Foothills Fire Management Plan to prepare recommendations for consideration and possible inclusion in future budgets. This Foothills Fire Management Plan update process focused on the three primary goals: • Develop recommendations for wildland fuels and fire management to reduce fire hazard in Palo Alto’s Wildland Urban Interface west of Foothill Expressway to an acceptable level of risk. o Review and incorporate the 1982 Foothills Fire Management Plan and 1997 staff update. o Identify appropriate management recommendations to reduce wildland fuel loads in the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Foothill Park. • Maintain ecological and aesthetic values of Foothill Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve consistent with fire reduction goals. • Provide a fuel management plan for Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve that is cost effective and sustainable for the City of Palo Alto. The Fire Management Plan update process involved a combination of City staff personnel from a wide cross section of city operations, stakeholders from across the Palo Alto area, and members of the Palo Alto community. In order to ensure that the fire management recommendations addressed environmental and cultural conditions that can affect resource and priority decisions, the update process included a series of specific objectives. • Assess fire hazards within the project area. Develop fuel classification, weather condition assumptions, and other fire hazard inputs used to model the fire hazards for the project area. • Develop wildland fire management recommendations. Identify both developed and sensitive natural resources at risk and develop treatment and best management practices to protect those resources. Prepare appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document. • Consider current refuge areas, ingress and egress routes and make recommendations for evacuation from residential and public areas. • Identify potential funding plans and external funding opportunities. • Update the Foothills Fire Management Plan incorporating input from the community. • Review and recommend appropriate revisions to existing City municipal ordinances pertaining to fire prevention. • Review and make appropriate recommendations to current levels of staffing, equipment and other response resources at Station 8 in Foothills Park. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 14 • Recommend revisions to the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Trail Master Plan and Foothills Park Trail Maintenance Plan pertaining to firefighting access or vegetation management for fire hazard reduction along trail corridors. 2.2 Planning History The City of Palo Alto developed a Foothills Fire Management Plan in 1982. The 1982 Plan provides the planning framework for fire control activities for the City and the Palo Alto Foothills Area. The goal of the 1982 Fire Management Plan is “to reduce government costs and citizen losses from wildland fire by increasing initial attack success and/or protecting assets at risk through focused pre-fire management activities.” In 1997, the City of Palo Alto staff developed a draft update to this plan. Although the draft update was not formally adopted, the 1997 Draft Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan provides an updated framework and interim objectives for fire management within the Foothills Area. The 1997 Draft Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan identified four fire management objectives: 1. Identify fire pre-suppression, suppression and post-suppression activities to maintain or enhance the status quo, and prevent adverse impacts on people, structures and natural resources consistent with Palo Alto Fire Department’s fire protection mission. a. Prevent or reduce the threat of death or injury to foothills residents and visitors. b. Prevent or reduce loss or damage to structures and natural resources. 2. Suppress fire in the Hazardous Fire Area before it gets out of control. a. Perform effective initial attack, with Fire Station 8 staffed. b. Develop pre-fire suppression plans (initial attack to 4-hour effort). c. Incident Command System (ICS) training, focusing on multi-jurisdictional response and enhancing Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) skills and abilities in specific ICS positions. 3. Review and update evacuation routes out of the Hazardous Fire Area. 4. When feasible and as part of a regional effort, establish optimal fire frequencies, use pre-suppression control measures (including controlled / prescribed burns) to restore optimal fire regimes and for natural plant communities. The 1997 draft plan identified several hazard mitigation categories to meet Palo Alto’s Fire Management goal and objectives. • Fuel Management o Roadside clearance – Page Mill Road, Arastradero Road, Los Trancos Road and Skyline Boulevard were identified as evacuation routes as well as firebreaks. o Fuel Break/ Ignition Control system in Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 15 o Prescribed burning to reduce fuel load, re-establish a normal fire regime and educate and inform the public. High fuel loads, limited burn windows and requirements for pre-burn preparations have limited opportunities to date. • Pre-fire Actions o Foothills Park/ Pearson-Arastradero Preserve practices including visitor safety islands and evacuation plans, fire-safe park maintenance practices, daily weather taking (establish daily Burn Index), annual pre-fire season staff briefing, interagency training, use restrictions during critical fire weather. o Cooperative efforts with Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), the Woodside Fire Protection District, and other partner agencies regarding construction of fuel breaks, identification of evacuation routes and interagency training, public information about evacuation pre-planning. o Private Dwellings and Open Land including fire codes for new development and public education and code enforcement. • Suppression and Post Suppression o Suppression capability including Foothills Fire Facility (Station 8); Mutual Threat Zone/ mutual aid/ automatic aid contracts; interagency/ ICS training. o Suppression Plan including maintenance of response cards, basing response on nationally-recognized fire danger rating indices, use any and all mutual aid resources to confine fires at initial attack, and to follow fire management zone pre-planning documents. o Post Suppression Plans. o Cultural Resources (no significant cultural resources exist in the City Limits, but potential always exists for discovery of new sites). The 1997 draft plan strategically divided the Hazardous Fire Area into eight fire management zones (FMZs) to merge individual property and resource concerns with fire control challenges (Figure 2). Each zone has a map showing boundaries, existing control lines and text description of activities to be considered by the Incident Commander, safety precautions and other tactical or site-specific information. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 16 Figure 2: 1997 Fire Management Zones. AP –Arastradero Preserve LTW –Los Trancos Woods FP/VH –Foothills Park Vista Hill FP/WVS –Foothills Park Wildhorse Valley South FP/WVN –Foothills Park Wildhorse Valley North CPM –Center Page Mill UPM –Upper Page Mill MBE –Monte Bellow East City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 17 2.3 Scope of the Plan The Fire Management Plan update process addresses a broad range of integrated activities and planning documents to address and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards in the Palo Alto Foothills Area. The area of interest includes the areas west of Foothills Expressway to the city limits of Palo Alto. The fire mitigation project areas include the boundaries of Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve within this area of interest. The Fire Management Plan Update addresses the following key items: • Fire Hazard Assessment • Regional Evacuation Routes • Wildland Fire Management Recommendations and Mitigations • Recommendations for the Foothills Park Trails Maintenance Plan and the Pearson-Arastradero Trails Management Plan • Review of Municipal Ordinances • Staffing of Station 8 • Implementation Plan and Identification of Potential Funding 2.4 Planning Process The process used in developing the Update to the Foothills Fire Management Plan involved several departments of the City and many stakeholders. The consultants and City held three meetings with the stakeholders between April and September 2008. Invited Stakeholders included: • Acterra • Arrillaga Property: 500 Los Trancos Road • CAL FIRE • Friends of Foothills Park • Los Altos Hills Fire District • Los Altos Hills: ARES/RACES • Los Trancos Water District • Los Trancos Woods Neighborhood • Menlo Park Fire District • Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District • PA Protect Our Open Space • Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Assoc • Pony Tracks Ranch • Portola Pasture Stables • San Mateo County FireSafe Council City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 18 • San Mateo County Sheriff • Santa Clara County Fire Dept • South Skyline Association • Stanford Community Residential Leaseholders (SCRL) • Stanford University • Town of Los Altos Hills • Vista Verde Community Association • Woodside Fire Protection District There were also three meetings with the community during the same time period. The meetings were held at the Interpretive Center at Foothills Park and at the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club in Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 19 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Fire Hazard There are many ways to assess fire hazard. Most utilize the three main factors of fuels, weather, and topography, with possible inclusion of elevation or fire history. Fire behavior was chosen as the means to assess fire hazard since it integrates the effects of fuels, weather, and topography. Hazard assessments developed by the State and the California Fire Alliance were evaluated for potential use. However, the assessments were larger scale than appropriate for the purposes of this plan. The decision was made to use a more detailed, site-specific hazard assessment. Fire behavior predictions identify locations where containment may be easiest, and where access may be precluded during the time of a fire. In addition, fire behavior outputs can identify locations where structures or natural resources may be unduly harmed by a wildfire, as well as locations where fire effects may be inconsequential to natural resources. 3.1.1 Vegetation and Fire Fuels The Palo Alto Foothills contains a mix of potential wildland fire fuel regimes that, combined with the topography and weather for the regime, pose a potential risk for wildland fire (Figure 3). City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 20 Figure 3: Wildland Surface Fuels. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 21 3.1.2 Fire Behavior 3.1.2.1 Fire Behavior Modeling FlamMap is particularly well suited for the Foothill Fire Management Area fire assessment. FlamMap generates a spatial depiction of simulated fire behavior that may be used to assess relative hazards throughout the area. FlamMap is a computerized fire behavior prediction model developed by the USDA Forest Service at the Intermountain Forest Fire Research Laboratory.1 FlamMap was developed to predict fire behavior characteristics across a landscape. The first such landscape analysis of fire behavior characteristics was performed for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Bay Area watersheds, then applied across the East Bay Hills after the Oakland Hills Fire. FlamMap is currently in the public domain. The heat transfer formulas in FlamMap are based on the software program, BEHAVE, which has been used in wildfire prediction since the 1970's. FlamMap uses the same heat transfer algorithms as BEHAVE along with numerous other algorithms to predict crown fire potential, ember distribution, effects of terrain on wind, direction and slope, and more. FlamMap allows prediction of fire behavior on a spatial basis, by modeling the locations of flame length, heat release, and rate of spread along with type of fire (crown fire, surface fire, or a fire that torches individual trees) throughout an entire area. FlamMap simulations assume the entire area is aflame under the same conditions at the same time to determine spatial differences in fire behavior. 3.1.2.2 Spatial Input Files The spatial data inputs to FlamMap characterize the terrain, weather, and fuels on the site with eleven different data layers. The spatial input data files are described in Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatial Data Required for Fire Behavior Modeling. Level Purpose Source Elevation (feet above sea level) This is necessary for adiabatic adjustment of temperature and humidity between elevations and for conversion of fire spread between horizontal and slope distances. USGS digital elevation models Slope (Percent of inclination from the horizontal) Slope is used to compute steepness effects on fire spread and solar irradiance. USGS digital elevation models Aspect (Azimuth values degree clockwise from north) Aspect is used to compute effects on fire spread and solar irradiance. USGS digital elevation models Fuel Model Fuel models, organized and described according to the FRAP 1 (FlamMap is available from Systems for Environmental Management, PO Box 8868, Missoula, MT, 59807, or from www.fire.org/tools.) City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 22 Level Purpose Source Fire Behavior Prediction System in terms of fuel volume, structure, and chemistry. The fuel models were mapped by CalFire in the Forest Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). Canopy Cover Canopy cover is necessary to compute shading and wind reduction factors. Canopy cover was mapped for the LandFire Program. LandFire Program Tree Height Tree height is used to compute spotting distance and crown fire characteristics. Decision rules regarding tree heights were applied to FRAP surface fuels. Crosswalk from FRAP surface fuels Crown Base Height or Height to Live Canopy Crown base height is an important parameter for determining the transition from surface fire to crown fire. This value incorporates the effects of ladder fuels in increasing vertical continuity and assisting transition to crown fire. Crown base height was mapped for the LandFire Program. LandFire Program Weather and Wind Weather is important to determine environmental conditions during the simulation. The weather data theme describes the maximum and minimum temperatures and relative humidity, and the time in which the maximum and minimum temperature occurs in order to dry and moisten fuels accordingly. Weather data that CalFire based fire-related policy decisions (defined as “average-bad” conditions) was used for this project. CalFire-defined weather for average bad fire danger Figure 4: Spatial Data Required for Fire Behavior Modeling. 3.1.2.3 User-Defined Inputs The model allows the user to customize fuel models or fuel moisture with special files2. Custom Fuel Model Files - custom fuels can be used to more accurately describe the types of fuel models found on the site. Custom fuel models use a standard fuel model as a base. In cases where especially flammable vegetation are present (eucalyptus and pines), the heat content of the dead and live fuels could be raised. In cases where the foliage are expected to be moister, the initial fuel moisture of the living material can be raised. Fuel volumes and heights in grazed grasslands can also be reflected in a cus t o m m o d e l . F o r the Palo Alto hazards assessment no custom fuel models were used. Fuel Moisture Files - defines the initial fuel moisture for each size class of fuels, for each fuel model. The moisture content of live woody fuels and live herbaceous fuels are similarly defined for each fuel model. This file specifies the moisture in the fuels of various sizes, and specifies how much moisture is in leaves. Based on this information, the weather files either dry out or add moisture to fuels depending on ambient conditions. The fuel moisture file used for the Palo Alto hazard assessment portrays the “average worst” fire danger as defined by CalFire. The “average worst” generally applies to the conditions that exist fewer than 10 percent of the time. It is also known as the 90th percentile weather conditions. 2 User-defined inputs could capture the effects of Sudden Oak Death through development of a custom fuel model and associated reduced fuel moisture. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 23 3.1.2.4 FlamMap Results Fire behavior was analyzed for the entirety of the Foothills area, including adjacent neighborhoods, property owned by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Stanford University. Three factors are especially pertinent for prioritizing locations of high fire hazard: crown fire activity, flame length and rate of spread. Crown Fire Potential - Crowning activity indicates locations where fire is expected to travel through and likely consume the crowns. When a fire burns through tree crowns, countless embers are produced and are distributed, sometimes at long distances. These embers can start new fires, which can each grow and confound the finest fire suppression forces. For management purposes, prediction of torching or crown fire is highly correlated with fire severity. Crown fire activity is of concern wherever it occurs because of its impacts and the containment challenges. There is very little active crown fire predicted within the Foothills area, however, the potential for trees to torch is high throughout the treed portion of the Foothills area. Torching is caused by low-hanging limbs, or ladder fuels (Figure 5). The Crown Fire Potential across the Palo Alto area of interest is depicted in Figure 6. Figure 5: Comparison of Torching and Active Crown Fire. Flame Length - Flame length closely corresponds to fire intensity, which can predict fire severity. This factor most influences probability of house damage and ease of fire control. A flame length of eight feet is usually looked at as a cut-off point for decisions whether to attack the fire directly, or instead attempt control through indirect methods. Fire intensity was determined to be the most important factor in many studies of structural damage from fire. Flame lengths are often used as a proxy for fire intensity because they are highly correlated to fire intensity. Long flame lengths may justify treatment where they occur near sensitive values-at-risk. Flame lengths follow fuel types, with long flame lengths in chaparral and untreated grass, and short flame lengths in woodlands and mowed grass. The largest areas of long flames are located in Foothill Park and Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. Predicted Flame Length is depicted in Figure 7. Rate of Spread - The rate of spread is most closely associated with the ability to contain a fire. Rates of spread analyses point to the needs for increased access, detection, reporting, and fuel management to slow fire spread in strategic locations. Low fire spread rates were predicted in woodlands and forests, and fast spread rates in untreated grass and chaparral. Predicted Rate of Spread is depicted in Figure 8. Torching Active Crown Fire City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 24 Figure 6: Crown Fire and Torching Potential. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 25 Figure 7: Predicted Flame Length. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 26 Figure 8: Predicted Rate of Spread. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 27 3.2 Fire Suppression Capabilities The Department's response area in the WUI Fire Area covers nearly 10 square miles, from Skyline Boulevard in the Palo Alto foothills to Foothill Blvd and from Page Mill Road to Los Trancos Road. Approximately 200 residences and large business complexes (some of them exceeding a million square feet in area) are located in Palo Alto’s Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area. The City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan (June 2007) notes that 11 health care facilities, 10 schools and 25 government-owned buildings are located in the wildland urban interface threat areas, along with 19 miles of roadway that are subject to high, very high or extreme wild fire threat. The Fire Department has 122 personnel organized in four areas: • Emergency Response (Operations) • Environmental & Safety Management (Fire Prevention Bureau) • Training & Personnel Management (Support) • Office of Emergency Services The Fire Department staffs seven full time stations located strategically throughout the City. To provide coverage in the sparsely developed hillside areas, an additional fire station in the foothills is operated during summer months when fire danger is high. The Fire Department facilities are located as follows: Fire Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue, City Hall Fire Station 1 301 Alma Street Fire Station 2 2675 Hanover Fire Station 3 799 Embarcadero Road Fire Station 4 3600 Middlefield Road Fire Station 5 600 Arastradero Road Fire Station 6 711 Serra Street, Stanford Fire Station 7 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park Fire Station 8 Foothills Park Rangers from the Open Space and Parks Division perform a vital service aiding fire suppression, providing detection, notification and initial size-up of fires, along with evacuation or reconnaissance. The Rangers offer detailed local knowledge, and support the Station 8 firefighters. Currently ten staff are fully trained and equipped for first response. There are four trucks with 150-200 gallons of water. The City of Palo Alto has secured many agreements that augment fire suppression capabilities. They participate in the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement and supporting separate agreements. During a City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 28 proclaimed emergency, inter-jurisdictional mutual aid will be coordinated at the County Operational Area (Santa Clara County OES, or EOC, if activated), or Mutual Aid Regional level whenever the available resources are: • Subject to state or federal control. • Subject to military control. • Located outside the requesting jurisdiction. • Allocated on a priority basis. The current Insurance Service Organization rating for the City of Palo Alto is ISO Class 2. 3.3 Access Regional access to the Foothills Area is provided by Highway 280, Foothill Expressway and Skyline Boulevard. Page Mill Road serves as a major north-south connector from Highway 280 to Skyline Boulevard. Los Trancos Road provides access along the western boundary of the Palo Alto Foothills Area from Alpine Road south to Los Trancos Woods. Page Mill Road and Los Trancos Road have several long sections that are steep, windy and narrow. Circulation is limited within the Foothills Area. Arastradero Road links the western and eastern portions. Alpine Road and Los Trancos Road provide access to portions of the western part of the City. Moody Road and Altamont Road are other important circulation routes in Los Altos Hills. 3.4 Sensitive Resources The Palo Alto Foothills Area includes a mix of social and environmental attributes that may be adversely affected by wildland fire or proposed fuel treatments and strategies. Areas that hold cultural or environmental significance enhance the quality of life in the City of Palo Alto and provide habitat for a variety of plant and wildlife species. These sensitive resources are valuable to the Palo Alto community and to the ecosystem; they should be protected and preserved. Actions are proposed that will reduce the risk of fire spreading to sensitive resources and otherwise minimize the damage to those resources. Social and cultural factors that may exist in the area affect fire management planning and include specific land uses such as agriculture and rangeland, the presence of public service utilities and structures, and the presence of historical or cultural artifacts. Environmental concerns include vegetation communities, wildlife habitat, soil and erosion conditions, and water and air quality. Figures 9 and 10 provide an overview of potential sensitive resource locations throughout the two parks. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 29 Figure 9: Locations of Cultural and Environmental Sensitive Resources in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 30 Figure 10: Locations of Cultural and Environmental Sensitive Resources in Foothills Park. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 31 3.4.1 Social and Cultural Features Social and cultural features are areas and activities that have a special community attribute or contribution ranging from the value of personal property to the functioning of public service and public safety operations. Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve are both open space areas dedicated for park, recreation and conservation purposes. They are generally undeveloped except for park amenities, utilities, public service and safety infrastructure, and roads and trails. The projects in this plan pertain directly to the lands within Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, and along the evacuation routes within the City limits of Palo Alto. The lands adjacent to the parks include residential and private property as well as public and private open space, and are affected by fire management through code modification, fire department staffing, and other non-project measures that reduce the risk of fire spreading to these resources along with minimizing potential damages. The residential and private property adjacent to the parks include: • Open space owned and managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Stanford University • Private residences in the Town of Los Altos Hills, Town of Portola Valley, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, and San Mateo County • Neighborhoods/associations such as Altamont, Los Trancos Woods, Vista Verde, Blue Oaks, Portola Valley Ranch, Palo Alto Hills, Montebello, South Skyline, and others • Privately-held recreation facilities, such as equestrian centers and the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club • The site of what was a private research facility (the American Institute of Research) Both Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve contain utility lines and access roads that are used and maintained by the City of Palo Alto. The Pearson-Arastradero Preserve contains overhead electrical utility lines that enter the Preserve from Arastradero Road and extend along Arastradero Creek. South of Foothills Park, transmission lines run east-to-west across the southern edge of the park near Page Mill Road and Montebello. The Arastradero and Foothills parks contain several reservoirs, booster stations, and water and sewage lines. The external, aboveground portions of this infrastructure represent potential features that must be taken into consideration either as values at risk to wildland fire or included in fire mitigation treatment planning and execution. The primary structures within the two parks include the Foothills Park interpretive center, Pearson- Arastradero Gateway interpretive center, Fire Station 8, a maintenance complex, and three public restrooms. No significant cultural or historical sites have been found within the park areas. However, the Foothills area is similar to other areas in the Santa Cruz Mountains that have provided hunting, fishing, and encampments for Native American tribes. A potential exists for discovery of cultural or historic sites. 3.4.2 Environmental Features Environmentally sensitive areas are those that have specific characteristics which the community, State, or nation has determined to be worthy of protection or preservation. These can include the maintenance of a diverse plant and wildlife ecosystem or the protection of endangered or threatened species. The Palo Alto Foothills hold a specific environmental value within the City of Palo Alto as a conservation area as well as a mixed -use area supporting private and public activities. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 32 Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve consist of a mix of grassland, mixed evergreen, oak woodland, riparian areas (creek, lake), and chaparral. The two parks are located in the watershed of Los Trancos Creek and Arastradero Creek. Foothills Park contains the headwaters of Arastradero Creek and is downstream of Los Trancos Creek and contains Boronda Lake. The Arastradero Creek, an unnamed tributary to Arastradero Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek run through the Arastradero Preserve. The Pearson-Arastradero Preserve also contains a small lake, called Arastradero Lake, and John Sobey Pond. The Palo Alto Foothills contain several environmental areas that deserve specific consideration in the Fire Management Plan. These areas represent the combined contributions of unique wildland habitat capable of supporting a mix of wildlife, a diverse plant and wildlife population containing several protected and monitored species, and a mix of ecosystems ranging from riparian areas to serpentine soils. 3.4.2.1 Species and Wildlife The variety of environmental conditions in Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve provide habitat for a broad range of wildlife and plants – including some designated as protected or sensitive either by the State of California or the Federal government (Figure 11). The parks provide known habitat for two protected species and potential habitat for several others – particularly in the riparian zones and areas near Boronda Lake and Arastradero Lake. The California Red-Legged Frog and Steelhead Trout are known to inhabit Los Trancos Creek. In addition, the riparian areas, grasslands, and oak woodlands above Los Trancos as well as Boronda Lake may provide additional foraging and breeding habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog. Several species of sensitive plants and animals have been locally identified within the parks. In addition, the parks provide potential habitat for a variety of bird and plant species of concern, ranging from plants such as the Santa Clara Red Ribbon to mammals such as the San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat. The potential habitats for these species include the riparian and wetland areas along Los Trancos, Boronda Lake, Arastradero Lake, and John Sobey Pond; the serpentine soil areas identified in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve; and the Oak Woodland and Chaparral zones. In addition to these sensitive species, there are also plant species of local concern, such as Phacelia and bush poppies. The following is a table highlighting sensitive species that may be present in the parks. It is possible that additional sensitive species or habitat areas may be discovered in the future. Figure 11: Sensitive Species Known or Potentially Occurring in Foothills Park or Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location Endangered Endangered San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) POTENTIAL HABITAT - potential habitat in Boronda Lake; suitable habitat in Arastradero Lake. Boronda Lake, Arastradero Lake N/A Protected Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Forage habitat in riparian zone; possible nesting in hollow trees in riparian zones. Los Trancos Creek provides most likely habitat. Los Trancos Creek City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 33 Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A Endangered Point Reye’s meadowfoam (Limnanthes douglasii sulphurea) POTENTIAL HABITAT - freshwater marsh occurs in Arastradero Lake; some wet areas in grassland near Arastradero Creek may provide habitat. Arastradero Lake, Arastradero Creek and tributary grasslands Endangered CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens) NOT LIKELY - Could possibly occur in wet areas in grassland, although the likelihood is very low. Endangered Endangered San Mateo thorn-mint (Acanthomintha duttonii) UNKNOWN - Info pulled from CNDDB Palo Alto topo map - not mapped. Species of concern DFG: Species of special concern Western pond turtle ( A c t i n e m y s m a rmorata) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Potential habitat in Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek, and Arastradero Creek; possible sighting in Arastradero Lake; habitat onsite includes Arastradero Creek, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake, and the unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek. Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek, Arastradero Creek, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake, Tributary for Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) KNOWN and POTENTIAL HABITAT - potential breeding habitat at Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek and tributaries, John Sobey pond, and Arastradero Lake; foraging habitat in riparian zones, grassland, and oak woodland above Los Trancos Creek and tributaries; May occur on Los Trancos Trail. (1) Boronda Lake, Los Trancos Creek and tributaries, John Sobey Pond, Arastradero Lake (2) Riparian Zones (3) Grasslands, Oak Woodlands in vicinity of Los Trancos Creek (4) Los Trancos Trail Threatened DFG: Species of special concern California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) POTENTIAL HABITAT - breeding habitat may occur in the “bowl” near the top of the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, which is in proximity to the unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek Unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern North Central Coast steelhead/sculpin stream KNOWN HABITAT - Los Trancos is a known steelhead stream. Los Trancos Creek Threatened DFG: Species of special concern Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) KNOWN HABITAT - Los Trancos is a known steelhead stream. Los Trancos Creek N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Ben Lomond buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum var. decurrens) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Habitat present in chaparral and woodland. Chaparral, woodland City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 34 Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Habitat present in grassland and oak woodland. Grassland, Oak Woodland N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Delta tule pea (Lathyrus jepsonii) POTENTIAL HABITAT - fresh water marsh occurs in Arastradero Lake, and may occur in Arastradero Creek and the tributary to Arastradero Creek. Arastradero Lake, Arastradero Creek and tributary to Arastradero Creek N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Legenere (Legenere limosa) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Potential habitat along drainages, Boronda Lake. Boronda Lake N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Robust monardella or Round-headed coyote m i n t (Monardella villosa ssp. globosa) PRESENT/POTENTIAL HABITAT – Locally identified habitat present in woodland and chaparral. Every trail has either woodland or chaparral, or both habitats. Woodland and chaparral N/A CNPS: Plant of limited distribution Santa Clara red ribbons (Clarkia concinna automixa) PRESENT (Foothills)/POTENTIAL HABITAT - Habitat present in oak woodland areas along trails Oak Woodland N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Santa Cruz manzanita (Arctostaphylos andersonii) POSSIBLE HABITAT/NOT LIKELY - Low possibility in oak woodland and chaparral. Every trail has either woodland or chaparral, or both habitats. Oak woodland and chaparral N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Serpentine-based plants KNOWN - two areas of serpentine soil have been identified in Arastradero; one is in grassland and the other is in chaparral. No occurrences in Foothills although some soil/landcover data have noted potential areas. Areas of Serpentine Soil in Arastradero (Grassland, chaparral). Some potential areas in Foothills N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Dudley's lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyi) NOT LIKELY - Coniferous forest, maritime chaparral. These habitats are not present in Foothills Park. Endangered CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Showy Indian clover (Trifolium amoenum) NOT LIKELY (Foothills)/POSSIBLE (Arastradero) - Info pulled from CNDDB Palo Alto topo map, seeps in grassland. Threatened N/A Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis) NOT LIKELY - serpentine grassland areas either too small or not present City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 35 Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A CNPS: Plant of limited distribution Gairdner’s yampah (Perideridia gairdneri) KNOWN - in grassland, riparian areas of Arastradero. Riparian, Grasslands N/A CNPS: Plant of limited distribution Mexican mosquito fern (Azolla mexicana) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Potential habitat in Boronda Lake; Arastradero Creek from John Sobey Pond to Arastradero Lake Boronda Lake; Arastradero Creek from John Sobey Pond to Arastradero Lake N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA White-flowered rein orchid (Piperia candida) POSSIBLE HABITAT - Potential habitat along portions of Chamise, Coyote, Fern Loop, Los Trancos, Panorama, Toyon and Woodrat Trails. Oak Woodland N/A DFG: Species of special concern Long-eared owl (Asio otus) POTENTIAL HABITAT - May use oak woodland and riparian corridors in Foothills Park. Includes Chamise, Costanoan, Coyote, Fern Loop, Los Trancos, Panorama, Sunrise, Trappers, and Woodrat Trails. Oak Woodland, Riparian Zones N/A Species of special concern Big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Potential forage habitat. Oak Woodland, Riparian Zones N/A Species of special concern California myotis (Myotis californicus) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Potential forage habitat. Oak Woodland, Riparian Zones N/A BLM: Sensitive Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Potential forage habitat. Oak Woodland, Riparian Zones N/A IUCN: Species of concern Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Potential forage habitat. Oak Woodland, Riparian Zones N/A Species of special concern Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Potential forage habitat. Oak Woodland, Riparian Zones N/A IUCN: Species of concern Silver haired bat (Lasionycteris noctavigans) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Potential forage habitat. Oak Woodland, Riparian Zones N/A DFG: Species of special concern; BLM: Sensitive; IUCN: Species of concern; USFS: Sensitive Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Potential forage habitat. Oak Woodland, Riparian Zones City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 36 Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A IUCN: Species of concern; BLM: Sensitive Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Potential forage habitat. Oak Woodland, Riparian Zones N/A DFG: Species of special concern; BLM: Sensitive; IUCN: Species of concern; USFS: Sensitive Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) POTENTIAL HABITAT - throughout Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Oak Woodland, Riparian Zones Species of concern DFG: Species of special concern; BLM: Sensitive; IUCN: Species of concern; USFS: Sensitive Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylei) POTENTIAL HABITAT - Potential habitat in Los Trancos Creek and tributaries. May occur on Los Trancos Trail; suitable habitat in Arastradero Creek and the unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek. Los Trancos Creek, Arastradero Creek, Tributary None Locally unusual BlueGrey Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) PRESENT – Locally identified in North Coastal Scrub, coyote brush. Arastradero Creek and Juan Bautista de Anza Trail N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Franciscan onion (Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum) POTENTIAL HABITAT – Habitat present in oak and mixed evergreen woodland, and grasslands. Oak Woodland, Grasslands, Evergreen Woodlands Species of concern DFG: Species of special concern: IUCN: Species of concern Saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) POTENTIAL HABITAT – May use Boronda Lake. Riparian habitat, John Sobey pond and Arastradero Lake. Riparian Zones including Boronda Lake, John Sobey pond, Arastradero Lake N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA San Francisco collinsia (Collinsia multicolor) POTENTIAL HABITAT – Habitat present in oak woodland. Oak Woodland N/A DFG: Species of special concern; IUCN: Species of concern San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) PRESENT/POTENTIAL HABITAT – Known to occur along Woodrat Trail. Nesting habitat in riparian vegetation and oak woodland, forage in all habitats on site. Woodrat Trail, restoration site near Arastradero Road, and Arastradero Creek Trail City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 37 Federal Status California Status Asset Name Geographic Extent Mapping Location N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis) POTENTIAL HABITAT (Arastradero)/KNOWN (Foothills) – Oak woodland and riparian; Foothill woodland, mixed evergreen forest and riparian. Occurs on site along the Los Trancos and Steep Hollow Trails. Los Trancos and Steep Hollow Trails in Oak Woodlands and Riparian areas N/A CNPS: Plant of limited distribution Forget-m e -not popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys myosotoides) POTENTIAL HABITAT (Foothills)/NOT LIKELY (Arastradero) – Habitat present in chaparral. Chaparral in Foothills N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Slender-leaved pondweed (Potamogeton filiformis) NOT LIKELY – Possibly in Arastradero Creek/Boronda Lake and unnamed creeks in the Preserve, presumed extinct in Santa Clara County; not known from San Mateo County. N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia/Hemizonia parryi ssp. Congdonii) NOT LIKELY (Foothills)/POSSIBLE (Pearson- Arastradero) – Info pulled from CNDDB Palo Alto topo map, seeps in grassland. N/A CNPS: Rare, threatened, or endangered in CA Fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) NOT LIKELY (Foothills)/POSSIBLE (Pearson-Arastradero) – Info pulled from CNDDB Palo Alto topo map, seeps in grassland. Figure 11: Sensitive Species Known or Potentially Occurring in Foothills Park or Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. 3.4.2.2 Soils and Geology Soil erosion occurs when soil materials are worn away and transported by wind or water. The soils that comprise Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve include some soil and slope combinations that represent potential erosion hazards that could be accentuated by wildland fire events that remove significant portions of vegetation or some forms of fuel treatments that disturb ground cover. Figure 12 lists the potential erosion hazards posed by soil mapping units that comprise portions of the parks. Due to the presence of several highly and moderately erodible soil types, the areas that represent significant hazards from either fire or treatment are those with slopes in excess of 15 %. Soil Mapping Unit Soil Name Location Erosion Hazard Los Gatos-Maymen Complex (50-75% slope) Los Gatos Gravelly Loam Foothills Park & Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Very High Maymen Rocky Fine Sandy Loam Foothills Park Very High Los Gatos Clay Loam (15-30% slope) Los Gatos Clay Loam Foothills Park Moderate City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 38 Soil Mapping Unit Soil Name Location Erosion Hazard Los Osos Clay Loam (15-30% slope) Los Osos Clay Loam Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Moderate Azule Clay Loam (15-30%) Azule Loam Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Slight to Moderate Cropley Clay (2-9% slope) Cropley Clay Foothills Park Slight Pacheco Clay Loam Pacheco Clay Loam Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Slight Pleasanton Loam Pleasanton Loam Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Slight Figure 12: Soil Types in Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Derived from STATSGO2 data and research from City of Palo Alto Trail Management Plans. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 39 4 FUEL MANAGEMENT IN CITY PARKS Not every area identified as a potential fire hazard can be modified to produce low-intensity fires. Not only would this be too costly, but environmental impacts would also be unacceptable. Fires that burn in un-treated areas will not benefit from treatment elsewhere. The exception is that the fire may be contained in the treated area, thereby never reaching the untreated area. 4.1 Identifying Potential Treatment Areas Selection of pre-fire fuel treatment areas is based on the probability of the event and the potential damage of that event. Factors taken into consideration are: • Need for enhanced access and egress: Actions to promote life safety and efficient emergency response is of utmost importance. Roadside treatments that aid safer access and evacuation have a high likelihood and magnitude of benefit. • Ignition locations: Treatments are located either where ignitions are likely to occur or could spread into (e.g. a grassy spot near a road, or near a barbeque). Even where an area would burn with great ferocity, if there is only a remote chance of ignition, it has a lower treatment priority. • Adjacency to improvements or other sensitive values at risk from wildfire: The closer the fuel source is to a structure, heavily used area, or environmentally sensitive area, the higher the treatment priority. Therefore, an area in the interior of a Park/Preserve, well removed from other vulnerabilities, should not be treated with the same priority as a hazardous situation near valuable and/or vulnerable resources. • Propensity of the treatment to aid containment: Treatments that facilitate access or create locations where containment is likely to be successful have greater benefit because they improve fire suppression success. Also, a fire that is easy to contain will be more likely to have fewer environmental impacts from the suppression action itself. In the end, the most intense fire, and possibly the largest potential fire size, may not be highest on the treatment priority list. This may be because the likelihood of the event coupled with the potential damage from the fire would not yield the highest risk. 4.2 Establishing Project Objectives Projects are justified by various objectives, spanning the need to keep fires from crossing boundaries, minimizing damage to developed areas, and minimizing damage to natural resources. Others comply with regulations, which themselves are intended to increase access, facilitate fire suppression and minimize resource damage. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 40 The following table (Figure 13) is an outline of project goals and actions: Project Goal Actions Maintain ability for safe access and egress and refuge during suppression activities • Roadside and driveway fuel modification to reduce fire intensity to allow for firefighting vehicles access and ensure safe passage for staff and visitors to pre- determined safety zones. • Improve access to potential wildfire locations to increase effectiveness of firefighting resources (road realignments, access upgrades) • Identify areas for potential use for firefighter safety and refuge during a fire (safety zones) Minimizing damage to developed areas • Reduce potential for ember production, • Manage fuels along borders with structures, anywhere around structures (within 100 feet) • Retrofit structures to make them more ignition-resistant • Enhance firefighting effectiveness • Reduce fuels around other facilities at risk (e.g. communications equipment, high use recreation areas) Reduce damage to structures and developed areas from wildfire near structures • Manage fuels per Defensible Space Guidelines to reduce flame length to 2 feet within 30 feet of structures Reduce potential for ignitions • Roadside fuel treatments • Reduce fuels around barbeque sites and selected electrical transmission lines • Ensure mechanical equipment has features to minimize ignitions • Conduct fuel management in a manner that prevents ignitions Facilitate containment and control of a fire • Strategically compartmentalize fuels in order to facilitate containment and control • Modify fuels to reduce fire intensity and allow firefighters better access to the fire, slow spread of fire and make firefighting actions more effective, • Modify fuels to allow for backfires Reduce the chance of damage to life and property by keeping fire from crossing boundaries – Participate in cooperative projects with adjacent landowners • Fuel management to compartmentalize the landscape • Fuel management along the borders of the Park/Preserve • Modification of the volume or structure of the fuels to reduce chance of ember production • Modification of the volume or structure of the fuels to enhance firefighting effectiveness Minimize damage to natural resources • Conduct pre-treatment surveys for sensitive species • Follow best management practices during fuel management • Fuel management around fire-sensitive areas to reduce fire intensity • Use of modified fire suppression in sensitive areas Fuel modification for ecosystem health • Reduce invasive species • Perform selected prescribed burns to promote fire-adapted native species Figure 13: Project Goals and Actions. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 41 4.3 Current Fuel Management Program Fuel Management is not new in the two parks. The two parks have a long history of managing vegetation to both promote fire safety and to enhance natural resources (Figures 14 and 15). In some cases, projects attain both goals. Previous projects in Foothills Park encompass discing along park boundaries, grazing with goats in Las Trampas Valley, maintenance of a mowed fuel break along various locations, including a broad fuel break sometimes 200-ft wide along Trappers Ridge, and more narrow fuel breaks along the Madrone Fire Road, Shotgun Fire Road, Pony Tracks Fire Road, and around Station 8. Fuel management in Pearson-Arastradero includes discing along park boundaries, mowing 14 different broad areas within the park, and maintenance of vegetation along park roads. Figures 16 and 17 highlight specific mowing and grazing areas for both parks from 2001 to 2008. Grading (of the fire roads) has been a component of the contract between Van der Steen General Engineering and Palo Alto for annual firebreak maintenance. Grading has been performed as part of this contract only in the last three years; low annual rainfall and erosion has not warranted grading. To minimize grading work, city employees from all departments are strictly prohibited from driving the bare soil roadways that do not have asphalt or compacted rock. Grading, as a component of the contract, is specified as only when necessary. Discing has been performed by City staff for the last 7+ years. After trials with several methods, the City found that a two discing cycles work best. The first cycle is performed when the threat of spring rains has diminished, drainages or low areas are dry, and annual grasses are still green. The depth of discing is less than 6-inches, and causes a disruption of the growth of the annual grasses (less biomass). The second cycle of discing is after the annual grasses have cured/dried but there is still some soil moisture. Discing is full depth or up to 10-inches. Completely dry soil makes traction nearly non-existent, which is a safety hazard for the equipment operator, and produces copious amounts of dust to the surrounding area during both discing and grading operations. Mowing is routinely conducted during the early summer by City staff for resource enhancement. Figure 16 indicates the areas within Pearson -Arastradero Preserve that are mowed at least annually. Approximately 200 acres are routinely mowed. Outside of the areas mowed for resource enhancement, large areas are mowed annually in Foothills Park as part of a fuel break. A fuel break is mowed on Trappers Trail, varying from 100-ft to 300-ft in width. Another area routinely mowed is along Pony Tracks Fire Road from the intersection of Los Trancos Trail to Page Mill Road. Most areas are less than 100-ft but the area between Pony Tracks and Los Trancos Trail can reach 300-ft in width. Grazing with sheep and goats is a relatively new component of the fuel management program within the City of Palo Alto Parks. Approximately 5 acres were grazed in 2007 in Las Trampas Valley in Foothill Park, the picnic areas near the road. Defensible Space is maintained near existing structures in Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. This employs the use of hand labor to limb trees and shrubs, cut grass, landscape with fire-resistant plants, and irrigate selected plants. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 42 Figure 14: Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Current Fuel Management Areas. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 43 Figure 15: Foothills Park Current Fuel Management Areas. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 44 Figure 16: Recent Treatments in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 45 Figure 17: Recent Treatments in Foothills Park. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 46 4.4 Project Description 4.4.1 Scope of Recommended Fuel Management Projects The scope of the projects encompasses the two parks in the foothills of Palo Alto: Foothills Park and Pearson- Arastradero Preserve. In addition, treatments along four roads extend outside the parks themselves but are confined to City boundaries or rights-of-ways: Page Mill Road, Arastradero Road, Los Trancos Road, and Skyline Boulevard. 4.4.2 Project Description Summary Fuel management is proposed on 330 acres of Foothills and Arastradero Parks to protect lives, enhance the safety of improvements in and around the parks and to enhance ecosystem health. Fuel management falls into the following categories: roadside treatments along potential evacuation corridors, creation and maintenance of firefighter safety zones, creation and maintenance of defensible space around structures in the parks, and treatments to aid containment of fires in and within the park. Treatments are performed on a rotational basis with intervals of approximately every five years, with an anticipated area of approximately 100 acres treated annually after the initial treatments are performed. Vegetation types that will be treated include: • Grasslands • North Coastal Scrub • Chaparral • Oak Woodland • Riparian Woodland (limited areas and limited treatment only) 4.4.3 Project Objectives Projects are justified by various objectives, spanning the need to keep fires from crossing boundaries, minimizing damage to developed areas and minimizing damage to natural resources. Others comply with regulations, which themselves are intended to increase access, or facilitate fire suppression. A variety of projects reduce the chance of damage to life and property. There are projects that keep fire from crossing boundaries, which could be in the form of fuel management to compartmentalize the landscape, or fuel management along the borders of the parks, or modification of the volume or structure of the fuels to reduce chance of ember production or enhance firefighting effectiveness. Other projects focus on minimizing damage to developed areas, and may be distinct from efforts to reduce fire size, particularly where fire growth is in the wildland. Methods to minimize damage to structures would encompass the following actions: stop ember production, manage fuels along borders with structures, anywhere around structures (up to 100 feet), retrofit structures to make them more ignition-resistant, and enhance firefighting effectiveness. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 47 While fire is a natural force in the foothills of Palo Alto, fuel management also aims to minimize damage to natural resources within the City of Palo Alto. This may include fuel management around sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, or use of fire where needed for resource management. The skillful application of controlled burning would be justified where fire exclusion is harmful, for example, where species require fire for seed germination, or where native grasslands experience brush encroachment, or where an unnatural accumulation of understory fuels (both live and dead) develops. Enhancing firefighting effectiveness, so that fire response can better apply or restrain fire’s impacts on sensitive natural resources may further justify projects. Finally, some projects are further justified by local regulations. For example, the City of Palo Alto regulations require installation and maintenance of 100-ft defensible space around structures, fuel management for a minimum width of 10-ft along roads, and maintenance of 13.5-ft high vertical clearance over roadbeds. 4.4.4 Priority Fuel management is not possible, nor advisable, on every acre of the wildlands in the two City parks. Not even all the areas of high hazard can be treated with a reasonable level of funding, so prioritization needs to occur. Finding the most effective location and scope is a challenge because of uncertainties around relative fire hazard, erosion, potential, ignition potential, cost of implementation, environmental impacts of the management itself, and social values attached to the project location. Selection of fuel treatment areas is based on several factors, including the probability of the event, the potential damage of that event, ignition locations, adjacency to improvements or other sensitive values at risk from wildfire, and the propensity of the treatment to aid containment. 4.4.5 Project Locations The following table (Figure 18) and maps (Figures 19 and 20) summarize the project locations. Each treatment location was selected to achieve a specific objective. Many treatments are associated with roadsides, structures and City Park/Preserve boundaries. Treatments for containment are strategically located at ridgetops, in places that have access, are not too steep for mechanical treatments, avoid riparian areas, and are not prone to soil erosion. Sections 4.4.7 through 4.4.13 provide additional information regarding project treatments by project type. Figure 18: Listing of Project Locations. Designation Project Description Life Safety Foothills Park F.F1 Firefighter Safety Zone 1 Trappers Ridge & Los Trancos Trail F.F2 Firefighter Safety Zone 2 Trappers Ridge & Madrone Fire Road F.F3 Firefighter Safety Zone 3 Trappers Ridge high point F.F4 Firefighter Safety Zone 4 Trapper Ridge south end City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 48 Designation Project Description F.E1 Evacuation Route - Page Mill Road Within PA City from Arastradero to southern Pony Tracks F.E2 Evacuation Route - Park Road Entrance to Maintenance Yard Las Trampas Valley F.E3 Evacuation Route - Park Northwest Interpretive Center to the 600-700 block of Los Trancos Road F.E4 Evacuation Route - Park Northeast Boronda Lake to Alexis Drive F.E5 Secondary Evacuation Route - Wildhorse Valley Wildhorse Valley from Towle Campground to Las Trampas Valley Pearson-Arastradero A.E1 Evacuation Route – Arastradero Road Arastradero Road Off-site PA.1 Evacuation Route Page Mill Road PA.2 Evacuation Route Arastradero Road PA.3 Evacuation on Los Trancos Road between Santa Clara County boundary and Oak Forest Court PA.4 Evacuation Route Skyline Blvd. Structure and Infrastructure Protection Foothills Park F.D1 Defensible Space Entry Gate and Restroom F.D2 Defensible Space Station 8 F.D3 Defensible Space Restrooms at Orchard Glen F.D4 Defensible Space Interpretive Center F.D5 Defensible Space Maintenance Shop Complex F.D6 Defensible Space Boronda Pump Station at Campground F.D7 Defensible Space Park Tank F.D8 Defensible Space Boranda Water Tank F.D9 Defensible Space Dahl Water Tank Pearson-Arastradero A.D1 Defensible Space Gateway Building and Restrooms A.D2 Defensible Space Pump Station City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 49 Designation Project Description A.D3 Defensible Space Corte Madera Water Tank Ignition Prevention Foothills Park F.I1 Ignition Prevention Lakeside Picnic Area F.I2 Ignition Prevention Shady Cove Picnic Area F.I3 Ignition Prevention Encinal and Pine Gulch Picnic Areas F.I4 Ignition Prevention Orchard Glen Picnic Area F.I5 Ignition Prevention Oak Grove Group Picnic Area F.I6 Ignition Prevention Towle Camp Containment Foothills Park F.C1 Containment Trappers Trail F.C2 Containment Pony Tracks south of Trappers Ridge F.C3 Containment Pony Tracks north of Trappers Ridge F.C4 Containment Bobcat Point F.C5 Containment North of Entry Gate F.C6 Containment Valley View Fire Road Pearson-Arastradero A.C1 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Liddicoat A.C2 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Stanford and Portola Pastures A.C3 Containment Redtail Loop Area A.C4 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Paso del Robles A.C5 Containment Property boundary Laurel Glen - north A.C6 Containment Property boundary Laurel Glen - south A.C7 Containment Property boundary west of Meadow Lark Trail A.C8 Containment Property boundary adjacent to former private research facility A.C9 Containment Property boundary adjacent to John Marthens Lane City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 50 Designation Project Description A.C10 Containment Arastradero Creek (to Juan Bautista trail) A.C11 Containment Meadow Lark to Juan Bautista Trail A.C12 Containment Meadow Lark south A.C13 Containment Bowl Loop Trial A.C14 Containment Arastradero to Rx fire area A.C15 Containment Acorn Trail A.Rx1 Containment Juan Bautista Prescribed fire north A.Rx1 Containment Acorn Trail Prescribed fire south Figure 18: Listing of Project Locations. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 51 Figure 19: Proposed Treatment Locations in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. January 2009 A D 2 A D 3 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 52 Figure 20: Proposed Treatment Locations in Foothills Park. FI1 FI2 January 2009 FD8 FD1000 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 53 4.4.6 Project Dimensions and Post-Treatment Standards The dimensions of the treatments follow in the table below (Figure 21). The treatments that will occur within the project area depend on the vegetation type and treatment method. The post-treatment standards for each treatment type and a description of the treatment methods are also included. Project Types Dimension Treatment Frequency Comments Roadside Treatments Major evacuation routes 30 feet on both sides of pavement edge Rotate 3-5+ years depending on fuel type Annual for first 10 feet with grass fuels Secondary evacuation routes 15 feet on both sides of pavement edge Rotate 3-5+ years depending on fuel type Defensible Space 100-ft from structure Annual Follow-up treatments may not be required annually Ignition Prevention 10-ft from barbeque Annual Firefighter Safety Zones 100-ft radius Annual Containment Fuel Breaks Area treatment Within 300-ft of ridgetop of Trappers Ridge Rotate 3-5+ years Areas designated goat grazing within park Rotate 3-5+ years Two designated potential prescribed burn units per map Rotate 3-5+ years Perimeter treatment Brush/understory In designated areas within 300 feet of park boundary Rotate 3-5+ years Grass Discing or mowing 15-45 feet from park boundary, as practical Annual Eucalyptus Removal Individual tree removal One time Follow up to ensure no stump sprouts Figure 21: Treatment Methods and Intervals. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 54 4.4.7 Roadside and Driveway Fuel Modification for Safe Access and Egress 4.4.7.1 Specific Goal of Action The most important goal for this set of projects is to reduce fire intensity near roads to allow firefighting vehicles to pass and ensure safe passage for staff and visitors to pre-determined safety zones, or safe locations out of the parks. In addition, the projects outside of the City parks/preserves are aimed at facilitating access and egress between different portions of Palo Alto’s wildland urban interface. 4.4.7.2 Location and Description of Projects Projects would be located along roads and driveways of varying width, depending on whether the road is a major or secondary evacuation route. • 10 feet where flames are predicted to be less than eight feet in length (generally in grassy locations and in oak woodlands), such as along Wildhorse Valley in Foothills Park. • 30 feet from pavement edge along major evacuation routes that are Page Mill Road, Los Trancos Road, Arastradero Road, Skyline Boulevard, and the road from the Foothills Park Entry Gate to the Maintenance Shop. Palo Alto should work cooperatively with Los Alto Hills, the Town of Portola Valley, CalTrans, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, and other agencies to ensure vegetation along Page Mill Road, Arastradero Road, Los Trancos Road, and Skyline Blvd. are mowed, trees are maintained, and other treatments are implemented and sustained. Figure 22 lists the location and description of proposed safe access and egress projects. Figure 23 provides a graphical representation of major evacuation routes that are external to the two preserves. Designation Project Description Distance Treatment Method Foothills F.E1 Page Mill Road Within PA City from Arastradero to southern Pony Tracks 13,855 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor F.E2 Evacuation Route - Park Road Entrance to Maintenance Yard Las Trampas Valley 7,211 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor F.E3 Evacuation Route - Park North west Interpretive Center to the 600-700 block of Los Trancos Road 1,263 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor F.E4 Evacuation Route - Park North east Boronda Lake to Alexis Drive 2,618 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 55 F.E5 Secondary Evac Route Towle Campground to Las Trampas Valley 2,818 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor Pearson-Arastradero A.E1 Evacuation Route Arastradero Road 6,337 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor Off-site PA.1 Page Mill Road From Foothill Park South to Skyline Blvd. 11,980 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor PA.2 Arastradero Road From Page Mill to Arastradero Pk, and from Arastradero Pk to Los Trancos 940 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor PA.3 Evacuation Route - Los Trancos Los Trancos Road between Santa Clara County boundary and Oak Forest Court 4,406 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor PA.4 Skyline Blvd. Skyline Blvd.3 7,907 ft mowing, grazing, hand labor Figure 22: Listing of Project Locations for Evacuation and Access. 3 CalTrans is responsible for treatments within the designated right-of-wa,y which is variable in width (generally 2- 30-ft). Regardless the City of Palo Alto is committed to conduct treatments on City lands adjacent to the road. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 56 Figure 23: Evacuation Routes External to Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Vegetation maintenance on Highway 35 is the responsibility of CalTrans P A 3 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 57 4.4.8 Fuel Modification for Firefighter Safety Projects 4.4.8.1 Specific Goal of Action This project goal is specific to the safety of firefighters during emergency response. In times of emergency, a safe refuge comprised of low fuels is vital. 4.4.8.2 Location and Description of Projects These projects would install and maintain four firefighter safety zones within Foothills Park. Specifically, they are located on the Trappers Trail fuel break, at Los Trancos Trail, Madrone Fire Road, at the high point on Trappers Ridge and the south end of Trappers Ridge. Designation Project Description Acreage Treatment Method Foothills F.F1 Firefighter Safety Zone 1 Trappers Ridge & Los Trancos Trail > 1 acre mow, graze F.F2 Firefighter Safety Zone 2 Trappers Ridge & Madrone Fire Road > 1 acre mow, graze F.F3 Firefighter Safety Zone 3 Trappers Ridge high point > 1 acre mow, graze F.F4 Firefighter Safety Zone 4 Trapper Ridge south end > 1 acre mow, graze Figure 24: Listing of Project Locations for Fire Fighter Safety Fuel Modification. 4.4.9 Structure and Infrastructure Projects – Defensible Space 4.4.9.1 Specific Goal of Action • Reduce damage to structures, developed areas and critical infrastructure from wildfire by reducing flame length to two feet within 30 feet of structures by managing fuels per Defensible Space Guidelines in Section 1.6.8. In some cases, treatment will need to extend to 100 feet in order to reduce flames to two feet within thirty feet of a structure. • Minimize negative effects of fuel manipulation on wildlands • Reduce damage to wildlands from wildfire City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 58 4.4.9.2 Location and Description of Projects This vital suite of projects is located generally within 100 feet from structures that are currently in use, which includes entry gates, interpretive centers, restrooms, and maintenance or infrastructure facilities. Some of the projects are to protect the water and electrical services provided to the park. In addition, fire-resistant features should be installed when these structures are remodeled or repaired. The structures in the Parks/ Preserve can serve as a demonstration of the types of actions that should occur in private yards as part of compliance with local codes and ordinances. The following lists specify which structures need defensible space established and maintained annually: The area around structures is currently treated, however the actions recommended will bolster survivability of structures. Designation Project Description Acreage Treatment Method Foothills F.D1 Defensible Space Entry Gate and Restrooms > 1 acre hand labor F.D2 Defensible Space Boranda Water Tank > 1 acre hand labor F.D3 Defensible Space Restrooms at Orchard Glen > 1/2 acre hand labor F.D4 Defensible Space Interpretive Center > 1 acre hand labor F.D5 Defensible Space Maintenance Complex > 1 acre hand labor F.D6 Defensible Space Boronda Pump Station at Campground > 1 acre hand labor F.D7 Defensible Space Park Tank > 1/2 acre hand labor, grazing F.D8 Defensible Space Station 8 > 1/2 acre hand labor, grazing F.D9 Defensible Space Dahl Water Tank > 1/2 acre hand labor, grazing F.D10 Defensible Space Oak Grove Restrooms > 1/2 acre hand labor, grazing Pearson-Arastradero A.D1 Defensible Space and Restrooms Gateway Building > 1 acre hand labor, mowing City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 59 A.D2 Defensible Space Corte Madera Pump Station > 1 acre hand labor, mowing A.D3 Defensible Space Water Tank > 1 acre hand labor, mowing Figure 25: Listing of Project Locations for Defensible Space. 4.4.10 Ignition Prevention Fuel Management Projects 4.4.10.1 Specific Goal of Action Ignitions from barbeques may occur in Foothills Park. Ignition prevention relies upon fuel management, coupled with education, signage, and enforcement of park rules regarding fire safety. Under extreme fire weather conditions, the parks may be closed to the public. The fuel management will consist of the following: • Follow standards for defensible space for a 30-ft radius from the barbeque site. • Remove vegetation to create a non-combustible zone for a 10-ft radius from the barbeque site. 4.4.10.2 Location and Description of Projects Designation Project Description Acreage Treatment Method Foothills F.I1 Ignition Prevention Shady Cove Picnic Area > 1/4 ac hand labor F.I2 Ignition Prevention Encinal Picnic Area > 1/4 ac hand labor F.I3 Ignition Prevention Pine Gulch Picnic Area > 1/4 ac hand labor F.I4 Ignition Prevention Orchard Glen > 1/4 ac hand labor F.I5 Ignition Prevention Oak Grove Group Picnic Area > 1/4 ac hand labor F.I6 Ignition Prevention Towle Camp > 1/4 ac hand labor Figure 26: Listing of Project Locations for Ignition Prevention. 4.4.11 Fuel Modification for Containment Ease 4.4.11.1 Specific Goal of Action The specific goal of modifying fuels in the two parks is to compartmentalize fuels in order to facilitate the containment and control of a fire. The treatment areas are positioned in strategic locations, usually on a City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 60 ridgetop, with access, avoiding areas that would preclude the use of mechanical equipment such as steep slopes or riparian areas. Fuels are modified to reduce fire intensity and thus allow firefighters better access to the fire, making firefighting actions more effective. Fuel modification also creates more opportunities to backfire, which occurs during wildfires where fire suppression crews create large firebreaks in advance of the fire front. Fuel modification can also slow the spread of a fire, further enhancing fire control efforts. Where trees abut grasslands in the new fuel breaks, it is especially important to limb trees and remove shrubby understory from trees along the edge of the forest canopy in order to break vertical continuity between grass and tree canopy. This action will remove the “ladder fuels” that promote crown fires and hinder fire containment. 4.4.11.2 Location and Description of Projects In Pearson-Arastradero, the projects entail discing and mowing along the grassy perimeter of the preserve, and grazing in the shrubby areas that abut residences. Grazing of shrubby areas near residences need not occur every year, but rather on an approximate three-year rotation. Strips of grass along selected trails are likewise recommended for mowing to enhance containment and access. Two prescribed fires are recommended in the interior of the preserve as another means to remove fuels to reduce wildfire intensity and aid containment during a wildfire. In Foothills Park, a series of fuel breaks are recommended in shrubby fuels. In the fuel breaks, a rotation of treatments is recommended. The fire roads would be graded annually, and grass mowed within 10-3 0 f e e t o f the road. Additional mowing/brush cutting would extend to the break in topographic slope, which could be located as far away from the road as 200-ft. This type of mowing would occur in any one location approximately every 3 years; the intent is to maintain the area in a mixture of grass with less than 30 percent canopy cover of shrubs. While treatments may vary over time, the recommended rotation is between rest, mowing/brush cutting and grazing. Designation Project Description Acreage or Distance Treatment Method Foothills F.C1 Containment Trappers Trail 72.51 acres mowing, grazing F.C2 Containment Pony Tracks south of Trappers Ridge 2,975 ft mow annually 10-ft on either size of road, use a brush hog (or grazing animals) to mow areas to the break in slope both under wooded canopy and in grasslands with cover of coyote brush greater than 30% F.C3 Containment Pony Tracks north of Trappers Ridge 2,461 ft mowing, grazing F.C4 Containment Bobcat point 5.28 acres graze with goats City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 61 F.C5 Containment North of entry Gate 3.47 acres graze with goats F.C6 Containment Valley View Fire Trail 1,459 ft mowing Pearson-Arastradero A.C1 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Liddicoat 5.39 acres grazing, mowing A.C2 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Stanford and Portola Pastures 5,371 ft grazing, mowing A.C3 Containment Within Redtail Loop Trail, to entire eastern boundary of Preserve 48.72 acres grazing A.C4 Containment Property boundary adjacent to Paso del Robles 7.71 acres grazing A.C5 Containment Property boundary Laurel Glen - north 11.22 acres grazing A.C6 Containment Property boundary Laurel Glen - south 4.05 acres grazing A.C7 Containment Property boundary west of Meadow Lark Trail 9.71 acres grazing, mowing A.C8 Containment Property boundary adjacent to 1791 Arastradero Rd. 8.08 acres grazing (mowing is not possible) A.C9 Containment Property boundary adjacent to John Marthens 1,726 ft mowing A.C10 Containment Arastradero Creek to Arastradero Road 10,222 ft mowing, hand labor near riparian zone A.C11 Containment Meadow Lark to Juan Bautista Trail 8,893 ft mowing A.C12 Containment Meadow Lark 1,569 ft mowing A.C13 Containment Bowl Loop 1,388 ft mowing A.C14 Containment Arastradero to extended split RX1 and RX2 1,830 ft mowing A.C15 Containment Acorn Trail 1,218 ft mowing Figure 27: Listing of Project Locations for Containment Ease. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 62 4.4.12 Fuel Modification for Ecosystem Health 4.4.12.1 Specific Goal of Action Only a few projects that benefit ecosystem health as their primary justification have been identified in this phase; however, many of the other projects enhance natural resources while achieving other management goals. In all cases, the goal of the action is to restore a species distribution and volume of biomass to a condition of effective fire suppression through grazing and prescribed fire. The City should conduct fuel modification to reduce the invasion of coyote bush into grasslands and thus reduce expected heat output. The project located along Trappers Trail consists of mowing chaparral on a rotational basis every two-to three years. This will release native grasses, produce more food for wildlife and provide diversity of age and vegetation structure. Another project is to re-introduce fire in the grasslands of Pearson-Arastradero through prescribed burning a selected interior area on a rotational basis. In both cases, the objectives are to maintain grasslands and restore the native pattern of vegetation on the landscape. A third project to enhance ecosystem health is to graze, with sheep or goats, broad areas that are currently being mowed for grass and invasive weed management. Other fuel management projects also enhance ecosystem health. Reducing the amount and height of understory shrubs creates a vegetative structure that is more open at the forest floor, with less biomass and is vertically discontinuous; this mimics the pre-fire-suppression era. This would be done either with goat herds or with hand labor forces. 4.4.12.2 Location and Description of Projects Designation Project Description Acreage Treatment Method Foothills F.C1 Containment Trappers Trail 72.51 acres mowing, grazing Pearson-Arastradero A.Rx1 Containment Juan Bautista Prescribe fire north 18.25 acres Rx fire, grazing A.Rx2 Containment Acorn Trail Prescribed fire south 24,45 acres Rx fire, grazing A.C3 Containment Within Redtail Loop Trail, to entire eastern boundary of Preserve 48.72 acres grazing, mowing Figure 28: Listing of Project Locations for Ecosystem Health. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 63 4.4.13 Cooperative Fuel Management Projects for Offsite Fire Containment and Evacuation Ease 4.4.13.1 Specific Goal of Action The goal of this project is to prevent a wildfire from spreading into the parks. The City should work with adjacent landowners to institute and maintain the vegetation in a condition that would facilitate containment and ease evacuation operations. Another cooperative project would be to work to reduce the frequency and impact of sudden oak death, particularly on the western edge of Palo Alto. 4.4.13.2 Location and Description of Projects Cooperation with neighbors is important in the installation and maintenance of fire-safe conditions on lands adjacent to or near the City parks. Most importantly, the enhancement of roadside treatments along Page Mill Road requires cooperation with several other landowners and agencies, as enumerated previously. Cooperative projects also include the formalization of agreements for passage through properties during time of emergency evacuation with public and private land owners and managers. The City should develop partnerships to address regional evacuation routes from residential and public areas, as detailed in the following section. Cooperative projects also include fuel management on City-owned open space adjacent to private structures. In some cases, such as on the western edge of Foothill Park east of Carmel and Ramona Road in Los Trancos Woods, access through private parcels would enable fuel management on City lands that would benefit both parties involved. Sudden Oak Death has been observed in many locations within the Foothills area. At this time the areas are small and consist of one or two trees. The urgency for treatment of these affected areas is related to its location. Dead trees near structures, City property boundaries and along roads should be treated first. For example, dead trees along evacuation routes would get higher priority than those in the middle of remote woodland. However, if entire stands die, or sudden oak death changes the fuel characteristics of the stand, the priority and potential treatments would change. The location and extent of stands affected by Sudden Oak Death should be monitored. Treatment should be consistent with the City policy regarding Sudden Oak Death. Treatments generally entail removal of dead material smaller than six inches in diameter. The trunks of the trees may remain if needed for wildlife habitat, however it is often difficult to retain just the larger material. The proximity of California bay to the foliage of oaks has been linked with the spread of Sudden Oak Death. Removal or trimming of bay trees to separate the foliage is another strategy to prevent further spread. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 64 5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN However valuable and imperative the plan may be, implementation is the key to achieving the goals set forth by the plan. There are several recommendations that can facilitate implementation of the fire management plan. 5.1 Implementation Strategies The creation of an Implementation Team within the City staff will support implementation. The team would benefit from representatives that could help with project design, cost estimation and budgeting, evacuation planning, and community outreach. The team would include in its mission development of educational material for the community. Implementation Team should include staff from the City Manager's Office, the Fire Department (Chief, Operations, Fire Marshal, CERT), the Police Department (Chief, Homeland Security, Communications/Dispatch, PIO), the Planning Department, Open Space/Parks, Public Works, and Utilities. The City should support the formation of a Midpeninsula Foothills Emergency Forum (MFEF). The MFEF would collaborate on resource management issues. The scope would include pursuit of grants, equipment and resource sharing (such as mechanical equipment and expertise) and joint design of projects especially on City boundaries, or along co-owned/managed roads. The City should work with stakeholder/ partners on common issues. For example, Los Altos Hills, Stanford, Los Trancos Woods, Los Trancos Water Department, MROSD, and private neighbors all have concerns and potentially partial solutions for access and egress constraints. Each partner may have a particular asset to contribute, whether it is available funds or ready volunteers, or expertise in the subject of need. Collaboration creates a stronger base from which fruition of the plan can more readily occur. This interagency organization would be separate from the existing FireSafe Councils; participation would include CEO-level discussions and staff liaisons from each participating agency. The City should participate in local FireSafe Councils, in both Santa Clara County and San Mateo County4. FireSafe Councils can help in obtaining federal funds because the local FireSafe Councils have an already- written Community Wildfire Protection Plan, which is a prerequisite for national funding. Interagency collaboration is also fostered by FireSafe Councils. The local San Mateo FireSafe Council also facilitates access to the use of subsidized California-youth authority hand labor crews. These crews have a long track record of successful fuel management projects at surprisingly low costs. The San Mateo FireSafe Council also has a chipping program to alleviate the burden of disposing of biomass from fuel management projects. The City should also implement projects in City park/preserves through its regular budget process. The City has a history of fuel management that should be continued. Fuel management will continue to be funded through the normal budget process, to encompass continued mowing, occasional grazing, maintenance of defensible space around structures and resource enhancement projects. Funding specific prescribed burns is also expected through the budget process if not funded by grants or conditions tied to this project. For example, a prescribed burn in Alameda County was required as a mitigation measure for a necessary project to expand a facility near a creekbed. Similarly, projects that 4 Participation in the San Mateo County FireSafe Council would be as an interested party but not to take official action or receive any financial benefit. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 65 enhance natural resources can be used as mitigation measures for worthwhile projects that may have negative impacts. While it is not expected that the City would make a profit from natural resources, the value of its grasslands as feed could be used to offset the cost of using livestock as a resource management tool. Similarly, the City should make an effort to obtain value from wood recovered from dead tree removal, potentially though innovative wood-based art projects. The City has a rich bank of volunteer groups; projects could be implemented with the help of volunteer groups. Relationships with stakeholders such as Acterra, Friends of Foothills, 4-H, and other should be fostered. Roles for these groups could include the performance of pre-treatment surveys, construction and placement of raptor perches, support of grazing operations (movement of portable livestock fences or water sources), or distribution of educational and evacuation directional signs. Corporate volunteerism can be directed to fuel management projects. The adoption of new codes may be less obvious than the implementation of specific projects. Regardless, the adoption of recommended changes in the City code may have more long-lasting and far-reaching effects throughout the City. These recommendations should be pursued. Similarly, the continuation of Station 8 staffing should be viewed as a part of the implementation of this plan. 5.2 Priorities The priority of the projects has been emphasized earlier in this report. Life safety concerns – those focusing on egress and emergency response access – are the highest priority. The projects that address this objective should be immediately pursued. The maintenance of firefighter safety zones is similarly high in priority. Fuel management projects that prevent the ignition of structures are of the next highest priority. This would include the maintenance of defensible space around City structures and vital infrastructure facilities. These projects are mandated by law. Fuel management to prevent the spread of fires to off-site structures from City property are within a level of reasonable care expected from a City; these projects are also considered a type of containment project. Fuel management that promotes containment of fires within City property is next in priority. These projects support the response to infrequent, yet potentially catastrophic fires. In addition, these fuel management projects prevent the more ordinary events from becoming catastrophic. Projects that enhance natural resources are difficult to fund. However, fuel management offers occasions to both enhance natural resources and fire safety. Every fuel management project should be viewed as an opportunity to simultaneously enhance natural resources and promote fire safety. The following criteria (not ordered by importance) can help determine the schedule of recommended fuel treatment project: • Benefit of project in minimizing structure damage or chance of damaging wildfire. • Probability of damaging wildfire (based on fuel loading and vegetation structure). • Potential for ecological benefit (or damage without fire). City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 66 • Divergence of fuel loading and vegetation structure from natural conditions (i.e. deviation from natural fire regime). • A window of opportunity, based on funding timelines, availability of personnel or equipment, or other factors. • If using prescribed fire, some areas may need to be burned in a particular sequence to minimize the potential for escape. 5.3 Fuel Management Project Costs Costs are variable, depending on the project design, site features, access, requirements for insurance, traffic and fencing control, staging, move-in costs, bonding, administration, wage reporting and other city requirements, such as governing regulations, or resource restrictions (i.e. species of concern). Considering only the direct project-related costs, the unit costs of various treatment methods can vary dramatically between the types of treatment methods, but within the treatment methods as well. Similarly, the site conditions, weather, and other external factors that affect unit costs of some treatment methods are: • Height, density, species, and arrangement of existing vegetation; • Desired vegetation conversion and management objectives; • Size, accessibility, slope, soil stability, and vegetation types onsite; • Need for multiple treatment types at a site over a short period of time (cumulative costs); and • Planning and monitoring to develop follow-up treatment prescription. The following table describes unit costs associated with the treatment methods. Treatment Method Estimated Unit Cost ($ per Acre) Notes/Other Considerations Hand Labor Treatments Weed Whipping 1,500 Chaparral Brush Removal 2,140 a Hand-Pulling 2,000 Vista Pruning $1/linear ft / 50-250 b Roadside treatments – no shrubs Mosaic/Drip-Line Thinning $2/linear ft / 3,500 a Roadside treatments with shrubs Organic Mulch 575-1,600 b,c Same as chipping/mulching City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 67 Treatment Method Estimated Unit Cost ($ per Acre) Notes/Other Considerations Mechanical Treatment Grading 500-600 b,c Mowing 500-600 b,c Chipping/Mulching 575-1,600 b Roadside Mowing with Shrubs $1/linear ft Prescribed Burning Broadcast Burning 60-400 b Fixed costs are high, should use $25,000 per burn rather than per- acre costs Grazing Sheep 200 b Goats 500 Chemical Treatment Stump Application 200 Foliar Application 500 Figure 29: Unit Costs for Fuel Reduction Treatment Methods. a The Sea Ranch Association Fuels Management Implementation, 2002 confirmed 2008. b Applegate, Oregon Fire Plan. http://www.wildfireprograms.com/search.html?displayId=237 c Fire Plan, http://www.wildfireprograms.com/search.html?displayId=237 5.3.1 Project Cost Estimates The following is a compilation of cost estimates for the 51 recommended treatment areas in Pearson- Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Park, and along selected segments of major evacuation routes in the City of Palo Alto. The total five-year cost amounts to approximately $700,000. Costs of Firefighter Safety Zones = $800 annually The costs of each firefighter safety zone was estimated as $200 per zone, based on the cost to mow a grassy area of approximately one acre in size. Mowing costs of unobstructed grass are approximately $200/hr, which includes the cost of the machinery and operator, and a spotter. The production rate of area mowing is approximately one acre per hour. This cost does not include move-in costs, because it assumes the mowing for firefighter safety is part of a larger mowing contract. Because the safety zones need to be treated annually, the cost of treating all the firefighter safety zones is $800 per year. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 68 Costs of Initial Treatment along Evacuation Routes = $192,960 initial treatment, $86,400 total for the subsequent 4 years56 The treatment along roads identified as evacuation routes would include a mixture of machinery-based mowing (including mowing with an articulated brush-cutting head that cuts brush) and the use of hand labor. In circumstances where wider areas can be treated, grazing animals, principally goats, can be used to perform initial treatments along evacuation routes. The total length of evacuation routes is slightly more than 12 miles, or 63,740 linear feet, which encompasses those areas highlighted in blue on Figures 17 and 18 and in Section 4.4.7.2. The estimate of costs for this type of treatment assumes an operation that would use the machinery wherever possible as a cost containment measure. One can assume one-half of the length can be treated with machinery for the first 10-ft off the roadside. The remainder of the area would need to be treated by hand. Estimates are based on treating both sides of the road for 30-ft, or a 60-ft wide strip, or almost 24 miles of linear treatment. Treatment recommendations state that areas of oak woodland need be treated for only 10-ft in width because expected fire behavior is relatively calm; however, for cost estimates, every length of the roads were estimated being treated for 30-ft width. The most inexpensive treatment is roadside mowing of grassy areas with few shrubs or trees. This is expected to occur on approximately ¼ of the length of the roadside, for the first 10-ft off the road. Roadside mowing of grass expected to cost approximately $200/hour for the machinery, operator and spotter; production rates generally run around 300 linear feet per hour, or a little less than 18 hours to treat a mile. Production is reduced by the need to pick up the cutting head to move to a new site, and the need to avoid areas of trees. Using this production rate, mowing of approximately 108 hours, or for a cost of $21,600. The next most cost-effective treatment is use machinery to cut roadside shrubs within the first 10-ft of the road. Shrubs near the roads are more common, occurring on approximately ½ of the length of the roads. A cost of $200/hr for the machinery, operator and spotter is used. Production is reduced to 200 linear feet per hour, requiring 26.4 hours to cut brush for a mile. A little more than 316 hours would be required to treat the estimated 12 miles of shrubs, for a cost of $63,360. Machinery has the potential to start fires from causing sparks in dry vegetation. A dedicated fire watch for the operation during fire season is recommended, at an additional cost of $15,000, based on 214 hours of operation during fire season, assuming one-half of the machinery-based work is performed during fire season. The remainder of the treatments will require hand labor to remove shrubs, limb the lower branches of trees smaller than three inches in diameter. This would be required on ¼ of the first 10-ft of the roads, and the entirety of the remaining 20 feet off main evacuation routes. Hand labor crews with a supervisor typically cost $1200/day. The production rate for this type of tree limbing and shrub removal is one-tenth of an acre each day, or $10,000 per acre. Subtracting the areas treated with mechanical equipment, approximately 93 acres will need to be treated using hand labor crews, at a cost of $93,000. 5 Personal communication with J. Squadroni, of Environtech, January 2009, regarding roadside treatment costs. These cost were confirmed, based on worked performed by Environtech, including roadside treatments on Los Trancos Road in early 2000’s and in Carmel Valley m o r e recently. 6 Personal Communication with Mike Philbin, Central Coast Land Clearing, October, 2008. Cost estimates based on work performed in 2008 on roadside treatments in Carmel Valley and in Santa Cruz County. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 69 Government-subsidized hand crews that utilize people in the California Youth Authority system can result in dramatic cost reductions. Costs of hand labor crews can be reduced by a factor of ten. Maintenance would consist of mowing the first 10-ft from the pavement edge yearly, at an annual cost over the next four years of $21,000 per year. Costs of Maintaining Defensible Space around Park/Preserve Structures and Infrastructure = $17,800 Treatments to maintain defensible space around each of the structures and infrastructure facilities in the City Park/Preserve entail the use of hand labor to limb trees, remove shrubs under trees, and to mow grass. Some of the structures, such as the Gateway interpretive Center in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, have little tree cover so mowing would comprise the treatment. Others, such as the pumping station in Pearson-Arastradero will require a higher level of effort because of a greater volume of shrubs and trees within 100 feet of the structure. Limbing and shrub removal need to only be done on a five-year interval, however mowing is required annually. The treatments encompass the red solid circles on Figures 17 and 18 and those described in Section 4.4.9.2. Generally the area of treatments ranges from ¼ acre to 1 acre. Mowing of the area around the structures is estimated as $100/structure, performed annually. Using hand labor to remove shrubs under trees and to remove lower branches of trees is estimated as $1,500/acre, performed every five years. There are nine structures identified in Foothills Park, with a total estimated cost of $14,100 over the next five years; Pearson- Arastradero Preserve has four such structures, with an accompanying $3,700 cost for treatment during the next five years. Costs of Creating/Maintaining Containment Areas $403,486 Containment Areas in Foothills Park Treatments to enhance the actions to contain fires span two different shapes and sizes of treatments. Area treatments are recommended in Foothills Park for Trappers Trail, the Pony Tracks South of Trappers Ridge, the Bobcat Point Containment Zone and the area north of the Foothills Park Entry Gate. Shrubs and lower tree branches should be trimmed within the containment areas on a three-year interval of time. The grass in Trappers Trail and Pony Tracks South of Trappers Ridge will be mowed every three years, with the exception of a width of 30 feet on both sides of the graded trail. Shrubs in the Bobcat Point Containment Zone and the North of Entry Gate Containment Zone are recommended to be treated every five years. Grass in the other containment zones is to be mowed annually in order to bolster containment efforts during fire suppression. Trappers Trail Containment Zone – 72.5 acs. The cost estimate of treatment is based on a rotation of treatments on a three-year cycle, and an annual treatment of mowing of a band of grass for a 30-ft width on both sides of the graded trail. One third of the area would be mowed in any year. One-third grazed, and one-third left to re-grow. This rotational treatment will allow more forage and cover for wildlife, and provide greater diversity of plants and vegetation structure. The cost of grazing one-third of the area, or roughly 25 acres, is estimated at $500/acre, or a total annual cost of $12,500. Costs of grazing are estimated to be lower than other areas because grassy nature of the area will facilitate fencing. Mowing is similarly lower in cost, at $500/acre, or an annual cost of $12,500, also because of previous treatments on the site. The total annual treatment cost for this area would be $25,000, or $125,000 combined for the next five years. Pony Tracks South of Trappers Ridge Containment Zone – 7 a c . The cost estimate of treatment is also based on a rotation of treatments on a three-year cycle, and an annual treatment of mowing of a band of grass for a 30-ft width on both sides of the graded trail (if the area is not grazed). Because of the small size of the City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 70 treatment area, the entire area can be mowed one year, grazed another, and left to rest a third. Using mowing and grazing costs of $500/acre, the five-year cost of treatment would be $14,000. Pony Tracks North of Trappers Ridge Containment Zone – 2460 ft. The treatment cost is based on annual mowing along both sides of the graded trail. Using the production rate of 300 feet per hour and an hourly cost of $200/hr for an equipment operator and spotter, the cost of this treatment is estimated at $1640, or $8,200 for the next five years. Bobcat Point Containment Zone – 5.5 acs. Costs for grazing this treatment area with goats are estimated at $700/acre because the area has not been previously treated and fencing may be challenging. This would result in a cost of $3850. The treatment interval is recommended to be 5-y e a r s , s o t h e 5 -year cost of treatment would total $3,850. North of Entry Gate Containment Zone - 3.5 acs. This area is similar in its treatment recommendation to the Bobcat Point Containment Zone. Grazing costs are estimated at $700/acre, with a 5-year interval between treatments. The one-time treatment cost is $2,450, as is the 5-year treatment cost. Valley View Fire Trail Containment Zone – 1460 ft. The treatment cost is based on annual mowing along both sides of the graded trail. Using the production rate of 300 feet per hour and an hourly cost of $200/hr for an equipment operator and spotter, the cost of this treatment is estimated at $1,000, or $5,000 for the next five years. Containment Areas in Pearson-Arastradero Preserve In Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, fifteen areas are recommended for treatments to facilitate containment during fire suppression. Of these, seven are areas where grazing is recommended, with a total acreage of almost 95 acres. The size of the areas to be grazed ranges from slightly more than four acres to almost 50 acres. Of the area to be grazed, 54 acres is comprised of grass, with few fencing challenges. However, smaller areas that amount to 41 acres to the south and west on the Preserve border are shrubby and have not been previously treated. Given the variability of the condition, the cost for grazing is estimated at $500/acre, or a total initial cost of $47,500. The grassy areas should be grazed annually, at a cost of $135,000. The shrubby areas need by treated only once every five years, at a cost of $20,500. The five-year cost thus totals $155,500. Mowing the grass on both sides of graded trails is a recommended annual treatment. The linear length of this treatment is 26,846 feet, or slightly more than 5 miles. Using the production rate of 300 feet per hour and an hourly cost of $200/hr for an equipment operator and spotter, the cost of this treatment is estimated at $17,897, or $89,486 for the next five years. Two areas are recommended as suitable for a prescribed burn to facilitate containment and enhance natural resources. The costs for this treatment method are especially difficult to estimate because some of the operation serves as training. Often, adjacent agencies provide additional equipment and resources at no cost. A large portion of the costs associated with prescribed burning is involved in planning and obtaining the necessary permits, notification of appropriate agencies and the public and reporting of the results of the burn. Because of the uncertainty regarding the cost, an estimated cost of $25,000 per burn is set. An interval of 5 years is recommended, so a five-year cost for the two treatment areas would total $50,000. Costs of Conducting Pre-Treatment Surveys = $100,000 Pre-treatment surveys and post-treatment follow-up are part of the best management practices associated with the recommended treatments. The cost for the pre-treatment surveys and post-treatment follow-up is City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 71 estimated at $20,000/yr, or $100,000 for the total 5-year cost. This cost can be reduced if knowledgeable volunteers are involved in the survey or monitoring efforts. Estimates for the survey costs assume the City identifies treatments planned for the year and contracts with a biological consulting firm to perform targeted surveys in the treatment areas. 5.4 Funding Strategies to Support Fuel Management Multiple funding sources provide greater stability, more funds, increased continuity, more stakeholders, the potential to expand the scope of work. Each funding mechanism has unique requirements, strengths and weaknesses. Some are best suited for one-time expenditures such as capital improvements while others are aimed at ongoing maintenance activities. The “strings” attached to each mechanism should be considered. It is advisable to match funding mechanisms with priority projects. Figure 30: Funding Mechanisms. A key to expanding funding mechanisms is to demonstrate the value of the projects. Highlighting the value of fuel management is effectively done at a grass-roots level, through collaboration with stakeholders. This is especially important for mechanisms that require community-wide support through votes or donations of money or in-kind services. The discussion under Section 8.1 Implementation Strategies discusses the importance of partnering with other agencies, the use of volunteers to leverage City funds, and the funding of fuel reduction work through the normal budgeting process. This is the most common locally-controlled source of funds, often covering education, code adoption, and capital improvements. While this seems to be the most reliable long-term source of funds, even self-funding projects are vulnerable to a shift in priorities (because these projects need to compete with other community public service needs) or a downturn in economic markets. Funding projects with grants requires that the City match projects with funding sources. Creativity can yield surprising avenues for funding. For example, funds from Homeland Security may be justified to purchase equipment that washes off weed seeds from vehicles because of concerns about decontamination. In this case the same equipment can be used as a solution to disparate concerns. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 72 Bonds may be used for capital improvement projects, especially related to evacuation. These are typically used for very expensive capital improvements such as water supply and distribution or development/ enhancement of improved access. Last, assessment districts can fund specific fuel projects that address specific geographic regions for a specific period of time. For example, assessment districts may co-fund utilities and water improvements. Funding strategies should consider the total amount required, the schedule and duration of funds required, the focus of spending – whether it is capital or maintenance-related projects – the geographic area and the project types. Funding strategies also need to consider the effort required to obtain and administer the funds. Grants may require matching funds in the form of hard cash or in-kind services that can range from relatively simple to complex forms and justification. The National Database of State and Local Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Programs (www.wildfireprograms.usda.gov) presents how other communities have obtained funds and what they have done with those funds. Regardless of funding mechanism, several common challenges need to be considered. When raising money for long-term projects, it is critical to build in factors for inflation and cost-escalation. Raising funds for ongoing maintenance is more difficult than raising seed money for one-time demonstrations. 5.5 Grant Opportunities In the past ten years, an unprecedented amount of federal and state aid has been available for fire hazard reduction. Most federal aid is linked to proximity to federal lands, which may pose a disadvantage for the City of Palo Alto. One exception to this linkage is funding through the Department of Homeland Security. The California FireSafe Council website hosts a “one-stop-shopping” application process where an applicant can obtain an e-grant concept paper. However even this website does not cover all programs. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has a funding program that provides assistance to fire departments through its Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) and the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program. AFG is limited to fire departments, while the Fire Prevention and Safety Grants are open to a wider range of organizations. FEMA has two disaster mitigation programs: the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program ( H M G P ) a n d t h e P r e -Disaster Mitigation Program (PDM). HMGP funds are available to states after a disaster has been declared to mitigate future risk from any type of disaster. Amounts are linked to the total emergency funds. Funds from the PDM facilitate cooperation between state and local authorities with funds awarded competitively for both planning and project implementation activities at the state and local levels as a sub-grantee. This program addresses the more traditional agency focus of earthquakes and floods; the extent of funding for wildfire-related projects is yet to be determined. The State Fire Assistance includes supplemental appropriate allocation through the National Fire Plan, in addition to a regular appropriation distributed by formula to state foresters through the USDA Forest Service. These funds can be used to plan and implement hazard mitigation projects, including fuel management, prevention and mitigation education, and community hazard reduction. The process for obtaining funds is competitive and available nationwide, with 35 percent distributed among the states to meet firefighting preparedness and safety needs. Obtaining funds through grants often involve intricate application process or include administrative burdens associated with monitoring how funds are spent and complex reporting requirements. Using funds for ongoing projects is a concern because the sustainability of grant funding is sometimes questionable. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 73 Grant opportunities often become available for a short period of time. Requirements and levels of funding change annually. For example, the federal Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency recently announced a new policy for funding wildfire mitigation. On September 8, FEMA Mitigation Chief David Maurstad issued a policy that describes how the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program ( H M G P ) a n d t h e P r e-Disaster Mitigation grant program (PDM) can be used for wildfire mitigation activities by eligible grant applicants. Activities eligible for funding under these grants include creation of defensible space through removing or reducing vegetation; the application of non-combustible building envelope assemblies, use of ignition-resistant materials, and proper retrofit techniques for structures; and hazardous fuels reduction vegetation management or thinning within two miles of at-risk structures. Check with your state Emergency Management Office or FEMA Regional Mitigation staff (http://www.fema.gov/about/regions/index.shtm) for more information about HMGP and PDM grants. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 74 6 TREATMENT STANDARDS AND METHODS 6.1 Treatment Standards for Vegetation Types For each vegetation type group, the resulting fuel bed characteristics after treatment are described7. Following the vegetation prescriptions, a set of guidelines for creation and maintenance of a fire safe area (defensible space) around residences and other improvements are recommended. In all vegetation types, preference for removal should be given to non-native invasive species. 6.1.1 Prescription for Grasslands • Mow or graze to no longer than 4 inches in height, or disc • Native grasses should be mowed to a height no shorter than 4 inches and may be mowed later in the year to accommodate seed ripening and seed distribution 8 • Maintain brush cover less than 30% o less than 20% where slope steepness is greater than 20% o Requires annual treatment, usually requiring treatment of all grass near structures within 2 weeks of starting to mow. • Alternatively, prescribed burn in late spring or early fall with a resulting cover of not less than 20% 6.1.2 Prescription for North Coastal Scrub and Chaparral • Mow/grind to cut and mulch shrub tops within treatment area; alternatively, • Create islands of less than 12 feet in diameter or 2 times the height of tallest shrub (whichever is smaller) can remain. Clumps should be natural in appearance including specimens of variable age classes 7 These standards/prescriptions were initially developed by Amphion, Inc. for use by the FEMA-funded East Bay Hills Vegetation Management Consortium (VMC). These standards/prescriptions have been reviewed and adopted by the following agencies in the consortium: Cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and Piedmont; East Bay Municipal Utility District; East Bay Regional Park District; University of California; Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; and PG&E. As part of the review process, a Citizen’s Advisory Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee, which were comprised by a cross-section of members of the public, reviewed and commented on the standards. The reference is Amphion Environmental, Inc. 1995. Fire Hazard Mitigation Program and Fuel Management Plan for the East Bay Hills, prepared for the East Bay Hills Vegetation Management Consortium, Oakland, California. 8 Acterra is available to advise on the timing of native grass seed cycles, especially in relation to invasive weed seed cycles. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 75 • Distance between islands shall be greater than 2 times the height of tallest shrub or a minimum of 8 feet, whichever is greater • Retain between 20-30 percent of brush areas in brush crown cover • The removal of brush should be based on criteria which are listed in approximate order of importance to fuel management objectives: o Relative flammability - remove the most flammable species first. o Plant vigor - remove shrubs of low vigor, dying or dead shrubs. o Sprouting capability - remove species with sprouting capacity first. o Effects of plant species on soils - i.e. retain shrubs with slope-holding capacity, that increase soil nutrients (ceanothus). o Value for wildlife food and cover. o Aesthetic values. o The order of priority will change according to local conditions such as the relative abundance of each species. For example, where coffeeberry is not abundant, it may be placed high in priority to retain. Attempts should be made to maintain diversity of species. • Maintain a crown cover of less than 30% • Can convert to grass, especially in fuel breaks • Maintain less than 20% dead material in the shrub canopy • Protect oak, madrone, buckeye and trees shorter than 6 feet in height. Cut out shrubs below drip lines and within 6 feet from edge of tree canopy • Anticipate 3-5 year treatment cycle City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 76 Priority For Removal Follows: Remove Only If Necessary chamise coffeeberry coyote bush buckeye poison oak ceanothus Himalaya blackberry wild currant northern sticky monkey flower California blackberry coastal sage brush bush lupine scrub oak madrone manzanita toyon oaks Figure 31: Initial Priority of Removal for Brush. 6.1.3 Prescription for Oak Woodlands • Prune branches up to 3 inches in diameter for a height of 8 feet. Prune up to a maximum of 1/3 the height of trees that are less than 24 feet tall. • Maintain under 5 tons/acre of duff no deeper than 3 inches. • Leave all trees bigger than 8 inches diameter. Leave 1/3 of the trees under 8 inches to retain a range of size categories and species. Maintain a stand density of less than 50 trees per acre as long as canopy is still closed. • Can mulch site to a maximum depth of 2 inches to prevent invasion of noxious weeds. o Treatment cycle is from 7-10 years. 6.1.4 Prescription for Riparian Forest Avoid treatment. Where necessary: • Create or maintain an 8 feet vertical clearance between live needles and understory fuel. Remove all dead material. Prune branches up to 3 inches in diameter. Prune up to a maximum of 1/3 the height for trees less than 24 feet in height. • Maintain less than 10 ton/ac. Depth of duff no greater than 5 inches. • Mulch to between 2 and 5 inches in depth. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 77 o Treatment cycle is between 10-15 years. 6.1.5 Defensible Space Guidelines Palo Alto staff will be responsible for maintaining a 100 feet wide defensible space on all sides of any structure in the two parks. All dead plants and combustible materials shall be removed within 100 feet of each structure to establish and maintain a defensible space. Removal of combustible materials includes, but is not limited to, the following actions: • Cut grass and weeds to less than 4 inches. Cutting of native grass and wildflowers may be delayed until after seed set unless they form a means of rapidly spreading fire to any structures. • Remove all dead plant material from within 100 feet of each structure. This includes keeping the ground, roofs, decking, and balconies free of dead leaves, needles or other plant debris. This also includes removing from trees loose papery bark, and dead branches smaller than 3 inches in diameter, to 8 feet above ground. Remove all dead branches from within live ground covers, vines, and shrubs. Refer to Figure 1 explaining pruning. • All live vines and live branches smaller than 3 inches in diameter shall be cut up to a height of 8 feet above ground. Figure 32 provides a description of pruning best practices. Figure 32: Pruning Example. Prune branches to a height of 8 feet above the ground. In young trees, prune branches on the lower one-third of the height of the tree. Do not disturb or thin the tree canopy, as this promotes growth in the understory, which is more easily ignited. • Remove plants as necessary to break vertical continuity between ground covers, shrubs, trees, and decks or overhangs on buildings. Vertical separation is the distance from the top of shrubs or ground cover to adjacent trees, designed to minimize the spread of fire to the crown of trees or structure roofs. Vertical spacing should be a minimum of 8 feet or 2 times the height of the understory plants to the leaves or needles of adjacent overstory trees, decks or overhangs, whichever provides greater separation. For overstory trees under 24 feet in height, the minimum clearance can be reduced to 1/3 City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 78 of the overall height of the overstory tree provided this reduced clearance does not form a means of rapid transmission of fire. • In areas without a tree overstory, create shrub islands per the standard for north coastal scrub. Within 100 feet of improvements, grass between shrub islands should be mowed when cured (dry). • Remove all branches within 10 feet of any chimney or stovepipe including chimneys on adjacent properties. • Chipped materials can remain on the site provided the chipped mulch layer is no greater than 2 inches in depth. 6.2 Description of Treatment Methods 6.2.1 Summary Fuels can be removed on a large scale by prescribed burns, grazing animals, and mechanical treatment. In small open space areas and around structures, hand labor is effective in reducing the fuel load. Eucalyptus tree removal may be effective in specific locations of high risk. Fuels can be redistributed on a large or small scale through mechanical treatments, such as mowing, discing, or grading. In all the following treatments except hand labor, economies of scale are dramatic; the larger the project, the greater the efficiency. 6.2.2 Timing of Treatments The timing of the initial or follow-up treatments is important to achieve the desired fuel management performance standards and resource management objectives. Given the variable nature of fuels through changes in weather and season over time, the schedule of the treatment may often be just as important as the type of treatment selected. For example, treatments in grasslands typically take place when grass cures or dries out. Cutting grass too early will be ineffective, as the grass will usually grow back, negating the treatment. Conversely, cutting grass too late will leave the grass in a hazardous condition during periods of high fire danger. Fuel treatments also need to be conducted when the weather is not too dry or windy, as some treatment types - especially mechanical treatments - may inadvertently start fires. Timing the treatment methods appropriately can reduce potential impacts to special-status species or sensitive wildlife species. It is likely that there will be some months of the year when particular practices need to be implemented (e.g., pre-treatment nesting surveys or avoidance of breeding habitat) to avoid adverse affects to special-status species. Timing treatments to either control or avoid the spread of invasive plant species or insect pests is also critical. For example, treatments performed when plants have set or are setting seed will spread the seed whether it is a native plant or invasive weed. Treatments should therefore take advantage of differences in the timing of seeding of native plant species and avoid periods when invasive species are in seed. Pruning of pines and eucalyptus should be done when insect pests are not flying to minimize the associated spread and damage from these insects. Pruning should take place from November to April to minimize the susceptibility to bark beetles or red turpentine beetles. In most cases, the timing and method of treatment can be modified to accommodate local habitat needs and still reduce fire hazard to an acceptable level. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 79 6.2.3 Hand Labor Hand labor involves pruning, cutting or removal of weeds or shrubs either by hand or with hand-held equipment. This process is slow and expensive, but most selective and has little impact beyond the removal of the target plants. This technique generates considerable debris when pulling, pruning, and cutting vegetation. The debris is not always removed from the site due to the high cost of doing both the clearance and removal by hand. Not removing the debris, however, leaves a significant hazard, possibly greater than pre-treatment because the debris may be voluminous, dry, well aerated, and quite flammable. This method is most commonly used by residents to reduce fuel volume on private lands, or by hand crews on short-term contract with the City of Palo Alto to reduce hazard adjacent to improvements. Some expertise is required to work with trouble species such as poison oak, to prune oaks and control shrubs, and to identify new fuel hazards as they arise. Hand labor encompasses the operations of pruning and weed-whipping, tree removal, pruning, bark pulling, removal of dead wood within the tree/shrub canopy, litter removal and mulching, and establishing new plant material. Hand labor allows use of a wide variety of methods to reduce fuel load, including both chemical and mechanical treatments. Hand Labor - Pruning Trees and shrubs must be hand-pruned to vertically separate fuels. Pruning lower branches of trees is usually done with a hand-held pole saw (with or without a motorized chain saw attached). Lower branches on shorter trees can be pruned with loppers. Hand Labor - Weed-whipping Like mowing, weed whipping reduces fire hazard by reducing the fuel height. However, it is done by hand to avoid harming rock outcrops and desired small plants (such as oak regeneration and landscape material). This treatment is generally limited to small material such as grass or short herbs. Weed whipping may be accomplished any time of the year, and regardless of whether the material has cured. Weed whipping is performed with a hand-held, gas powered tool that cuts grasses and very thin woody material with a fast-spinning fishing-line type of cutter. Because this method is performed manually, it can be used to selectively remove certain vegetation. Most large woody stems are not cut by the treatment, however seedlings (such as oak seedlings) can be severely damaged. Treatments can be completed with greater care than the others (however the height to which plants are cut may be difficult to control if the operator is not experienced) and minimize soil disturbance and erosion. It is also often the only type of treatment possible on steep slopes and in wooded areas. The average weed whipping rate is 750 square feet/hour. The schedule for a skilled laborer should be tailored to the timing of their tasks. For example, selective weed whipping of annual grasses before they set seed while leaving native bunch grasses until after these plants set seed can shift the proportion of vegetative cover over time to more bunch grasses. This shift in type of grasses can shorten the length of time the landscape is prone to ignition. Similarly, thistle reproduction can be minimized by cutting while they are growing, but before they set seed. Pruning should be done from November to April; this schedule avoids spreading destructive bark beetles and/or other pathogens. The cost varies from $10,000 per acre to approximately $1,500 per acre, depending on the time of year, extent of project, and level of detail required. 6.2.4 Mechanical Treatments Mechanical treatments, including mowing, weed whipping, discing, and grading, rearrange rather than reduce the actual fuel load. Heavy machinery is usually used in flat areas where terrain and the presence of rocks or numerous trees do not prohibit travel. This type of machinery should not be used on slopes over 30% because of concerns for worker safety as well as erosion control and slope stability issues. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 80 Heavy machinery: attachments to tractors (brush hogs, flail, mowers, tiger mowers) Roadside mowing is a prime example of the use of heavy machinery with attachments. A variety of attachments serve numerous purposes. For example, a brush hog attachment cuts and breaks brush plants off and produces a mulch of the brush debris. Mowers that cut or flail grass and small woody plants are also attached to tractors. Attachments (such as mowers) with articulated arms that reach as far as 20 feet away from the tractor reduce the area over which the tracks must travel, and offer more maneuverability. These articulated arms also cut and/or break off material. Heavy machinery is a moderately fast, and a relatively inexpensive treatment. There is little control over which plants are cut, but machines can travel around isolated areas of concern. Heavy machinery should not be used when the ground is soft in order to prevent ruts and bared soil. Soil movement can be caused by all users on foot, bicycle, equestrian and vehicles (patrol vehicles and fire apparatus). Soil movement can be ruts or minor depressions, which will lead to large ruts or voids. This technique can be used at almost any other time of year, but is faster when done in the summer or fall when brush is brittle and grass has cured. It must not be used during times of high fire danger because the machines can start fires. The under-carriage of the machine and attachments should be washed off after use in areas of weed infestations. Grading and Discing involves stripping a swath of land bare of vegetation with a tractor and blade. It is very effective in producing fire trails 8 to 12 feet across and as a maintenance tool for access routes. Generally, grading is done mid-spring, by a contractor when there is still residual moisture in the soil, but after the threat of spring rains has diminished9. Costs are reasonable, (from $100 to $300 per acre) and relate to the size of the project and condition of trail surface. However, there are several disadvantages to this treatment. By removing all competing vegetation, grading creates an excellent establishment site for weedy species, which may be serious fire hazards. Untimely grading, for example, in mid-summer, can help sow seeds of weedy exotics, such as yellow star thistle, mustard and Italian thistle. In addition, annual grading causes soil disturbance and alters drainage patterns. Runoff, blocked from cross-drainage by the banks on either side of a graded fire trail, is redirected down the trail. This situation favors coyote bush and exotic grasses, leading to a shift in the grassland species composition. Grading spoils will need to be feathered into the sides or smoothed back into grading area annually. Discing involves cultivating or turning over the upper 10" of soil, and produces an uneven surface with a discontinuous fuel distribution and is appropriate only if mowing or grazing is not applicable that year or in a specific location. Rate of production is quite high; normally the operator can disc land parcels of two acres or less within one day. Discing is normally performed annually once grass has cured (so the grass will not grow back that season). A tractor with discer attachment can typically cultivate a swatch 15 feet wide in a single pass. While this is an effective barrier to surface fire spread, it is also an ideal disturbed area with prime growing conditions for weeds and distribution of their seeds. Surface erosion can be significant in areas prone to this process. 9 Residual soil moisture makes the soil pliable or workable, and allows the soil to compact. When grading is performed when the soil is completely dry, the soil is very difficult to work. Pearson-Arastradero has high clay content soils and causes premature soil movement unless the contractor supplements soil moisture with a water truck, which is an additional expense. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 81 6.2.5 Grazing with Sheep and Goats This method includes the intentional use of sheep and goats to consume vegetation thus reducing the amount or density of fuel. These types of livestock are not recommended to create a fuel break, but can be used to maintain this type of pre-suppression feature. Similarly, livestock can prevent grasslands from shrub encroachment, and an oak woodland free of significant understory. The option is effective where the plants are palatable to the animals selected. Control of the livestock and prevention of the impacts of overgrazing is critical to successful use of this technique. As a fuel management technique, livestock need not graze every year. Grazing can reduce or encourage weedy pest plants depending on the timing and intensity of grazing. A range management plan and a grazing monitoring program needs to be established to identify the impacts and ensure that the animals are removed once fuel management goals are met. Perennial grasses may require modifications from management of annual grasses using grazing animals. Because presence of healthy perennial grass stands has many benefits, these modifications are generally recommended. The benefits of perennial grasses are that they cure later in the season, which limits the opportunity for ignition. Mowing typically can be scheduled over a longer time period. Rotation of grazing animals is preferred over greater grazing pressure. Typically, perennial grasses react best when grazing is applied after seed maturation - from late spring through the fall. Goats may import seeds from another weedy site. The herd can be quarantined at goat herd’s ranch for three days where they will be fed alfalfa to clear out their systems. The herder can also use short-haired goats that will carry fewer seeds in their fur. The herding instinct of sheep and goats allows professional herders to range in very mobile bands without the installation and maintenance of permanent fences. Portable electric fences are commonly used to help control the herd and the outcome of their grazing. Goats will browse materials up to 6 feet above the ground creating a desirable vertical separation between the canopy and ground cover. However, measures must be taken to prevent girdling of trees by goats browsing on bark. Herd movement has the advantage of breaking off dead material in a stand as well as punching a humus layer into the soil (if the ground is somewhat moist) and thereby removing available fuel. Grazing treatments need to be repeated, however, following up or alternating with a different, complementary technique can extend its effectiveness. If work is needed to be done during May-July, scheduling can present a challenge because many clients in the greater area desire the service at that time. To minimize the negative effects of grazing on a specific plant, goats should graze after seed set of that particular plant. During initial fuel reduction treatments, goats may be most cost-effective in the late fall or early spring when demand for their services, and possibly price are reduced. Multi-year contracts, and contracts for larger areas typically lower the costs per acre. Providing a place where the herd can stay during the winter also lowers costs for treatment. Providing a water source for livestock is another way to reduce costs. Water sources can be as rudimentary as a plastic wading pool or a portable trough. A herd of 200-300 goats can generally treat one acre per day. Costs can vary from $300 to $1000 per acre with an average of $700 per acre, depending on fencing requirements as well as type and density of vegetation present. The cost includes transportation, the shepherd’s salary, supplements and healthcare for the goats, fencing and insurance. 6.2.6 Broadcast Prescribed Burns Prescribed burning reintroduces fire into the ecosystem as a "natural treatment" and can promote native flora and aid containment of fires by reducing fuel volumes. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 82 Prescribed burns are usually performed by the local fire protection district. CalFire may be willing to participate in a limited prescribed burning program as part of their hazard reduction efforts within the Vegetation Management Program, even though the project area would be outside the State Responsibility Area. If burns were conducted by CalFire, the State would not only assume liability, but also share costs. Regardless, it is likely that CalFire and other nearby fire protection districts and departments would offer mutual cooperation and/or assistance. Several precautions, such as installing firebreaks and notifying various agencies, must be taken before performing a prescribed burn. Treatment boundaries are often road and trail crossings, which reduces the number of fire breaks that need to be created by fire personnel, thereby reducing labor costs and time needed to prepare for the burn as well as minimizing the amount of surface soil disturbance and potential for soil erosion. Prescribed burning requires the development and approval of a prescription or burn plan, which is typically developed by the local fire protection district in consideration of fuel reduction requirements, local weather conditions, and available resources for fire management. The soot and smoke generated, as well as the chance of escape, make prescribed burns a public safety concern. Planning and coordination with interested parties must be an integral part of the program. Broadcast burning may occur throughout the year; however, it is usually conducted during late spring when the ground is still wet or during fall or winter after plants have completed their yearly growth cycle and their moisture content has declined. Spring burns are preferred by some fire staff to ensure a greater measure of public safety, however, there may be impacts to animal and plant reproduction activities. Fall burns are more closely aligned with the natural fire cycle found in California. If a prescribed burn were to be conducted in the fall, the period before leaves or new herbaceous material covers the slopes will be short (possibly a month or two). Prescribed burning can enhance the local grasslands and promote the abundance of wildflowers. Any small oaks or shrubs to be retained will need to be protected during the burn to prevent their mortality. While the abundance of wildflowers the subsequent years is an appealing sight, the burned area will be temporarily blackened. 6.2.7 Eucalyptus Tree Removal By removing eucalyptus trees their canopy no longer contributes to a fire in the form of a crown fire or ember production. Additionally the production of surface fuels is reduced since biomass production (branches, leaves, duff etc.) is decreased. This technique has positive impact on reducing spotting potential, heat output, spread rate and, potentially, ignitability depending upon what replaces the overstory. Tree removal varies from cutting of individual trees, to removal of entire overstory canopy. This process can be slow and expensive, but can be selective with limited impact beyond the removal of the target plants (depending upon scale of removal). Sometimes harvesting techniques can be qui t e r a p i d . I f t h e w h o l e t r e e i s not harvested, the technique generates considerable debris (from tree branches) that should be removed using machinery to haul. The boles of trees hauled away and other debris should be either hauled away or may be burned later as a part of a prescribed burn (pile or broadcast). A portion of debris may be left as a sort of erosion control measure and to cover bare spots. And bats may use eucalyptus trees as perches and nesting sites. Replacement perches and nesting platforms for raptors can be constructed, located, and installed prior to removal of the trees to minimize displacement of raptors. If the tree harbors a maternal bat roost, removal should be coordinated with the appropriate wildlife City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 83 agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Game and possibly the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Volunteers can locate and construct the raptor perches and nesting platforms, with guidance from suitable experts (e.g. Audubon Society or the Point Reyes Bird Observatory). Tree removal creates patches of disturbance by the removal operation. Subsequent treatment of the area is dependent upon the species that encroach into these patches. Removal of exotics or weed species on an annual basis should be anticipated until an acceptable stable vegetation type is re-established. Sprout removal is often required as a follow up treatment, involving the application of herbicides and/or other techniques such as grinding the stump or placing plastic over the stump. 6.2.8 Herbicide Application to Control Invasive Plants Using herbicides to control invasive plant species that exacerbate wildfire risk is used as part of an Integrated Pest Management10 program and in combination with other treatment measures (e.g., mowing, burning and hand removal). Application following another treatment method in which plants are trimmed or shortened can increase the effectiveness of the chemical treatment. Herbicides can also be used to kill herbaceous plants in exposed areas, such as roadside grass and weeds, and are typically applied while the grasses and weeds are still actively growing. Foliar treatments are generally not applied within seven days of significant rain because the herbicide may be washed off before it is effective, and not on windy days because of concerns for spray drift. The use of Garlon 4 Ultra herbicide can be used to treat areas of eucalyptus resprouting, removing the need to completely uproot or grind down the eucalyptus stump. Foliar application of Roundup to eucalyptus re- sprouts is another typical, successful chemical treatment, and can be used to eliminate small-diameter fuels in areas of high ignition risk. The use of a thistle-specific herbicide, Transline, is effective in controlling the spread of yellow star thistle, artichoke thistle, and bull thistle. Herbicides do not remove any vegetation from an area’s fuel load; the dead plant matter continues to exist at the site and could continue to be a fire hazard if not collected and disposed. Health, safety and environmental concerns have limited the widespread use of chemicals over the past 20 years, and repeated use of chemicals is not preferred due to the prevalence of unwanted species building resistance to herbicides. Additionally, concerns regarding water quality and other potential environmental impacts that may occur with prolonged use of and exposure to herbicides and other chemical applications further limit their frequent or widespread use as a treatment. Application of herbicides is typically performed by hand, and can include sponging, spraying, or dusting chemicals onto unwanted plants. Hand application provides flexibility in application and is ideally suited for small treatment areas. Roadside application of herbicides may employ a boom affixed to or towed behind a vehicle. Herbicide application requires specific storage, training and licensing to ensure proper and safe use, handling, and storage. Only personnel with the appropriate license are allowed to use chemicals to treat vegetation. Herbicide application is also only applied per a prescription prepared by a Pesticide Advisor licensed in that county. Personal protection equipment is essential to limit personnel exposure to chemicals. 10 Integrated Pest Management is a strategy that uses an array of biological, mechanical, cultural, and hand labor, to control pests, with the use of herbicides as a least-preferred method of control. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 84 6.3 Best Management Practices The protection and preservation of culturally and environmentally sensitive areas is one of the primary drivers for development of an updated Fire Management Plan. The development of a comprehensive plan not only protects these features from the affects of fire, but ensures that vegetation treatment, fuel management, or fire mitigation efforts are planned and executed in a manner that prevents potential additional adverse impact. The following steps are considered best management practices for the continued protection of environmental areas. These steps are ideally suited to on-going fire management planning and the execution of specific fire management actions described within this plan. • Detailed site inventory prior to treatment to determine the location of sensitive sites. Exploration into the use of knowledgeable volunteers to conduct a more detailed, site-wide survey is warranted. • Site planning and design to determine specific vegetation treatment actions based on fire management benefits, environmental impact, and required mitigation activities. • Protection during vegetation treatment using best management practices tailored to impacted sensitive resources. • Protection of disturbed environmentally sensitive areas following either specific fire management actions. The above vegetation treatment actions have been commonly used throughout the State of California. Through their implementation, a series of best practices has emerged to limit their adverse impact on the environment and to assist in the selection and planning of their application. 6.3.1 Hand Labor D u e t o the direct relationship of personnel to the environment in which they operate, hand labor can represent an approach that provides the least adverse impact to environmentally sensitive areas. However, specific fire management goals and the characteristics of the sensitive area or resource must be assessed to develop an actual work plan and associated activities. The following management practices and considerations should be implemented during site planning and project execution. • Provide or confirm adequate training, experience, and oversight to ensure that personnel are familiar with hand labor operations and planning, site conditions, potential and identified sensitive resources, and the identification of specific environmental features or conditions that must be avoided. • Avoid treatment actions during conditions that may affect water or run-off including during storms or severe weather or immediately following severe weather. • Avoid excessive foot or vehicle traffic on slopes, unimproved or non-designated trails, or outside of preexisting roads or access points. • Inspect areas for nesting birds to determine if activity should be postponed or adjusted by the establishment of a buffer area. • Clean all tools and equipment following actions and prior to movement into new environmental areas to prevent the spread of invasive or non-native plants. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 85 6.3.2 Mechanical Treatments Due to the potential for large equipment use, rapid action, and large-scale area operations, mechanical treatments can have significant adverse impacts on sensitive areas. As a result, pre-planning and site supervision are extremely important for any planned mechanical treatment actions. The following management practices and considerations should be implemented during site planning and project execution. • Provide or confirm adequate training, experience, and oversight to ensure that personnel are familiar with mechanical treatment operations and planning, site conditions, potential and identified sensitive resources, and the identification of specific environmental features or conditions that must be avoided. • Avoid treatment actions during conditions that may affect water or run-off including during storms, periods of precipitation, or immediately following severe weather. In addition, avoid scheduling any treatment actions during seasons with significant predicted precipitation. Cease operations or postpone planned operations including movement of vehicles or equipment during precipitation conditions that may combine with vehicle activity to cause damage to roads, trails, or adjacent land areas. • Plan treatment actions and equipment selection to minimize damage or alterations to existing soils. Determine locations of potentially erosive soils prior to treatment. Restrict operations that may adversely affect sensitive soil systems such as serpentine soil areas, erosion prone soils, or riparian zones. Restriction may include using road-based operations only, and avoiding riparian set-backs established by regulatory agencies. • Maintain a buffer of 25-50 feet between operations and water bodies or designated riparian areas. Avoid crossing drainage channels, run-off areas, or dry streambeds. Install and manage run-off barriers for rainwater in all treatment and operating areas. Restrict mechanical removal of trees to areas further than 50 feet from drainage channels. • Restrict vehicle traffic to preexisting roads or pre-planned access points based on equipment size and operations. Limit transport and support equipment to existing roads. Limit heavy equipment use t o slopes less than 30%. Install erosion control measures on all vehicle roads and traffic areas. • Maintain strict monitoring and control of fueling and maintenance operations. All maintenance actions that may produce spills should be executed in areas with secondary containment protection, away from any water bodies or drainage areas. Clean up of all spills should be done on-site, with materials ready for use. Inspection of equipment for new leaks and mechanical problems should be performed daily, prior to operations. • Inspect areas for nesting birds to determine if activity should be postponed or adjusted by the establishment of a buffer area. • Clean equipment following actions and prior to movement into new environmental areas to prevent the spread of invasive or non-native plants. • Plan operations around expected seeding conditions of targeted species (either prior to or sufficiently afterwards) to ensure efficiency of treatment action. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 86 • Cease actions during periods of high fire danger or during red flag conditions. Ensure that all mechanical equipment have approved spark arrestors and comply with California Public Resources Code (PRC) sections 4431, 4435, 4442, and 4437 to limit potential for ignition of incidental fires. • Maintain on-site fire suppression resources to include shovel, water pump, fire extinguisher, and two-way radio or communications for fire reporting. 6.3.3 Grazing with Sheep and Goats • One of the primary adverse impacts of grazing is over-grazing and the resulting exposure of bare ground. Over-grazing can increase the potential for soil erosion, water run-off and drainage, elimination of native plant species, and spread of non-native plants and weeds. Prepare a grazing management plan by a certified range specialist that specifies goals, stocking levels, grazing periods, installation of range improvements (such as water sources) to evenly distribute utilization of feed, and monitoring and performance criteria. • Develop a site-specific annual grazing plan that includes project-level plans for stocking, timing, and resource management goals. • Prior to introduction, all animals should be quarantined and fed weed-free forage to limit spread of invasive or unwanted plant species as well as prevent spread of livestock diseases. • Limit grazing to non-riparian areas. 6.3.4 Broadcast Prescribed Burns Prescribed burns can have significant impacts on sensitive areas both from environmental and cultural standpoint. The planning and execution of a prescribed burn must be carefully developed. A prescribed burn can adversely affect the duff layer, generate large and unpredicted amounts of smoke, and transition from a controlled event to one that is uncontrolled and dangerous. • Provide or confirm adequate training, experience, and oversight to ensure that personnel are familiar with broadcast prescribed burn operations and planning, site conditions, potential and identified sensitive resources, and the identification of specific environmental features or conditions that must be avoided. • Develop a smoke management plan describing desired outcomes and specific actions for onsite personnel including a test burn, continual evaluation of smoke dispersal, monitoring of wind patterns, and monitoring of potential visibility impacts to primary roads and highways. • Develop public safety plans to be executed throughout the prescribed burn cycle including press and information releases, signs and notifications, patrols on roads and access points, and development of a fire contingency plan. • Maintain a buffer between the prescribed burn area and water bodies or drainage into riparian zones. Buffers should be a minimum of 25 feet for 5% slopes, 75 feet for 5-10% slopes, and 250 feet for 10% or greater slopes. No prescribed fires should be ignited near streams or in riparian zones. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 87 • Plan the prescribed burn to minimize post-fire erosion into water bodies and drainages through natural barriers, proper construction of fire lines along contours, and proper erosion control barrier deployment. Minimize prescribed burning in areas with highly erodible soils. • Cultural and social sites and structures shall be excluded from burn area through planning, hand-lines, or other fire protection operations. On-site personnel will be briefed on locations and features of cultural or social sites to include incident command or response personnel. Avoid prescribed burns in areas with utility infrastructure, existing property or structures, or archeological sites. • Manage fuel moisture through pre-fire assessment and potential fuel modification. Prior to prescribed burn, remove ladder fuels into the tree canopy to increase safety and reduce torching. • Conduct prescribed burns only on designated burn days as authorized by BAAQMD. • Inspect areas for nesting birds to determine if activity should be postponed or adjusted. 6.3.5 Herbicide Application The application of herbicides for vegetation treatment should focus on the goal of applying the least amount of chemical required to achieve a desired outcome, consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s Integrated Pest Management policy. Best management practices for herbicide application are centered on limiting adverse or unintended impacts of herbicides due to run-off, wind-spread, or post-treatment exposure. • Provide or confirm adequate training, experience, and oversight to ensure that personnel are familiar with herbicide operations and planning, site conditions, potential and identified sensitive resources, and the identification of specific environmental features or conditions that must be avoided. Herbicide application is only applied per a prescription prepared by a Pesticide Control Advisor licensed in that county, and applied by a licensed Pesticide Control Applicator. • Develop public safety plans to be executed throughout the treatment cycle including press and information releases, signs and notifications, and fencing or area restrictions. • Develop a spill contingency plan and maintain strict monitoring and control of operations. Clean up of all spills should be done on-site, with materials ready for use. • Chemical treatments within habitat of California Red-legged Frog should be conducted according to U.S. District Court injunction and order covering 66 pesticides (Oct 2006) and subsequent EPA effects determinations. • Clean equipment following actions and prior to movement into new environmental areas. • Avoid treating areas adjacent to water bodies, riparian areas, and primary drainage access. Follow all herbicide labels and directions in determining applications near water resources or riparian habitats. Limit aerial application to greater than 100 feet from water resources. Limit ground and hand application to greater than 50 feet. • Avoid treating areas used for livestock operations or intended as grazing areas. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 88 PART B – POLICY REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 89 1 EVACUATION AND REFUGE 1.1 Identification and Notification The complexity of jurisdictional boundaries and responsibilities necessitates that the City of Palo Alto participate in 1) a standing forum that includes all stakeholders and 2) creating of coordinated, regional plans. Emergency Public Information (EPI) is generally disseminated via broadcast radio (the Emergency Alert System and KZSU 90.1 FM), telephone and e-mail, two-way radio contact with neighborhood leaders and Disaster Service Workers Volunteers (via ARES/RACES ham radio and other systems), and via public address systems such as speakers on first responder vehicles. New mass-communication systems for telephone and e-mail have recently been deployed in local jurisdictions: • Palo Alto: Community Alerting Notification System (CANS) • Los Altos Hills: a similar systems to CANS • Stanford: also CANS • San Mateo County: a county-wide system, www.smcalert.info <http://www.smcalert.info/> • Santa Clara County: a county-wide system is pending These systems are currently not coordinated, An incident that starts in Palo Alto and spreads to Woodside could cause 1) a failure to notify all involved or affected and 2) inconsistent or conflicting information. The National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides that events where multiple jurisdictions are involved may establish a Joint Information Center (JIC) to coordinate the efforts of all Public Information Officers (PIOs). In addition, Open Space and Park Division radios lack adequate channels (especially tactical channels) for the growing need. This will be more crucial as affected agencies switch to digital communication systems. We recommend that a pre-plan for a Foothills JIC be created which would include notification procedures for all potentially-involved dispatch centers, and that the Open Space and Park Division radios be updated. A regional evacuation plan for the Foothills should also be created: "Foothills Regional Emergency Response and Evacuation Plan (FREREP)". This plan would provide for standardized signage and evacuation route nomenclature and protocols. The Palo Alto Police Department has developed a draft plan that could be an initial model. Furthermore, locked gates on evacuation routes must be properly labeled and signed and first responders (including, in some cases, authorized local residents) must have keys or other access methods. For example, the Los Trancos Road gate to the back of Foothills Park is not labeled. In another example: A Los Trancos Neighborhood Preparedness Coordinator could be issued a key and given an assignment to open that gate in the event of an emergency. Existing evacuation plans should be reviewed, updated as needed, and integrated into the FREREP. For example, the Los Trancos/Vista Verde Neighborhood evacuation plans are posted at the following location: City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 90 http://www.vistaverdeca.org/emergency_response_info.html The (private) Pony Tracks Ranch provides emergency vehicle egress (into Palo Alto via the "stub" of Alpine Rd. on to Page Mill) as well as a safe refuge area: http://www.vistaverdeca.org/about9.html 1.2 Regional Cooperation After the tragic Oakland Hills Fire of 1991, several local jurisdictions came together to form the East Bay Foothills Forum. The same underlying conditions and principles support the formation of a similar group in the Palo Alto area, which could perhaps be called "The Midpeninsula Foothills Emergency Forum (MFEF)". 1.3 Temporary Refuge Places of temporary refuge are located in areas of low hazard, in places that are regularly maintained (at least annually) in a low-fuel volume condition. Los Trampas Valley is the best example of a suitable location, however this site may also be used as by incident management teams during longer duration fires. To enhance the effectiveness of these temporary refuges, the park staff should perform an evacuation drill. The firefighters safety zones on Trappers Ridge are NOT temporary refuge areas for anyone but firefighters with proper training and equipment. There are opportunities for off-site refuge; private properties in the area could provide temporary refuge, but agreements between the City and property owners would need to be formalized. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 91 2 CODES AND REGULATIONS The 2007 California Building Standards Code became effective statewide on January 1, 2008. Included in the new code are the 2007 versions of the California Building Code (based on the 2006 International Building Code), and California Fire Code (based on the 2006 International Fire Code). With Ordinance 4975 and 4976, the City of Palo Alto adopted these codes and local amendments to the State model codes with supportive Findings of Fact, which were filed with the State Building Standards Commission. These codes became effective in Palo Alto on January 1, 2008. The codes are comprehensive and have included the key elements recommended by the model codes. 2.1 Existing Codes and Ordinances Codes related to wildland urban interface fires can be found in both the building code and fire code. 2.1.1 Fire Code Title 15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code adopted the California Fire Code, 2007 Edition, including Appendices B and C, and Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 25 and Chapter 1 Appendix of the International Fire Code. Sections 15.04.520 – 15.04.587 address wildland urban interface fires. Key components of the fire code include: • Definition of the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area: “…all areas west of Highway 280 and all other areas recommended as “Very High fire Hazard Severity Zone” by the director of CDF.” (Section 15.04.520). • Requirement for Preparation of Fire Protection Plan: Addition of section 4703.1 through 4703.4 requires a site specific wildfire risk assessment be prepared by an applicant when required by the fire code official. (Section 15.04.530) • Requirements for Defensible Space: Addition of section 4707.1 – 4707.2 define the requirements for an effective defensible space within 30 feet of buildings, with an additional defensible space 100 feet when required by fire code official due to site conditions. This section also defines corrective actions and the ability of the executive body to correct conditions and make the associated expense of such correction a lien upon the property. (Chapter 15.04.530). In addition, Section 15.04.130 adds Section 304.1.2.1 that provides authorization for the fire chief to cause removal of weed or combustible materials. • Access Requirements: Addition of sections 4714 through 4714.3 establishes access requirements for all driveways and fire apparatus roads. (Section 15.04.550) o Driveways require clearances of 12 feet wide and 13.5 feet high. The code requires turnarounds for driveways greater than 150 feet in length and turnouts and turnarounds for those greater than 200 feet in length and 20 feet wide. It requires that vehicle speed limits be posted on entrances to bridges, on driveways and private roads. o Fire apparatus roads require clearances of 20 feet width and 13.5 feet height. Dead end roads greater than 150 feet in length are required to have turnarounds. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 92 • In addition, Section 15.04.170 amends Section 504.4 to require that access control devices (including bars, grates, gates, electric or magnetic locks or similar devises that could inhibit rapid fire department emergency access) be approved by the fire code official and be provided with an approved means for deactivation or unlocking by the fire department. • Water Supply: Addition of sections 4715 through 47159 defines water supply requirements including water sources, hydrants, adequate water supply, obstructions, identification, testing and maintenance, clearance of fuel and standby power. (Section 15.04.560) • Automatic Fire Sprinklers: Addition of Sections 4716 through 467716.3 adds the requirement for new buildings to be provided with an approved automatic fire sprinkler. Existing buildings are required to provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler when modifications are made that increase the building area. (Section 15.04.570) • Requirements for Suppression and Control: Addition of Sections 4717 through 4717.3.5 add general requirements applicable to new and existing properties to provide necessary fire protection measures. These include vegetation control, maintenance of defensible space with measures that increase the requirements of Section 4707 (Section 15.04.530). These measures address (Section 15.04.580): o Trees: Maintain horizontal clearance of 10 feet from any structure. Pruning to remove limbs located less than 6 feet. Regularly remove deadwood and litter from trees. o Roadway Clearance: Clear brush or vegetative growth within 10 feet on each side of portions of fire apparatus access roads and driveways. o Electrical Transmission and Distribution Lines: Clearance requirements provided for the various line voltages between electrical lines and vegetation. o Access Restrictions: Provides the authorization for the fire code official to close WUI areas to entry (exceptions made for residents, and authorized police or fire personnel.) • Ignition Source Control: Additions of Sections 4717.4 through 4717.4.10 provide regulations to prevent the occurrence of wildfires. These sections address clearance from ignitions sources; smoking; equipment generating heat, sparks or open flames; fireworks; outdoor fires, outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbecues and grills; reckless behavior. (Section 15.04.584) • Control of Storage: Addition of Section 4717.7 provides additional requirements for storage of hazardous materials; liquefied petroleum gas installations; explosives and combustible materials. (Section 15.04.585). • Dumping: Additions of Section 4717.6 provides regulations related to dumping of waste material and ashes or coal. (Section 15.04.586) • Protection of Pumps and Water Storage Facilities: Addition of Section 4717.7 added regulations to increase the reliability of water storage and pumping facilities and protect such systems from intrusion by fire. (Section 15.04.587) • Land Use Limitations: Addition of Section 4717.8 places limits on land use to reduce the potential threat to life safety by requiring permits for temporary fairs, carnivals, public exhibitions and similar uses. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 93 • E me r g e ncy Communications: Section 15.04.190 requires, by the addition of Section 5.11.1, that new buildings or buildings expanding by more than 20%, or that change occupancy classification must provide an approved system or equipment that will allow for adequate emergency radio coverage. 2.1.2 Building Code Title 16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code adopted the California Building Code, 2007 Edition. In general these sections support the adopted Title 15 Fire Code. Key components of the building code that address wildland urban interface fire include: • Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Area: The same definition as in Title 15 applies and amends Section 702A of the California Building Code. (Section 16.04.140) • Sprinkler System: Section 903.2 is amended to provide an automatic sprinkler system throughout all buildings designated in the WUI Fire Areas (except any non-habitable structures accessory to a single family residence that have a gross floor area of 500 square feet or less). It also includes the requirement for modifications to existing structures that expand the gross floor area as listed in the Fire Code. (Section 16.04.150) • Roofing Requirements: Section 1505.14 amends the roofing requirements in the WUI Fire Area. A Class A fire retardant roof covering is required where more than 50% of the total roof area is replaced within any one year period, for new structures and in the alteration, repair or replacement of the roof of existing structures. Roofing requirements shall also comply with Section 704A.1. (Section 16.04.170) Chapter 7A of the California Building Code provides additional requirements for materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure. It expands the roofing and attic ventilation requirements that came into effect for new buildings applying for a building permit after December 1, 2005. This portion of the code addresses: • Roofing assemblies, coverings, roof valleys and roof gutters. • Attic ventilation, eave or cornice vents and eave protection. • Exterior wall coverings, openings, vents, exterior glazing and window walls and exterior door assemblies. • Decking, floors and underfloor protection. • Ancillary buildings and structures. 2.2 Recommendations There are several areas that could be expanded to further improve safety in the Palo Alto WUI Fire Area. These could be done as code revisions to further enhance the code or as guidelines that are used in enforcement of existing codes. Other best practice measures may be incorporated into City contracts and used in public education: City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 94 • Expand Section 15.04.520, the Area Defined as Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Area, to include the lands between Foothill Expressway / Junipero Serra Boulevard and Highway 280. • Expand Section 15.04.530 General Requirements for WUI Fire Areas (4703.1 Fire Protection Plan Preparation) to require that Fire Protection Planning begin early in the planning/ permitting process so the location of access roads, driveways and structures can be influenced to increase fire safety and emergency response. Require the plan to also address implementation and funding of defensible space vegetation management (especially important for commonly held private open space). • Expand Section 15.04.540 Defensible Space (4707.1 General Item 5.) to include all ground, decking and balconies in addition to the specified “maintain roof of a structure free of leaves, needles or other dead vegetative growth.” • Expand Section 15.04.550 Access Requirements (4714.2 Driveways and 4714.3 Fire Apparatus Roads) to add standards related to gradient and horizontal and vertical curvature, bridge load limits, parking restrictions during high fire danger weather and requirements for emergency vehicle access. • Expand Section 15.04.580 General Requirements for WUI Fire Areas (section 4717.2 Vegetation Control) to provide additional guidance for Maintenance of Defensible Space (see following guidelines). • Expand Section 15.04.584 Ignition Source Control (section 4717.4.7 Outdoor Fires) to identify that abatement by burning is unlawful unless by permit and unless all other applicable permits are obtained from appropriate governing jurisdictions. Burn permits are only issued to working agricultural properties. • Fencing: Add a section requiring fences be constructed of either noncombustible material or of timbers with a minimum of one-inch nominal thickness. For example a typical fencing might consist of open wire mesh with four-inch posts and stringers that have a minimum one-inch nominal thickness. Fences should be designed with removal panels or gates so during a wildfire they do not convey fire to adjacent structures. • Signage: Add a section requiring street, road and building address signs to have a minimum letter height of 4 inches, be 1/2 inches thick, reflectorized, painted a color contrasting with the background color of the sign, mounted on non-combustible poles and visible within 100 feet traveling from both directions. • Mechanical Equipment Ignition Prevention: Requirements should be included in all City contracts for construction or maintenance work in the WUI Fire Area that address ignition prevention such as equipment (spark arrestor, overheating protection etc.), refueling, clearance of work area, cessation of work during periods of high fire danger weather and requirements for fire suppression equipment. This is becoming more critical for new diesel-powered vehicles because clean air/emission require exhaust particulate burning systems can more easily start fires if the vehicles are taken off-road. • Smoking: More stringent rules regarding smoking in Pearson-Arastradero Park are recommended. Restrictions should be similar to those in place at Foothills Park. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 95 2.3 Exterior Hazard Abatement The following information is provided as a set of guidelines that can be developed into educational material to facilitate compliance with existing codes. The code currently addresses treatments for exterior hazard abatement in a general way; this section provides more specificity regarding the spacing of vegetative fuels. 2.3.1 For parcels of land one acre or less maintain parcel in complete abatement. • For a distance of 30 feet a structure on slope steepness less than 30 percent grade, or 70 feet on slopes greater than 30 percent grade, from all property boundaries cut dry grass and non-woody vegetation to less than 3 inches yearly, no later than June 1. o This may require re-mowing if late season rains promote grass growth after the first cutting. o With prior approval of the Fire Department cutting of native grass and wildflowers may be delayed until after seed set provided they do not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire to any structures. • Leaves and humus may not exceed two inches in depth anywhere in a landscaped area; however, bare earth should not be exposed in over 50% of the site and no one bare patch should be larger than 15 square feet. • All dead vegetation (i.e. dry grass, leaves and humus) must be removed under trees and within shrubs, vines and semi-woody plants every year by June 1. • Dead branches must be removed from mature trees and all vines, to 8 feet above ground. Figure 33: Pruning Example. Prune branches to a height of 8 feet above the ground. In young trees, prune branches on the lower one-third of the height of the tree. Do not disturb or thin the tree canopy. This promotes growth in the understory, which is more easily ignited. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 96 • Limbs of trees and large-form shrubs that are smaller than three inches in diameter shall be pruned to provide clearance of three times the height of the understory plant material or 8 feet, whichever is higher. Trees shorter than 24 feet in height shall be pruned of the lower one-third branches (Figure 33). • The vertical distance between the ground and the lowest tree branches should be 3 times the height of any shrubs planted beneath the trees or 6 feet whichever is higher. Plants under trees should generally be shorter than 18 inches in height. Taller shrubs, including vines, semi-woody species and all chaparral species, may be near (six horizontal feet from tree crown) but not under trees. • Remove all dead trees deemed a fire hazard by the Fire Department. • Individual plants or shrub masses will be separated so that groupings/shrub masses will be no wider than two times the grouping height, or 120 square feet in area. Distinct groupings of shrubs (which includes vines, semi-woody species, all types of brush, and all chaparral species) will be designed to dampen the spread of fire. Alternatively, shrubs can be cut and maintained to a height of two feet. * Figure 34: Shrub Spacing. Design groups of plants small enough to provide horizontal separation between groups. This allows proper maintenance and helps slow the spread of fire. Each shrub or group of plants should measure no wider than two times its height, or less than 120 sq.ft. (or 6 ft x 20 ft). The space between groups should be greater than three times the height of the shrubs, or at least a 12 ft. distance • A vertical clearance of 5 feet shall be maintained between roof surface and portions of trees or other vegetation overhanging any building or structure. • Wood piles must be enclosed in a non-combustible storage unit. 2.3.2 For parcels larger than one acre in size • Maintain the area (space) within 100 feet of any structure on the parcel per the specific requirements for lots less than one acre in size. • Maintain the area (space) within 100 – 250 feet from any structure on the parcel per the following specific requirements: o Shrub masses will be separated so that groupings will be no wider than two times the grouping height, or 120 square feet in area. Distinct groupings of shrubs (which include vines, semi-woody species, all types of brush, and all chaparral species) will be designed to dampen the spread of fire. Alternatively, shrubs can be cut and maintained to a height of two feet. o All dead vegetation (i.e. dry grass, leaves and humus) must be removed under trees and within shrubs, vines and semi-woody plants every year by June 1. o Dead branches must be removed from mature trees and all vines, to 8 feet above ground. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 97 o Trees, and large tree-form shrubs, shall be pruned to provide clearance of three times the height of the understory plant material or 8 feet, whichever is higher. Limbs that are smaller than three inches in diameter are to be pruned up to eight feet off the ground, and in trees shorter than 18 feet, the lower one-third of the height of the tree. See Figure 33. o The vertical distance between the ground and the lowest tree branches should be 3 times the height of any shrubs planted beneath the trees or 6 feet whichever is higher. Plants under trees should generally be shorter than 18 inches in height. Taller shrubs, including vines, semi-woody species and all chaparral species, may be near (six horizontal feet from tree crown) but not under trees. • If a structure is within 100 feet of property boundary on adjacent lot, provide 30-foot firebreaks following as closely as possible to the property line and along one side of all fence lines. Fire breaks are a continuous strip of ground that is mowed to three-inch height, or disced, or dozed. • Remove all dead trees deemed a fire hazard by the Fire Department. • Trees on the top of ridges shall be maintained to limit torching, through pruning to provide clearance of three times the height of the understory plant material or 8 feet, whichever is higher. Limbs that are smaller than three inches in diameter are to be pruned up to eight feet off the ground, and in trees shorter than 18 feet, the lower one-third of the height of the tree as in Figure 33. • Within 15-feet of all public or private roadways or driveways, all grass must be mowed, disced or sprayed to 3 inches height. • In grasslands, 30-foot firebreaks and crossbreaks that divide the parcel into approximately 5-acre sections. Firebreaks and crossbreaks are a continuous strip of ground that is mowed to three-inch height, or disced, or dozed, following as closely as possible to the property line and along one side of all fence lines, ditches, and on top of all ridges. When terrain is too steep or rugged for a tractor, a hand-mowed firebreak may be required. • Active Pastureland: 15-foot wide firebreaks and crossbreaks are required if a sufficient number of animals are present to steadily reduce height of grass during the summer months to 3 inches or less by the end of August. If not active, 30-foot width is required. • Active Cropland: 15-foot wide firebreaks and crossbreaks required if crop is to be harvested by mid-June. If later, 30-foot width is required. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 98 3 FIRE PROTECTION – STATION 8 The following is a description, appraisal and recommendation regarding staffing of, equipment for and other response resources related to Station 8 in Foothills Park. Figure 35: Fire Protection Resources. 3.1 Description Fire Station number 8 of the Palo Alto Fire Department is located at 3300 Page Mill Road in Palo Alto, CA. It is a seasonal fire station that is only staffed during the daylight hours. This amounts to 12 hours per day. The period of time it is staffed is usually from July 1st to November 1st of each year. This is essentially the fire season for the area being protected and involves about 120 days of coverage. Whenever there is a declared high fire danger day or the burn index indicates an ignition threat the station may be staffed beyond the 12-hour period and outside of the fire season when appropriate. The staffing of the station currently includes 1 Captain, 1 Apparatus Operator/Engineer and 1 Firefighter. These positions are filled through overtime allocations rather than being post positions. Initially a fire response unit located at Foothill Park was staffed with only 2 persons. It was upgraded to 3 persons following the Arastradero Fire of 1985 in the lower foothills to be consistent with contemporary fire staffing practices and when Station #8 was constructed. Station 8 8 Mutual Aid Stations Plus: CalFire Saratoga Gap Station at Skyline and Big Basin Way City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 99 The apparatus that responds from this station is a Type III Engine Company. This is an apparatus that is primarily designed to respond to wildland fires instead of structure fires. This is similar to the types of companies used by major wildland agencies. The station provides an initial attack capability to an area that involves about 25 square miles of urban- wildland interface area. There are approximately 150 dwellings in the area, but that is not the primary risk. The fire history of this specific area is relatively free of major events in the past decades. The last reported major fire in the vicinity of the upper foothills was in 1912. Significant fires in the lower foothills (primarily light fuels) occurred in 1985, 1992, 2000 and 2007. However, that one factor creates an impact upon existing fuel loads. The lack of major fires in the past has resulted in fuel densities that may be ready to support a wide area fire. It has been estimated that the medium and high density fuels are about three times their normal density. The secondary response units into this area are deployed from the “El Monte” fire station of Santa Clara County Fire located to the north and the Palo Alto Stations #2 and #5. The County Fire Station is equipped with Type I and Type IV engines. Currently there is no direct link to this station in the dispatching of equipment. Depending upon who reports an emergency in the area the call could go directly to the City of Palo Alto or it could be routed through the Santa Clara County Communication Center and Palo Alto would then be notified. The standard response into this area varies upon the level of dispatch. On medium or high dispatch days the Palo Alto Fire Department responds Engine 8 to reports of wildland fires and supports it with another Type III (3 personnel) that is cross staffed by the truck company from Station #6 on the Stanford Campus, one Type I from Station #2 (3 personnel), 2 Type IV cross-staffed patrol units from Stations #2 and #6 (6 personnel), one Paramedic ambulance from Station #2 (2 personnel) and one Battalion Chief from Station #6. Furthermore, the dispatch system provides a brush unit from the Santa Clara County El Monte Fire Station in Los Altos Hills at Foothill Community College (4 personnel from 1000-1900 hours) and can respond an additional 4 Type I’s (12 personnel) and 3 Type IV Brush units (9 personnel). Lastly, the system has the depth to provide additional resources from other mutual aid entities in the same area (e.g. Cal Fire Ranger Unit resources located in Cupertino and San Martin). These include additional Type III units (3 or more), air assets, hand crew resources, bulldozers and command staff to complete an overhead requirement in the event of a major fire. Other Type 1, Type III and Type IV resources may be made available through the Santa Clara County Mutual Aid System. The City of Palo Alto does currently not have an adopted Standards of Cover document, but operates with an informal response goal of 5 to 6 minutes for attendance of at least 90% of its calls for service. The department also provides paramedic (advanced life support – ALS) response to the basic built out portion of the city within 8 minutes for at least 90% of those types of calls (these response goal benchmarks are exclusive of the foothills area). Station 8 has not normally been considered an ALS resource. In the past 2 years a priority has been established to staff Engine 8 with an ALS resource whenever possible. The staffing for the station is provided in the overtime budget. Last year the amount set aside to provide coverage was $200,000. 3.2 Appraisal The primary purpose of placing a wildland unit into this area is to prevent any ignitions from spreading beyond a reasonable fire perimeter before an adequate full fire alarm assignment and an effective response City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 100 force can be placed on the scene. The first 10 minutes of a wildland fire are critical to restricting the size of the ultimate fire. Depending upon the fuel type and density, the slope and aspect and the effects of wind upon a flame front, the period of time that it takes to get initial control of an incipient fire is very important. This is especially true in light fuels, when a fuel is running uphill and/or when fire conditions that consist of high temperatures, low humidity and wind conditions exist. The fire behavior assessment of the Foothills Area indicates a high potential for fast-moving fires. The secondary purpose of having the unit in place is to establish a point of control for the development of an incident command system in place to address the escalation of the fire, if it is not controlled in the first 10 minutes. The first purpose addresses the need for “distribution”. In the language of response coverage the distribution of resources is the placement of companies, based upon risk factors to be readily available to handle the first few minutes of fire or emergency control. The second purpose addresses the need for “concentration”. This terminology is used to describe the deployment of an adequate amount of resources to deal with the ultimate size of the fire. These two concepts are inter-related in that fires that are controlled early do not need as many resources to be eventually deployed. Therefore, early intervention is a form of cost avoidance. This is the basic operating assumption of all seasonal fire resources. Major wildland agencies such as Cal- Fire, the U.S. Forest Service and other wildland agencies use the concept of seasonal and part time staffing configurations to minimize fire size to as small an area as possible. 3.3 Recommendation The staffing of this station by utilization of overtime fire personnel is a reasonable method of addressing the risk and hazards in the area. It is a cost effective way of reducing the impact of potential wildland fires in the study area. The elimination of this company places the responsibility for initial attack upon fire companies that are more remote and therefore are more likely to have lengthy response times into the area. The staffing pattern of 3 fire fighters is the minimum for the safe and effective operation of an initial attack unit for a wildland fire. This station and its current staffing configuration should be retained in the future. In addition, staffing a police officer and maintaining a ranger staff presence in the Foothills Area during high fire risk days should be considered. This type of personnel offers extra fire detection capability and is available to assist with evacuation should an incident require that particular action. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 101 4 TRAIL PLAN UPDATE 4.1 Pearson-Arastradero Preserve Trails Management Plan (March 2001) The Trails Master Plan for Pearson-Arastradero Preserve recognizes that the preserve is located in the Hazardous Fire Area (Section 3.3). The plan identifies management objectives, strategies and recommended actions to meet Fire Department objectives. It recognizes the need to coordinate with the Fire Department to develop and implement a fire suppression plan that will maximize the safety of the users and the adjacent properties, without adversely impacting the natural environment. It includes fire prevention methods for firelines on the perimeter, as well as fuel reduction zones to compartmentalize the preserve for fire suppression in the event of a fire. 4.1.1 Recommended Revisions Since the Trails Master Plan was adopted in 2001, there have been new facilities developed at the Gateway Interpretive Center and a new access to Foothills Park. Fuel management recommendations take into account these new facilities, as well as recommend the following additions and modifications to the 2001 Trails Plan: • Addition of fuel management along the evacuation route (Arastradero Road) and management of defensible space around the Gateway Interpretive Center, parking lot and staging area to include projects A.E1 and A.D1, A.D2, A.D3 and A.D4. • Addition of fuel reduction zones within the interior of the preserve along existing trails for containment including projects A.C9, A.C10, A.C11 and A.C12. • The Master Plan identifies an option for the Fire Department to use controlled burns as a part of their wildland fire prevention plan. Two potential areas are recommended: Juan Bautista Prescribed Fire North (A.Rx1) and Acorn Trail Prescribed Fire South (A.Rx2). • Modify firebreak width and performance standards. • Addition of roadside treatment standards to Clearing and Brushing for those trails that also serve as emergency vehicle access for clearances of 13.5 feet vertical clearance and 10 feet horizontal clearance. • Addition to Regulatory, Warning and Educational Signs regarding fire hazard signs, education information on fuel management and prescribe fire. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 102 Figure 36: Emergency/Maintenance Access Points. Map depicts the emergency/maintenance access points of entry, trail travel routes to be maintained for use by the Fire Department and Utilities Department when servicing the Preserve. This map also shows disc lines and indicates those sensitive resource areas in the Preserve that should not be accessed by heavy vehicles. The map has been modified to incorporate the new facilities and associated modifications to fire control treatment areas. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 103 4.1.2 Existing Fire Mitigation and Fuel Management in the Arastradero Trails Management Plan Hazardous Fire Area: The Preserve is identified in the Hazardous Fire Area. (Section 3.3) Utilities: Access for maintenance and repair of existing utilities facilities is by all-weather surface roads that can accommodate heavy vehicles for repairs. Primary entrance is Gate B. Clearance of fuels for 10’ radius around poles having operable devises. Tree trimming is generally done every 2 to 3 years with ground clearing done annually. (Section 3.4) Management Objectives, Strategies and Recommended Actions. Objective is to coordinate with Fire Department to develop and implement a fire suppression plan that will maximize the safety of the users and the adjacent properties, without adversely affecting the natural environment (Section 4.5 and Map 4): • Access: Provide adequate access for Type 3 and 4 vehicles. • Fire Prevention Techniques: Use least environmentally intrusive prevention methods • Firebreak and Control Strategies: Prevent fires from spreading on adjacent properties as well as coming into the preserve. Firebreaks/disc lines should be implemented only where they serve their intended function in fire prevention and suppression. • Temporary Closures: Provide an option for park staff to close the Preserve when conditions such as high fire danger could pose a threat to the public. Access (Section 4.5 pg 4-9 and Section 7-2 pp 7-7-7-9). • Provide a 40 to 45 foot “drive” between Arastradero Road and Access Gates A and B to provide a safe place for Fire Department staff to safely park their Type 3 and 4 vehicles when opening the Preserve entry gates. o Ensure that all six access points can accommodate fire vehicles at all times. These access points include: The parking lot The access gate on Arastradero Road adjacent to the west of the parking lot Gate A (access limited to the existing turn-around on the west side of the first concrete bridge spanning Arastradero Creek) Gate B, which serves as the primary Utilities Department access Gate C, which is located off John Marthens Lane Gate D - Vista Hill Gate in Foothills Park (one-way uphill, except in emergency situations) o Close, restore and annually mow designated emergency access routes within the Preserve as needed to create a circulation route for Type 3 and 4 vehicles in the case of emergency. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 104 • Provide emergency turn-around capability where access roads dead-end (hammer-head configuration needed for vehicle turn-around). o To minimize potential impacts to the natural resources, these designated vehicle 'turn- arounds' will be the only acceptable turning points for motor vehicles within the Preserve. The final siting of new 'turn-arounds' (#2, 5 and 9) should be flagged prior to construction and the Open Space and Parks Division Manager should be advised of pending construction. Each turn-around should be clearly delineated and mapped to prevent removal of or impact to sensitive biological resources. Refer to Table 9 – Vehicle Turn-around Design Summary. o Recognizing that these turn-arounds are to be used for routine maintenance, construction and patrol. In special circumstances where larger fire trucks and over sized utility vehicles must access the Preserve, these vehicles may not be able to use the turn-arounds and will have to travel through the Preserve in a one way direction. In this case, it is recommended that the vehicles enter and leave through Gates B and D. In the case of a wildfire, public safety will override resource protection. In this case, the Fire Department may be required to override these vehicle guidelines to be able to suppress a fire. Refer to Map 36 Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access for: • Emergency/maintenance access points of entry. • Trail travel routes to be maintained for use by the Fire Department and Utilities Department when servicing the Preserve. • Disc lines. • Sensitive resource areas in the Preserve that should not be accessed by heavy vehicles. • Use a uniform maintenance gate at all major entry points with a universal locking device to facilitate routine and emergency access into the Preserve by multiple department staff. Fire prevention methods (Section 4.5 pg 4-9 and Section 7.5 Vegetation Management pg 7-39) • Fire prevention methods to be used at the Preserve include: o Establishing fire lines on the perimeters of open space lands, leaving the interior areas in their natural condition. These cover many of the recommended containment projects including: A.C1, A.C2, A.C3, A.C4, A.C5, A.C6, A.C7 and A.C8. o Posting signs indicating the severity of the fire danger (low, moderate, high, very high, and extreme) during the fire season. o Posting signs “No Fireworks” June 20 to July 10. o Use herbicides as approved by the Open Space and Parks Division Manager, where appropriate in implementing the wildland fire prevention plan. Refer to Map 4 Fire Protection & Emergency Access of the Trail Master Plan for disc lines and areas that are to be mowed annually to maintain emergency vehicle access through the Preserve. This map also indicates those sensitive resource areas in the Preserve that should not be accessed by heavy vehicles. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 105 Firebreak and Control (Section 4.5 pg 4-10 and Section 7.5 Vegetation Management pg 7-39) • Firebreaks should be disced 24 feet wide or 1 ½ times the fuel height adjacent to the road, structures and where they can compartmentalize an area to reduce the risk of a fire igniting and/or spreading. • Firebreaks should be eliminated where they are not providing any benefit to fire prevention or suppression. • Ideally discing should be performed twice a year, first in late spring and then when the disc lines have “cured.” • If new activities/developments occur inside or adjacent to the Preserve perimeters, then the location of the disc lines should be reevaluated and expanded as appropriate. In addition, though not currently used, maintain an option for the Fire Department to perform controlled burns in the future as part of their overall fire prevention plan. Temporary Closures (Section 4.5 pg 4-10) of the Trail Master Plan The City Fire Department in consultation with Open Space staff may close the Preserve when there is a threat to public safety. When such emergencies occur, the Fire Department is to notify the Police Department and the Open Space and Parks Division staff of emergency closures so they can notify the public. Emergency closures may occur when: • Weather conditions create a critical fire danger; • Arsonists are known to be present in the area; • Staff resources have been pulled away for other emergencies; and/or • Other threats to public safety are present or suspected. High Maintenance Trails - Clearing and Brushing (Section 6.2 Trails Maintenance System & Section 7.5 Vegetation Management) The trail clearing limits for down logs and tree limbing should be 10 feet high and 3 feet wide on each side of the trail. (Refer to Section 7, Figure 16 of the Trail Master Plan for trail clearing and brushing limits). Trail brushing limits for shrubby and herbaceous plant species extending into the trail should be 10 feet high and 3 feet wide on each side of the trail. These plants should be cleared to ground level. Clearing widths should be directed to providing clear passage and providing an average sight line of 100-feet. Low growing and slow growing shrubs and ground cover less than two feet in height should be left undisturbed. Specific Trail Recommendations for Trails (Section 6.4) • Acorn Trail - Segment 1 (Ac1): Maintain existing vehicle turn-around at booster pump station. Refer to Map 4 of the Trail Master Plan- Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access - Turn-around Point 3. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 106 • Arastradero Creek Trail - Segment 2 (ArC2): Providing a new vehicle turn-around in a hammerhead configuration near intersection of former Acorn Trail (now Route F) to accommodate Type 3 and 4 emergency fire vehicles. The turn-around area should be defined using the following: grading a level area and landscaping. Such vegetation should consist of native species, similar to nearby, existing vegetation and should be placed in a natural configuration to prevent the vegetation from creating an unsafe condition or adverse visual impact. The final siting of the turn-around should be completed under the advisement of the Open Space and Parks Division Manager. Refer to Map 4 of the Trail Master Plan - Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access – Turn-around Point 5. • Arastradero Creek Trail - Segment 3 (ArC3): Locate an emergency/maintenance vehicle turn-around in a hammerhead configuration at the existing gate on the east side of the trail. Move the gate back to accommodate Type 3 and 4 emergency fire vehicles. Improvements to the turn-around area should be confined to the existing, flat graded pad. Minimize annual pruning to area necessary to provide for vehicle access. Refer to Map 4 of the Trail Master Plan- Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access - Turn-around Point 6. • Corte Madera Trail - Segment 2(CM2): Mow the area at junction with Bay View Trail to provide room for Type 3 and 4 emergency vehicles to perform a hammerhead vehicle turn-around following procedures outlined in Section 7.2. Maintain a minimum cover of 2 inches to minimize potential erosion impacts. Refer to Figure 36 Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access - Turn- around Point 4. • Gateway Trail - Segment 1 (Ga1): Providing a 40 to 45 foot “driveway” between Arastradero Road and Access Gate A to allow a safe pull out for maintenance and emergency vehicles accessing the Preserve11. Design of maintenance drive must take into account the existing 10-foot wide crossing over a concrete culvert. The culvert is located approximately 28 feet from the edge of pavement. • Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail - Segment 2 (JB2): Develop turn-around in a hammerhead configuration to accommodate Type 3 and 4 emergency fire vehicles. Locate on west side of bridge in the area that is nearly flat and already contains hardened surfaces and non-native grassland. Avoid nearby riparian habitat and serpentine soils. Refer to Map 36 Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access - Turn-around Point 2. • Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail - Segment 4 (JB4): Mow an area near the junction of the Portola Pastures Trail to provide room for Type 3 and 4 emergency fire vehicles to turn-around following procedures outlined in Section 7.2. Maintain a minimum cover of 2 inches to minimize potential erosion impacts. Refer to Figure 36 Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access - Turn-around Point 10. • Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail - Segment 5 (JB5): Developing an emergency Type 3 and 4 vehicle hammerhead turn-around at the junction with Segment 4 of the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail. Improvements to the area should be confined, to the greatest extend possible, to the existing graded area at the trail junction. Refer to Map 4 - Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access – Turn-around Point 9. 11 Like many of the recommendations, this has already been accomplished. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 107 • Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail - Segment 5 (JB5): Providing a 40 to 45 foot “driveway” between Arastradero Road and Access Gate B to allow a safe pull out for maintenance and emergency vehicles accessing the Preserve. • Stanford Pastures Trail (SP): One year after the trail tread has been established mow an area near the boundary of the Preserve to provide room for Type 3 and 4 emergency fire vehicles to turn-around following procedures outlined in section 7.2. Maintain a minimum cover of 2 inches to minimize potential erosion impacts. Refer to Map 33 Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access - Turn-around Point 1. • Meadowlark Trail (MeL1): Develop a hammerhead vehicle turn-around for Type 3 and 4 emergency vehicles to turn-around near the old barn site. Improvements to the turn-around should be confined to the existing graded pad that formerly served as the driveway for the old barn. Refer to Map 33 Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access – Turn-around Point 7. • Woodland Trail Segment 1(Wo1): Maintain existing, paved vehicular turn-around that encircles the water tank for utility vehicles. Note that this turn-around is not suitable for Type 3 and 4 fire vehicles due to the tight turning radius around the tank. Refer to Map 4 - Fire Protection & Emergency & Maintenance Access – Turn-around Point 8. 4.1.3 Vegetation Management 4.1.3.1 Brushing and Clearing Defined Brushing and clearing constitutes the removal of vegetative materials as required to provide adequate vertical and horizontal clearance for safe passage along a trail. 4.1.3.2 Techniques for Maintaining a Clear Passageway Vegetation on the south sides of the trail should be pruned to allow passage, but should be preserved, as much as possible, to protect the aesthetic quality of the trail. Typically, vegetation is cleared to a height of 10 feet and 2 to 3 feet to either side of the trail edge to accommodate equestrian use. A minimum sight distance of 100 feet should be maintained, where feasible to facilitate safe shared use of the trail system. Good pruning practices should be followed, including cutting branches almost flush with the limb, and cutting stumps at ground level or below. Large limbs should be pruned almost flush with the trunk. Dead and dying limbs and snags, which may fall on the trail, should be removed. Typically, ground cover plants and low shrubs should not be removed except on the actual trail tread. Where specific trail segments (Refer to Section 6) recommend controlling invasive, non-native plants, the Arastradero Preserve Management Plan management strategies should be used. This means that vegetation management adjacent to the trails should be performed in a way that maximizes the safety of the users and minimizes adverse environmental impacts. Appropriate management techniques include in order of preference, control with “beneficial insects”, where they have been determined through study not to have detrimental environmental impacts, removal by hand pulling, or pruning with weed whips or (as a last choice) with chemicals. When weed whips are employed, a 2-inch minimum cover should be retained to minimize exposure of bare earth and resulting impacts from splash erosion and gullying. Herbicides should only be used as approved by the Open Space and Parks Division Manager. In addition, the chemicals must be applied in accordance with California State law and must adhere to the conditions set forth in the City’s “Integrated City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 108 Pest Management Plan” to ensure the safety of staff, visitors and wildlife and to reduce or eliminate the possibility of chemicals entering the creek. Where a trail is located on a side slope, the vegetation on the uphill side will be more intrusive and should be cut back more severely than on the downhill side. Low growing vegetation should be allowed to return to cut slopes to increase soil stability. Replant areas with vegetation indigenous to those areas or compatible with plantings already in place. Overhanging limbs should be cut back flush with the tree trunk, brush should be grubbed out and disposed of out of sight of the trail and scattered not stacked. Excess rock should be disposed of in the same manner as brush and limbs. All loose roots protruding over one inch above the trail tread should be cut out to at least 4 inches beyond the margins of the tread and to a depth of 4 inches below tread level and removed. Holes resulting from root removal should be filled and compacted with mineral soil and or rock, not exceeding 2 inches in diameter. Advance warning of all vegetation management activities in the Preserve shall be given to the Open Space and Parks Division Manager at least one week in advance of the work. Turn-around Existing Conditions Recommended Actions #1 Trail: SP Mowed grassland dominated by non-native plants Mow area near boundary of the Preserve for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles to turn-around. Maintain 2” min. grass cover. #2 Trail:JB2 Area is nearly flat & already contains hardened surfaces and non-native grassland Perform minor grading to develop hammerhead turn-around for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles on west side of bridge in the area that is nearly flat. Avoid nearby riparian habitat and serpentine soils. #3 Trail: Jct. ArC & Ac Existing hardened surface adjacent to lake & utility booster station. Maintain the existing vehicle turn-around at booster pump station. No grading or vegetation removal required. #4 Trail: CM2 Mowed grassland dominated by non-native plants Mow area at junction of Bay View Trail for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles to turn-around. Maintain 2” min. grass cover. #5 Trail:ArC2 Grassland dominated by non-native plants on opposite side of utility road from creek & does not affect creek zone Perform minor grading to develop hammerhead turnaround in area that is nearly flat near junction of Route F (now scheduled for closure) for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles. Define area with native vegetation in a natural configuration. Avoid nearby riparian habitat. #6 Trail: ArC3 Existing dirt driveway. No grading or vegetation removal required Locate at existing gate on the east side of the trail. Move gate back to accommodate Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles. Confine turn-around area to existing graded pad. Minimize annual pruning to area necessary for vehicle access. #7 Existing drive to old barn site. No grading or Confine turn-around to existing graded pad that formerly served City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 109 Trail: MeL1 vegetation removal req. as the driveway for the old barn. #8 Trail: Wo1 Existing road around the water tank. Tight radius will not accommodate Type 3 & 4 vehicles Maintain existing, paved vehicular turn-around that encircles water tank for utility vehicles. #9 Trail: Jct. JB 4 & 5 Flat grassland area at junction of two trails. Minor grading may be necessary Perform minor grading to develop hammerhead turnaround at the junction Juan Bautista de Anza Trail Segs. 4 & 5. Confined work (to the greatest extend possible) to existing graded area at the trail junction. #10 Trail: JB 4 Mowed grassland Mow an area near junction with Portola Pastures Trail to provide room for Type 3 & 4 emergency fire vehicles to turn-around. Maintain 2” min. grass cover. Figure 37: Vehicle Turn-around Design Summary. Final siting of all turn–around to be approved by Open Space and Parks Division Manager prior to initiating any grading. 4.2 Foothills Park Trails Maintenance Plan (January 29, 2002) The Trails Master Plan for Foothills Park recognizes that the preserve is located in the Hazardous Fire Area (HFA) and Mutual Threat Zone (MTZ). The plan identifies the existing fuel break system but focuses on maintenance of the existing trails. 4.2.1 Recommended Revisions The following are recommended additions and modifications to the 2002 Trails Maintenance Plan: • Addition of fuel management along the additional evacuation routes to northwest (Interpretive Center to The 600-700 block of Los Trancos Road), northeast (Boronda Lake to Alexis Drive), and from Towle Campground along Wildhorse Valley to Las Trampas Valley. • Addition of four Firefighter Safety Zones along Trappers Ridge Trail at Los Trancos Trail, Madrone Fire Road and two highpoints (high point and south end); projects # F.F1, through F.F4. • Addition of annual maintenance of defensible space around the Interpretive Center, parking lot and staging area, campgrounds, pumping stations to include projects F.D1 through F.D8. • Addition of annual maintenance ignition reduction projects at picnic sites and campgrounds to include projects F.I1 through F.I7. • Addition of fuel reduction zones along existing trails for containment including projects F.C1 (Trappers Trail), F.C2 (Pony Tracks south of Trappers Ridge), F.C3 (Pony Tracks north of Trappers Ridge), F.C4 (Bobcat Point) and F.C5 (north of entry gate). • Modify tables for managing trails within specific vegetation types to accommodate fuel modification performance standards for the containment projects. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 110 • Addition to Regulatory, Warning and Educational Signs regarding fire hazard signs, education information on fuel management and prescribed fire. 4.2.2 Existing Fire Mitigation and Fuel Management in the Foothills Park Trails Maintenance Plan Staff Responsibilities (Executive Summary, page 104) The foothills parks are staffed by rangers that are based out of the Foothills Park office. Park rangers are responsible for patrolling, monitoring and maintaining Foothills Park. They oversee the fieldwork of the California Conservation Corps (CCC) work program, as well as other volunteer work programs at the Park. Rangers also lead guided nature walks and give nature slide shows. In addition, while the primary responsibility for fire and medical emergencies lies with the City Fire Department, rangers will typically be the first response team for fire and medical emergencies within the park. Park Maintenance/Utility/Emergency (e.g. fire) (Section 2.4 pg 2-5) There are three other entry points off Page Mill Road that maintenance and emergency vehicles use to provide access from Page Mill Road. These are labeled as Gates 2, 3 and 4. Gate 2 provides access to the Charlie Brown firebreak and Toyon Trail. Gate 3 provides access to the Park Reservoir, a 1.5 million gallon city water reservoir. Gate 4 provides access to the Trapper’s Fire Trail and to the southern portion of the Los Trancos Trail. In addition, utility vehicles and park maintenance/patrol vehicles wanting to access the Arastradero Creek Trail (Segment 3) within Arastradero Preserve enter Foothills Park and access this trail from Gate D. Gate D is located on the one-way road that leads from the Interpretive Center to Vista Hill in Foothills Park. There is also an access easement from Los Trancos Road in Portola Valley connecting to the service yard at the north end of the park. This easement is only accessible by park staff. Hazardous Fire Area (Section 2.4 pg 2-6): The Park is identified in the Hazardous Fire Area because of the tremendous vegetation fuel load and the potential for extended response times in the event of a fire due to limited access/egress into the park. The area has also been designated as a Mutual Threat Zone (MTZ) by agreement with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. This means that a fire within the City’s jurisdiction is a threat to the State’s jurisdiction and vice versa. Firebreaks (Section 2.4 page 2-6 – 2-8): To meet the City’s objective of “reducing government costs and citizen losses from wildland fire by increasing initial attack success and or protecting assets at risk through focused prefire management objectives” a fuel break system has been designed and implemented for Foothills Park. The main firebreak (by distance and location) is the Trapper’s Firebreak Trail. It is two miles long, essentially running along the spine of the park. There are also several smaller breaks that are maintained as access roads for fire response. These branching firebreaks, which are located throughout the park, and the Trappers Firebreak Trail, are graded and compacted to a width of 10 feet or greater to accommodate the City Fire Department’s Type 3 and 4 vehicles. These firebreak trails have the potential to be reduced in width, or substituted with shaded fuel breaks if environmentally desirable. (A shaded fuel break allows annual grasses to return to the land, but not medium or heavy fuels.) Evacuation (Section 2.4 Page 2–8): In addition to the firebreak trail network, “safety islands” have been identified in the park and an evacuation plan has been developed for the park. The primary evacuation route (as identified in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan) is Page Mill Road. The main road through the park connects to an access easement that provides an alternate evacuation route between Page Mill Road and Los Trancos Road. City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 111 Natural Resources Management Objectives Adjacent to the Trail (Section 3.4 pg 304). Retaining native vegetation except in areas where City personnel determine that plants are creating a fire or safety hazard, or where vegetation is located within the tread of routinely maintained roads, trails and designated firebreaks Noxious Plants and Pathogens (Page 4-17 – 4-24): Control and prevention of non-native invasive plant species is recognized as quite important. Infestations of non-native invasive plant species have been found to alter ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycles, hydrology, and wildfire frequency. Non-native invasive plant species pose a complex problem, but the management of the spread is a key factor in preventing long- lasting and negative effects on the native ecosystem. The plan recognizes that trail maintenance activities need to address the fact that most of these species gain a foothold by invading soil that has been disturbed, such as through re-grading or vegetation clearing that results in the removal of ground cover plants adjacent to the trail tread. The plan includes a table of the non-native invasive plants of greatest ecological concern. (Table 4-6 page 4-18 – 4-24.) Sudden Oak Death (SOD) (page 4-24 – 4-25): Sudden Oak Death is caused by the pathogen Phytophthora ramorum that kills oaks and several other California woodland species found in Foothills Park. The pathogen appears to kill trees and shrubs swiftly and has greatly affected the visual integrity and diversity of the California Oak woodland as it is defined today. First discovered in California on Tan Oaks in 1995, it has now been confirmed in ten California counties, including Santa Clara County. Note: Information available on this SOD has expanded since the maintenance plan was developed in 2002. Trails Maintenance Program Development (Section 5.2 pg 5-2): Trail inspections are integral to all trail maintenance operations. Inspections should occur on a regularly scheduled basis, the frequency of which will depend on the amount of trail use, the location, age, and the types of structures and the types of soil/terrain. At a minimum, all trail and trail structures/features should be inspected at least once a year at the close of the winter “wet season”. All trail inspections should be documented in writing in a field log. Conditions that have the potential to be the most hazardous to the public, which should be watched for during field inspections, include: • Heavy fuel loads which could create a high or critical danger fire hazard in the park. Other Staff Duties Related to Park Protection & Trail Activities (Section 5.3 pg 5-9): While the primary responsibility for fire and medical emergencies lies with the City Fire Department, Park Rangers will typically be the first response team for fire and medical emergencies within the Park. Foothills Park Rangers have received various limited levels of fire fighting training and are dispatched as a resource to fires and other emergency calls. They are a valuable resource as they provide enhanced local knowledge of the area, and can be used to augment Engine Eight or to perform other tasks, such as evacuation or reconnaissance. The Palo Alto Fire Department has rated the Rangers control of public areas and Park maintenance practices, which augment the City’s fuel management system as outstanding (Palo Alto Draft Fire Management Plan, April 1997). Trail Maintenance Guidelines (Section 6 pages 6-1 – 6-81): Section 6.3 provides an overview in table format of the existing trail characteristics (Table 6-1 page 6-4 through 6-8). The tables currently do not include information regarding whether the trail segments are a part of the firebreak system. Section 6.5 (pages 6-10 through 6-21) includes management strategies for maintaining hiking trails. A series of tables provides a summary of managing trails within grasslands/ oak savanna (Table 6-2), chaparral (Table 6-3), mixed woodlands (Table 6-4) and bay woodlands (Table 6-5). These tables include treatments of the vegetation ground plan, middle plane and overhead canopy. They do not specifically address management practices to be used if the trail is a part of a fire containment area. Section 6-8 includes Vegetation City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 112 Management Recommendations text that expands upon the summary tables with additional descriptions and standards (pages 6-56 – 6-63). Trail Communication Tools (Section 6.11 pg 6-77 through 6-81): Trail signs include temporary/ permanent closures for hazards associated with critical fire danger (page 6-80). Interpretive trail guides and programs offer the opportunity to educate visitors about the biological diversity of Foothills Park and the importance of staying on trails to avoid damaging this unique resource (page 6-81). City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan Update Draft (15 January 2009) 113 5 REFERENCES Acterra - Action for a sustainable earth, www.acterra.org, 3291 East Bayshore Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94303, meetings September 2008. Anderson, H.E. 1983. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. INT-122. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration – Andrew Molera State Park / Pt Sur State Historic Park Water System Improvements, April 2006. California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, August 2001 City of Palo Alto, Final Arastradero Preserve Trails Management Program, 2001 City of Palo Alto, Final Foothills Park Preserve Trails Management Program, 2002 City of Palo Alto, Geospatial Information System Data, provided May 2008 Environmental Protection Agency, Frogs and Pesticide Hazards, December 2006 Finney, M.A. 2006. An overview of FlamMap modeling capabilities. USDA Forest Service Proceedings. RMRS-P-41. 213p. Grijalva, Ruben, Fire Chief, Martin, Bruce, Project Manager, Palo Alto Fire Department, Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan, April 1997 Ministry of Water, land, and Air Protection, British Columbia, Environmental Best Management Practices for Urban and Rural Land Development, June 2004 Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Game, Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List, July 2008 Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Game, Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants List, July 2008 Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Game, Special Animals List, Feb 2008 Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Game, Endangered and Threatened Animals List, May 2008 Rothermel, Richard. 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires, USDA Forest Service Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-143. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. U.S. General Soil Map (STATSGO2) for California. United States Geological Survey, United States Department of Interior. The National Map LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE National Existing Vegetation Type (2006 September – 2008, May). CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR October 21, 2013 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Policy and Services Recommendation to Accept the City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Work Plan and Risk Assessment At its meeting on September 10, 2013, the Policy and Services Committee unanimously recommended the City Council accept the City Auditor’s Office Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Work Plan and Risk Assessment. The Auditor’s Office will be issuing quarterly reports describing the status and progress of the work plan. Respectfully submitted, Houman Boussina Acting City Auditor ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Work Plan and Risk Assessment (PDF) Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (September 10, 2013) (PDF) Department Head: Houman Boussina, Acting City Auditor Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR September 10, 2013 The Honorable City Council Attention: Policy & Services Committee Palo Alto, California City Auditor's Office Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Workplan and Risk Assessment RECOMMENDATION The Office of the City Auditor (OCA) recommends that the Policy & Services Committee review and recommend to the City Council approval of the OCA’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Citywide Risk Assessment and Work Plan. BACKGROUND The mission of the Auditor’s Office is to promote honest, efficient, effective and fully accountable City government. To fulfill this mission, the Auditor’s Office conducts audits of City departments, programs, and services. The purpose of these audits is to provide the City Council and City management with information and evaluations regarding the effectiveness and efficiency with which City resources are employed, the adequacy of systems of internal controls, and compliance with City policies and procedures and regulatory requirements. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires the City Auditor to submit an annual Work Plan to the City Council for review and approval. The Work Plan is based upon a Citywide Risk Assessment that is conducted annually with the cooperation of City management. The attached report presents an overview and the results of the Citywide Risk Assessment and the proposed Work Plan for FY 2014. NEXT STEPS As audit work proceeds, we will issue quarterly reports summarizing the status and progress of each of the approved assignments. The quarterly reports will be issued to the City Council and discussed with the Policy & Services or Finance Committee as defined in the Work Plan. Respectfully submitted, Jim Pelletier, CIA City Auditor Attachment A Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Annual Citywide Risk Assessment & Work Plan FY 2014 (PDF) Department Head: Jim Pelletier, City Auditor Attachment A Page 3 Attachment A Fiscal Year 2014 “Promoting honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable city government." Attachment A 1 July 2012 CONTENTS ABOUT RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 2 RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINED ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 MANAGING RISK .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 AUDIT PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 3 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 AUDIT PRIORITIZATION CATEGORIES ................................................................................................................................................. 4 ANNUAL WORK PLAN COMPONENTS .................................................................................................................................. 5 AUDITS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 SERVICE EFFORTS & ACCOMPLISHMENTS (SEA) AND CITIZEN CENTRIC REPORTING (CCR) ......................................................................... 5 ADMINISTRATION OF THE FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE HOTLINE ........................................................................................................... 5 SPECIAL ADVISORY MEMORANDUMS (SAMS) ................................................................................................................................... 6 COUNCIL & MANAGEMENT REQUESTS ............................................................................................................................................. 6 MONITORING & ADMINISTRATIVE ASSIGNMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 6 BUILDING THE ANNUAL WORK PLAN ................................................................................................................................... 6 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 ANNUAL WORK PLAN LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 6 CONSIDERATION OF AUDITS NOT COMPLETED IN FY 2013 PLAN .......................................................................................................... 7 OCA ANNUAL WORK PLAN RESOURCE ALLOCATION ........................................................................................................................... 7 AUDITS SELECTED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 WORK PLAN ................................................................................................. 7 Attachment A 2 July 2012 About Risk Assessment Risk Assessment Defined Risk is present in every aspect of government. From financial reporting and investing to community services and public safety, risk is present in the delivery of all services provided and all activities performed by the City. The annual risk assessment performed by the Office of the City Auditor (OCA) is the process of identifying and analyzing inherent risks to the achievement of the City’s objectives. Risk is defined as the potential event or missed opportunity that may negatively impact the City’s ability to meet its objectives. Inherent risk represents the risks to the organization in the absence of any actions management might take to reduce or otherwise manage identified risks. In general, there are two key factors in assessing risk: Likelihood represents the probability that a risk can occur. In determining likelihood, we consider the source of the threat or opportunity, the capability of that source, and the nature of the possible vulnerability in the City. Impact represents the potential effect that a risk could have on the City if it occurs. Impact can be present in many forms including financial, operational, compliance, and reputational, among others. Managing Risk The City Council and City management should continually assess risks facing the City and take the appropriate actions (risk response) to address those risks. Possible risk responses include: Reduction of the risk by taking actions to reduce the likelihood and/or impact of the risk. This is the most common risk response and involves the implementation of controls. Sharing of the risk by transferring all or a portion of the risk to another entity. Examples include purchasing insurance or outsourcing certain activities (outsourcing does not relieve the City’s responsibility to manage the risk; it simply brings additional expertise to assist in controlling it). Acceptance of the risk which means that no action is taken and management is willing to deal with the risk as is rather than spending valuable resources. Avoidance of the risk by not participating in the process that initially generated the risk. This is often not an option for the City as many of the activities performed are required. Risk - the potential event or missed opportunity that may negatively impact the City’s ability to meet its objectives. Attachment A 3 July 2012 Audit Plan Development Overview The OCA uses a risk-based approach to audit planning based utilizing a recognized best practice framework.1 Within this framework, our work focuses on three key areas: operations (efficient and effective use of resources), reliability of reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. This risk-based approach, illustrated in Figure 1, is a means to help identify and prioritize potential audits based on the level of risk to the City with the following benefits: Prioritizes high-risk areas within the City for audits in upcoming fiscal years. Ensures that the OCA’s resources are effectively and efficiently focused on where they are most needed in alignment with the City Council’s priorities and the City’s goals and objectives. Eliminates unnecessary audits that may be duplicative or audits that may not address higher risk areas of the City. Environmental Scan Throughout the year, the OCA collects information that provides important input into the audit plan development process. Additionally, the OCA solicits input from multiple sources including the City Council, City management, the City’s external auditor, audit departments in peer cities and other local jurisdictions, as well as regional/national audit resources including the United States Government Accountability Office, the Association of Local Government Auditors, and the Institute of Internal Auditors. See the Summary of Environmental Scan Considerations below for more information. Table 1 - Summary of Environmental Scan Considerations Environmental Scan Consideration Description Expectations from External Parties Consideration of citizen survey results, current events, & broad economic conditions. Input from the City’s external auditor and from Statewide audit entities. Benchmarking Input from city peer groups including surveys of other audit departments and research of current audit trends from regional and national resources. 1 The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) Internal Control – Integrated Framework. Figure 1 Attachment A 4 July 2012 Expectations from inside the City Input from City Council, City management/staff, and OCA staff. Past Audit Experience Review of past audits and audit recommendations. Consideration of gaps in audit coverage and the length of time since last audit. Current Risk Environment Economic conditions impacting City operations, current information Technology environment, and considerations of disaster recovery and business continuity. Risk Environment Forecast Budgetary pressures, economic outlook, and State/ Federal agendas. Audit Prioritization Categories To facilitate the identification of potential audits, the OCA developed a set of Audit Prioritization Categories tied to the Council Priorities and the broader overall strategy of the City. The categories are described below: Audit Prioritization Categories Description Design, Transportation, and Livability Programs and services that impact the quality of development and design within the City, broaden the City’s tax and revenue base, preserve and enhance key environmental attributes, minimize energy and water use, and promote transportation alternatives such as walking, bicycling, and transit. Examples include Development Center service and accountability, code enforcement, and parking funds. Essential Infrastructure Responsible stewardship of public assets through the maintenance and renewal of the City’s infrastructure including the City’s approach to maintaining the physical assets, modernizing and replacing aging facilities, and maximizing the public’s return on investment. Examples include the Infrastructure Report Card, capital planning and budgeting, maintenance of roads, sidewalks, and city facilities. Also includes the health and safety of residents and city employees relative to infrastructure. Technology and the Connected City Information technology governance and systems that serve a critical role in supporting vital services within the City and to the community. Examples include logical security, backup and restoration, change management, data integrity, and segregation of duties. Fiscal Stability Sound management practices to protect taxpayers’ dollars and ensure fiscal stability through economic fluctuations, changing priorities, and increasing demands for services. Examples include budgeting, financial planning and forecasting, and cost of services. Environmental Sustainability Identifying opportunities where environmental sustainability concepts can be applied to audits across the organization. Examples include sustainable purchasing practices and efficient use of resources. Safe Community Public safety including the Police Department, Fire Department, Office of Emergency Services, and other programs and services that affect community health and safety. Community Impact and Quality of Life Programs and departments directly affecting the community and the quality of life in Palo Alto. Examples include fee structures, social services, neighborhood and community programs, library programs, economic growth and development, and public works. Attachment A 5 July 2012 Support Services Services provided internal to the City in support of other City departments. Examples include facilities, human resources, administrative services, City Clerk, City Attorney, and communications. Contracts and Grants Monitoring Management and monitoring of contracts and grants throughout the City. Examples include professional services contracts, general services contracts, public works contracts, and federal and state grants. Economic Initiatives Reducing expenditures and/or maximizing revenues. Examples include sales tax, transient occupancy tax, fees, and licenses. Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Administration of the City’s Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline as well as other activities or issues related to the misuse of City resources. Also includes efforts to promote a culture of ethics, transparency, and accountability across the organization. Using the Audit Prioritization Categories as a guide, as well as all of the information gathered through the Environmental Scan, we developed an Audit Horizon, a master list of possible audits that can be performed. The Audit Horizon is a living document that will be regularly updated and used as the source for selecting audits for the Annual Plan. Annual Work Plan Components The development of the plan is a dynamic, continuous process. The risk assessment process drives the plan, but there are other components including: the Service Efforts & Accomplishments report and the Citizen Centric Report; administration of the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline; Special Advisory Memorandums; Council & management requests; and monitoring and administrative assignments. Each of these components requires OCA resources that are considered in the plan. Audits We select audits from the risk assessment process described above. The risk assessment guides the prioritization of the audits selected given limited resources. Service Efforts & Accomplishments (SEA) and Citizen Centric Reporting (CCR) The OCA prepares the annual SEA Report as well as the annual CCR. These reports are designed to provide the residents of Palo Alto, the City Council, and City staff with important data and information regarding the performance of the City. The reports are unique in that they are compilations of vast amounts of data obtained from both inside and outside the City and are prepared in coordination with all City departments. Additionally, the SEA includes the results of the annual National Citizen SurveyTM which provides insight into residents’ perceptions of the City’s performance and allows the City to compare itself to other jurisdictions. Administration of the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline The OCA is responsible for administering the City’s employee only Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline, which is currently in a trial phase. Incident routing and monitoring is administered by the OCA and the City Auditor is a member of the Hotline Review Committee with the City Manager and the City Attorney. Additionally, certain incidents may require investigation by OCA staff. Attachment A 6 July 2012 Special Advisory Memorandums (SAMs) SAMs provide important information to the City Council and City management in a quick and flexible manner. SAMs are prepared in coordination with relevant City Departments and are utilized for timely communication of limited assessments, reviews, or evaluations. Council & Management Requests The plan accommodates special requests from City management and the City Council throughout the year. Larger requests may require changes to the plan. Monitoring & Administrative Assignments The OCA performs certain monitoring and administrative assignments including: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Single Audit Report – the OCA contracts with an external accounting firm to perform both the annual CAFR and Single Audit Report for the City. Sales and Use Tax Monitoring - the OCA monitors sales and use tax payments due to the City both through our own analysis and through partnering with a third party specialist. Claims are submitted to the State Board of Equalization to redirect misallocated tax proceeds to the City. Quarterly Status Reports – the OCA prepares quarterly status reports for the City Council. Annual Open Audit Recommendation Follow Up – as required by the Municipal Code, the OCA provides an annual update to the City Council on the current status of open audit recommendations. Advisory Roles – the City Auditor serves as an advisor to the Utilities Risk Oversight Committee, the Library Bond Oversight Committee, the Information Technology Governance Review Board, and the Information Security Steering Committee. Building the Annual Work Plan Overview Development of the Annual Work Plan begins with the identification of the available resources within the OCA. This is defined as the number of staff hours available after vacation, training, and administrative time has been considered. Sufficient staff hours are then committed to SEA & CCR Development, Hotline Administration, SAMs, Council & Management Requests, and Monitoring & Administrative Assignments. The remaining hours are dedicated to the audits identified and prioritized through the Annual Risk Assessment Process. Annual Work Plan Limitations As with any plan, the OCA’s Annual Work Plan is limited by the following factors: The OCA has finite audit resources for the execution of our audits. This means that not every risk identified can be addressed each year, but is partially mitigated by the prioritization inherent in our risk- based approach. Risks and priorities are subject to continuous change and the plan is required to be flexible. This could cause certain audits to be removed from the plan while others are added. All The City’s risks and priorities are subject to change requiring the Plan to be flexible. Attachment A 7 July 2012 changes to the plan are reviewed by the City Council for approval. Other auditors, typically state and/or federal, may perform audits within the City. The plan will be adjusted to avoid duplicate work or to provide additional audit coverage if necessary. The plan must align with the City Council’s priorities. Any changes to the priorities may result in adjustments to the plan. Consideration of Audits Not Completed In FY 2013 Plan As a result of greatly expanding the scope to accommodate the risks identified in the Inventory Management Audit as well as unanticipated time requirements for hotline investigations and staff absence in FY 2013, certain audits in the FY 2013 Plan were not completed. These audits were given special consideration for this year’s plan. Audits from the FY 2013 Plan that were not completed include: Audit Title Status Rationale Development Permit Process Postponed Council voted to postpone this audit to allow more time for changes in the Development Center to take effect. This audit is not included in the FY 2014 audit plan due to other priorities and continuing changes. Construction Process Postponed Due to other priorities, this audit was not started in FY 2013. This audit is not included in the FY 2014 audit plan due to higher risk projects being identified during the FY 2014 plan development. Solid Waste Program In Process This audit was selected to replace the audit of the Development Permit Process. Utilities Asset Management In Process Retitled to Inventory Management Audit. Based on our Preliminary Survey, this audit was greatly expanded in scope to address inventory management at the Municipal Services Center and Water Quality Control Plant. Utilities Contract Oversight In Process New audit added as a result of a hotline investigation. Wastewater Treatment Fund Cancelled Based on our preliminary survey and discussions with department management, it was determined that an audit in this area is currently low priority. Pcard and/or Payroll Analytic Development Postponed Due to other priorities, this work was not started in FY 2013. This is not included in the FY 2014 audit plan due to higher risk projects being identified during the FY 2014 plan development. OCA Annual Work Plan Resource Allocation As discussed above, the Annual Work Plan is limited by the finite resources of the OCA. The chart summarizes available staff hours and how they are applied to the various components of the plan. The plan may be adjusted throughout the year to accommodate the changing risk environment. If a situation arises that requires OCA attention and resources are not available, the City Auditor may request additional funding from the City Council to support the use of external, supplementary resources. Audits Selected for the Fiscal Year 2014 Work Plan The following table summarizes the audits selected for this year’s Work Plan: 44% 24% 7% 5% 2% 18% OCA Resource Allocation (hrs) Risk Based Audits SEA & CCR Hotline Administration SAMs Council & Mgt Requests Monitoring & Administration Attachment A 8 July 2012 Audit Department Preliminary Scope* Planned Hours* Council Committee Inventory Management (formerly Utilities Asset Management) ASD, Multiple Carry over from FY 2013. Specific concerns regarding the effective and efficient safeguarding of certain assets were identified during the risk assessment process. This audit will follow up on those concerns and assess the adequacy of controls over Utilities assets including compliance with relevant policies and the Municipal Code. 360 P&S Solid Waste Program Public Works Carry over from FY 2013. Determine whether there are adequate controls in place to effectively manage the City’s Solid Waste Program to ensure sufficient revenue to recover the cost of services while pursuing zero waste goals in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and City policies and procedures. 650 Finance Utilities Contract Oversight Utilities, ASD Carry over from FY 2013. This is a new audit created as a result of a hotline investigation. The audit reviews the efficiency and effectiveness of controls over certain Utilities Department contracts. 200 Finance Software License Management IT, Multiple The IT Department has identified ~222 applications within the City. This audit will evaluate controls over software license management to ensure the City is in compliance with relevant agreements and is using all licenses it is paying for. Will carry over into FY 2015. 600 P&S Construction Project – Change Order Management Public Works Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of controls over the change order process within a major construction project. Will carry over into FY 2015. 800 P&S Utilities – Contract Solicitation and Award Utilities Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of controls over contract solicitation and award within the Utilities Department. 720 Finance *Preliminary scope and/or planned hours may change based upon the preliminary survey of the audit. Attachment A POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE EXCERPT Page 1 of 3 Special Meeting September 10, 2013 City Auditor’s Office Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Work Plan and Risk Assessment. Jim Pelletier, City Auditor, requested approval of the work plan of audits. The work plan indicated the audits the Auditor's Office would perform, not the monitoring and administrative assignments. The first few audits were brought forward from previous years. The proposed new audits involved software license management, change order management related to a construction project, and contract management in the Utilities Department. He suggested the Acting Auditor provide recommendations to adjust the plan at the next quarterly update because he would be departing from the City, the work plan was unattainable. Council Member Klein requested an audit of disability claims and programs. He also wanted to understand why the process for hiring a consultant seemed to require an excessive amount of time. Mr. Pelletier inquired whether Council Member Klein was concerned with the timing between the Council decision and getting a consultant on board. Council Member Klein felt the time between the Council approving a requisition for a consultant and/or a new employee and an announcement of an opening was excessive. Chair Price asked if Council Member Klein was focusing on outside consultants. Council Member Klein said he was focusing on consultants filling employee positions. Pam Antil, Assistant City Manager, indicated the Purchasing Department would approve hiring a recruiter to perform recruitment. Mr. Pelletier reiterated that Council Member Klein was concerned with the time between Council action and having a contract in place. Attachment B EXCERPT Page 2 of 3 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Excerpt Item 3: 09/10/2013 Council Member Klein agreed. He suggested a third audit concerning the enforcement of public benefits. Mr. Pelletier indicated that audit was on the list to perform. He asked if the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) wanted to replace one or more of the audits on the plan with one or more of the suggested audits or consider the audit for a future work plan. Council Member Klein requested an audit of enforcement of public benefits be considered when the new plan was presented to the Committee. Mr. Pelletier would ensure the Acting Auditor considered the suggestions in his/her status update in the next quarter. Chair Price stated the articulation of public benefits should be sufficiently clear and measurable so that enforcement was possible. Council Member Klein indicated the articulation of public benefits was a Council responsibility. Chair Price remarked that only clear and identifiable public benefits could be enforced. Council Member Holman felt the Auditor needed to understand the Ordinance in order to understand the enforcement of public benefits. Mr. Pelletier was concerned because the Council set the requirements for the Planned Community (PC) Zone. The City Auditor had no authority to audit the Council. The Auditor would not have the expertise needed to comment on whether or not the City Attorney worded an Ordinance properly. The Auditor could audit the enforcement of public benefits. Chair Price inquired whether the Auditor could review the current process. Mr. Pelletier was comfortable the Auditor could audit how the City enforced public benefits. Council Member Holman requested an audit of parking funds. Mr. Pelletier would consider an audit of parking funds. Chair Price asked if the City Auditor had sufficient time to perform the audits while maintaining ongoing work. She noted there were 40 new audit recommendations. Attachment B EXCERPT Page 3 of 3 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Excerpt Item 3: 09/10/2013 Mr. Pelletier responded yes. The audit recommendations resulted from the audits completed in the prior year. Chair Price inquired whether the current audits would yield additional recommendations for future audits. Mr. Pelletier replied yes. The number of audits assigned was based on the number of hours remaining after subtracting the number of hours required for ongoing work from the total available hours of employees. Council Member Holman wished to ensure a Motion did not include the audits requested by Council Member Klein and her. Mr. Pelletier would consider the suggested audits in the new work plan. They would be added to the list of projects as priority audits. Council Member Klein asked if the Council could revise the priority of audits once the new City Auditor provided a work plan. Mr. Pelletier would adjust the work plan according to the Council's priorities. Chair Price noted the Committee could act when the new plan was presented at the next quarterly update. Mr. Pelletier stated the audits in process would require time to complete; therefore, the Committee did not need to make a decision at the current time. The Auditor needed time to determine whether he had sufficient time and expertise to perform the audits. Council Member Holman inquired whether the Auditor would highlight those audits that did not require a full audit. Mr. Pelletier responded yes, that would be part of the discussion. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to recommend the City Council approve the City Auditor’s Office Fiscal Year 2014 Proposed Work Plan and Risk Assessment. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Kniss absent Attachment B CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR October 21, 2013 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Policy and Services Recommendation to Accept the Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations (June 2013) Municipal Code requires the City Auditor to issue an annual report to follow up on the implementation status of audit recommendations from completed audits. Our reporting summarizes the status of 67 audit recommendations from 8 completed audit reports. This includes 27 recommendations that were included in our last status report and 40 new audit recommendations from audit reports issued during this past fiscal year. The City Auditor’s Office recommends acceptance of the Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations (June 2013). At its meeting on September 10, 2013, the Policy and Services Committee approved and unanimously recommended the City Council accept the report. The Policy and Services Committee minutes are included in this packet. Respectfully submitted, Houman Boussina Acting City Auditor ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations (June 2013) (PDF) Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (September 10, 2013) (PDF) Department Head: Houman Boussina, Acting City Auditor Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR September 10, 2013 The Honorable City Council Attention: Policy & Services Committee Palo Alto, California Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations (June 2013) RECOMMENDATION We recommend the Policy and Services Committee review and accept the attached report. SUMMARY Municipal Code requires the City Auditor to issue an annual report to follow up on the implementation status of audit recommendations from completed audits. Our reporting summarizes the status of 67 audit recommendations from 8 completed audit reports. This includes 27 recommendations that were included in our last status report and 40 new audit recommendations from audit reports issued during this past fiscal year. A summary can be found in Attachment A. The ‘Current Status’ of each recommendation represents what was reported by City staff responsible for its implementation. Due to the nature and complexity of different audit findings, the Office of the City Auditor did not validate every response we received from City staff. There are many Audit Recommendations that have not been implemented in a timely fashion, which are highlighted with a red circle (). Respectfully Submitted, Jim Pelletier City Auditor ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Status of Audit Recommendations (2013) (PDF) Department Head: Jim Pelletier, City Auditor Attachment A Page 2 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 1 01/23/08 Finding 2: Existing rules and regulations are scattered and a centralized employee ethics policy is needed A centralized resource is needed for employee reference 3 The City should develop a section on the City's intranet site that links city employees to the City or State policy, procedure, law, or regulation that addresses each of the major requirements for avoiding conflicts of interest and for acceptable and ethical behavior. City Manager Significant In Process 6/30/08 09/01/13 Recommendation was reopened. In 2009, the City Manager's Office added a link to the City's intranet site titled "Visit the Ethics Center," which provides a matrix of City and State laws, codes, regulations, policies and procedures on conflicts of interest and ethical behavior; however, the link did not exist on the City's new intranet site as of June 2013. 2013 Management Update: Link to the City's ethics and State conflict of interest code information will be added to the City's new intranet site for emplooyees by September 1, 2013. 1 01/23/08 Finding 3: The City should adopt an employee code of ethics and formalize its employee ethics program The City should adopt an employee code of ethics and formalize its employee ethics program 4 The City should develop a code of ethics that employees can use as a guidepost for avoiding conflicts of interest, for ethical behavior, for deciding what actions are needed when conflicts of interest occur, and for making decisions. Employees should be required to read and sign an acknowledgment of the policy. City Manager Essential In Process 6/30/08 09/30/13 As of March 2011, the City retained the services of Dr. Tom Shanks of The Ethics Company to assist with the development of the City's values based ethics code of conduct, policy development and implementation, employee interviews, training implementation program and first round of citywide training. The project goal was to be completed by Spring 2012. 2013 Management Update: The City terminated the services of Dr. Tom Shanks of The Ethics Company as the work to develop the City's values based ethics code of conduct was never completed by the consultant as outlined in the contract with the City. Staff from the City's Leadership Team have opted to complete the writing of the new ethics policy rather than engage a new consultant due to cost. First draft of the new policy will be completed in August 2013 for review by the City Manager and rollout to all City staff immediately after approval by City Manager. 1 01/23/08 Finding 3: The City should adopt an employee code of ethics and formalize its employee ethics program The City should adopt an employee code of ethics and formalize its employee ethics program 5 The City should formalize its policy on ethics training and ensure that employees attend periodic training updates. City Manager Significant In Process 6/30/09 09/30/13 As of March 2011, the City retained the services of Dr. Tom Shanks of The Ethics Company to assist with the development of the City's values based ethics code of conduct, policy development and implementation, employee interviews, training implementation program and first round of citywide training. The project goal was to be completed by Spring 2012. 2013 Management Update: The City terminated the services of Dr. Tom Shanks of The Ethics Company as the work to develop the City's values based ethics code of conduct was never completed by the consultant as outlined in the contract with the City. Staff from the City's Leadership Team have opted to complete the writing of the new ethics policy rather than engage a new consultant due to cost. First draft of the new policy will be completed in August 2013 for review by the City Manager and rollout to all City staff immediately after approval by City Manager. 2 04/14/10 Finding 1: The City recently avoided spending about $2.5 million in FY 2010 through a temporary freeze on non-urgent fleet replacements, but longer term efficiencies can be realized through right sizing the City’s vehicle and equipment fleet. Although PWD fleet management began to install a vehicle reservation system in FY 2007 to create a Citywide motor pool, employees are not yet able to use the system, thereby limiting the usefulness and accessibility of a centralized pool. 3 The Public Works Fleet Management should complete implementation of a centralized Citywide vehicle and equipment pool, and make the Citywide pool accessible to all departments. Public Works Significant In Process 04/30/11 12/31/13 The existing automated pool vehicle management system located at the Municipal Services Center (MSC), Building B is being expanded and upgraded. Automated motor pools will be established at MSC, Building C, Civic Center, and the Utilities Department's Elwell Court locations. The pool vehicle management system will provide web-based or spontaneous vehicle reservation capability and automated vehicle key management. Also, the feasibility of contracting out pool vehicle management system with a third-party provider is being evaluated. 2013 Management Update: The system has been installed and piloted at the MSC and a pilot began at the Civic Center on June 1, 2013 with a limited number of vehicles. Once the pilot proves to be bug free, the remaining pool cars will be added. It has been determined that a system at Elwell Ct. is not necessary due to the remote location and small number of users. 2 04/14/10 Finding 1: The City recently avoided spending about $2.5 million in FY 2010 through a temporary freeze on non-urgent fleet replacements, but longer term efficiencies can be realized through right sizing the City’s vehicle and equipment fleet. The utilization criteria should be re-evaluated for cost-effectiveness. 4 The City Manager's Office and the Public Works Fleet Manager staff should review the fleet's minimum utilization standards and consider increasing the standards to more cost-effective levels. Public Works Significant In Process 04/30/11 12/31/13 Staff drafted revisions to the Vehicle/Equipment Policy, including revised utilization standards. Staff is currently reviewing proposals for Consultant Services for an operational study which will include a review of the City's utilization standards, evaluation of industry standards, other public agencies and recommendations for increasing Fleet operations efficiency and effectiveness. 2013 Management Update: The Consultant will issue the draft report by September 2013. PWD is currently recruiting for the Fleet Manager position with a target start date in September. The new Fleet Manager will review the operational study results and bring his/her recommendations to Council by the end of the calendar year. 1. Audit of Employee Ethics Policies 2. Audit of Fleet Utilization and Replacement Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 1 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 2 04/14/10 Finding 1: The City recently avoided spending about $2.5 million in FY 2010 through a temporary freeze on non-urgent fleet replacements, but longer term efficiencies can be realized through right sizing the City’s vehicle and equipment fleet. Exemptions should be routinely reviewed and justified using established criteria. 8 Public Works Fleet Management should have the authority and responsibility to manage and operate the City fleet to ensure optimized use of fleet resources. Public Works Significant In Process 04/30/11 12/31/13 Staff and the FRC will revise the Vehicle/Equipment Policy to include a new description of PWD Fleet Management's authority and responsibility to manage and operate the City fleet. 2013 Management Update: Individual policy sections are currently being developed but finalization will not occur until after the operational study recommendations are brought to Council by the end of the calendar year. 2 04/14/10 Finding 1: The City recently avoided spending about $2.5 million in FY 2010 through a temporary freeze on non-urgent fleet replacements, but longer term efficiencies can be realized through right sizing the City’s vehicle and equipment fleet. The City reduced the number of approved take- home vehicles, but clearer policies are necessary to identify the appropriate use and authorization for take-home use. 10 PWD Fleet Management should revise the policy and procedures to clarify the take-home policy and conduct routine follow-ups with departments to document adherence to the policy. Public Works Significant In Process 04/30/11 12/31/13 Staff and the FRC are revising the Vehicle/Equipment Policy to include clarifications to the take-home policy and will require take-home vehicle users to provide documentation to ensure their adherence to the policy. 2013 Management Update: Individual policy sections are currently being developed but finalization will not occur until after the operational study recommendations are brought to Council by the end of the calendar year. 2 04/14/10 Finding 1: The City recently avoided spending about $2.5 million in FY 2010 through a temporary freeze on non-urgent fleet replacements, but longer term efficiencies can be realized through right sizing the City’s vehicle and equipment fleet. PWD fleet management does not have established criteria to assess the efficiency and necessity of non-rolling stock equipment purchases such as generators and trailers. 13 Public Works Fleet Management should develop written criteria for assessing the need of non-rolling stock equipment. Public Works Useful In Process 04/30/11 12/31/13 Staff and the Fleet Review Committee are revising the Vehicle/Equipment Policy to include new standards and criteria for assessing the need of non-rolling stock equipment. 2013 Management Update: Individual policy sections are currently being developed but finalization will not occur until after the operational study recommendations are brought to Council by the end of the calendar year. 2 04/14/10 Finding 1: The City recently avoided spending about $2.5 million in FY 2010 through a temporary freeze on non-urgent fleet replacements, but longer term efficiencies can be realized through right sizing the City’s vehicle and equipment fleet. Outdated and incomplete data makes it difficult to effectively manage the fleet. 14 Public Works Fleet Management should routinely review the database inventory for completeness and accuracy and develop necessary processes for departments to provide accurate and timely utilization data. Public Works Significant In Process 04/30/11 12/31/13 Staff shortages have delayed the implementation of this recommendation. Equipment Management is currently in the process of recruiting a Fleet Services Coordinator. Staff is currently meeting with the existing fleet management software vendor to schedule a system upgrade which includes a more user friendly interface and training for all fleet and administrative staff to ensure a higher level of accuracy within the inventory. Additionally staff will conduct a physical inventory to confirm the inventory is accurate. 2013 Management Update: Staff recently entered into an amendment with AssetWorks, our fleet software vendor, and is working with IT to develop an upgrade and training plan. Additionally IT is researching "cloud" based solutions which would benefit disaster recovery and allow accessiblity for staff via the Internet. 2 04/14/10 Finding 3: Internal controls over fuel and parts inventory can be improved. Fuel invoices did not match the compressed natural gas (CNG) consumption reports and reports for unleaded and diesel fuels showed discrepancies. 19 PWD Fleet Management should work with the Administrative Services Department and Utilities Department (for CNG) to develop a system to reconcile fuel purchases, balances, and consumption reports. Public Works Significant In Process 06/30/11 12/31/13 Staff is working with the Utilities Department to obtain the data necessary to begin periodic reconciliations of CNG. With the implementation of the software upgrade to FuelFocus, PWD will have better reporting capabilities for consumption. 2013 Management Update: Staff recently entered into an amendment with AssetWorks, our fleet software vendor, and is working with the Information Technology Department (IT) to develop an upgrade and training plan. FuelFocus software is part of this implementation and once upgraded, PWD will have better reporting capabilities for consumption. Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 2 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 2 04/14/10 Finding 3: Internal controls over fuel and parts inventory can be improved. Our sampling found weaknesses in the internal controls for fuel pump transactions. 20 PWD Fleet Management should complete implementation of the fueling system at all city pumps and evaluate its effectiveness at providing internal controls over fuel pump transactions. Public Works Significant In Process 12/31/11 12/31/13 Staff is in the final implementation stage of the new fuel management system. Staff is currently meeting with the existing fleet management software vendor to schedule a system upgrade which includes a more user friendly interface, training for all fleet and administrative staff to ensure a higher level of accuracy within the inventory. This upgrade will also include the FuelFocus module ensuring accurate data is collected for transaction control. 2013 Management Update: Staff recently entered into an amendment with AssetWorks, our fleet software vendor, and is working with IT to develop an upgrade and training plan. FuelFocus software is part of this implementation and once upgraded, PWD will have better reporting capabilities for consumption. 2 04/14/10 Finding 3: Internal controls over fuel and parts inventory can be improved. Vehicles and equipment were not consistently secured or locked. 21 PWD Fleet Management should include requirements for securing vehicles and equipment within the fleet policies and procedures. Public Works Significant In Process 04/30/11 12/31/13 Staff and the FRC are revising the Vehicle/Equipment Policy to incorporate requirements for securing vehicles and equipment. 2013 Management Update: Individual policy sections are currently being developed but finalization will not occur until after the operational study recommendations are brought to Council by the end of the calendar year. 2 04/14/10 Finding 3: Internal controls over fuel and parts inventory can be improved. A physical parts inventory had not been conducted for at least six years and the valuation of the inventory was not verifiable. 22 PWD Fleet Management should conduct regular inventories of auto parts, develop a system to ensure the parts database is accurate and complete, and secure access to the auto parts inventory. Public Works Significant In Process 04/30/11 12/31/13 A newly constructed parts storeroom is complete. Equipment Management is working on surveying the existing parts and supply inventories, and finalizing a plan for conducting periodic inventory reconciliation. Staff is continuing to work toward more accurate parts inventory control; however due to staffing shortages and higher level priorities, staff has not defined a permanent inventory system or reconciliation process. 2013 Management Update: Staff recently entered into an amendment with AssetWorks, our fleet software vendor. Public Works and IT staff are working together to implement a system upgrade that includes a parts management/inventory system so that the City will have a fully integrated Fleet Management system. Once operational, staff will evaluate this module of the software to see if it fits the City's needs. Installation of this software is expected to be completed over the next few months and the system should be operational by the end of 2013. If the parts management module is the right fit, the next step will be to purchase the necessary hardware and to update the data in the new system. Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 3 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 3 09/15/10 Finding 1: Stronger controls are needed for cash handling The City's current cash handling policy is outdated and reliant upon a Cash Handling Manual that could not be found 1 ASD should update the Citywide Cash Handling policy and procedures to provide sufficient guidance on internal controls related to cash handling. Administrative Services Department Significant In Process 5/31/11 10/1/13 A 1991 Administrative Instruction Manual has been updated to cover all areas of cash handling, including the three areas discussed in the Audit Report – segregation of duties, safeguarding of revenue, and proper documentation of all transactions. Staff also reviewed other jurisdictions’ cash handling manuals to integrate the most effective parts of each. The revised Cash Handling Manual is posted online. Daily operating procedures for all cash handling facilities will be reviewed and updated to ensure all directions in the manual are incorporated. ASD will also provide a checklist to ensure each facility fulfills each of the procedural requirements. The Policy and Procedures document itself is being reviewed. 2013 Management Update: ASD is in the process of rewriting Policy and Procedures 1-03 - Cash Handling. 3 09/15/10 Finding 1: Stronger controls are needed for cash handling Site visits revealed weaknesses that should be immediately addressed 4 ASD should: • Work with the departments to immediately address weaknesses noted in the areas of safeguarding revenue, segregation of duties, and proper documentation and approval of certain types of transactions (e.g. voided transactions and issuance of receipts). • Ensure their list of approved revenue collection locations is complete and updated, and these locations have adequate procedures to safeguard revenue. Administrative Services Department Significant In Process 6/30/12 12/31/13 ASD-Revenue Collections began working with departments after the audit to address areas of concerns. For locations with significant space and resource constraints (e.g., Animal Services and Foothills Park), mitigating controls will be considered to balance the relative weakness of the segregation of duties at these sites. Additionally, risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis will be performed to determine the level of controls implemented. Strengthening the controls at the Foothills Park beyond the basic training and monitoring levels would not be as beneficial as focusing on other sites with larger currency transactions and/or larger-volume sites with identified areas of concern, such as Animal Services. Extensive time was spent with Animal Services addressing weaknesses identified in the audit and significant improvement has been made. The revised Cash Handling Manual contains an updated list of approved revenue collection locations. Revisions of policies and procedures for these locations to incorporate guidelines established by the revised Cash Handling Manual are still in progress. Due to the number of facilities, this process will be lengthy. Seventeen facilities have been identified for revised procedures and this does not include procedures for special events. Additionally all library locations have been counted as one facility. ASD believes that with more structured training and monitoring, the level of compliance among the departments will increase, but departments will also have to proactively improve their compliance with the proscribed procedures. 2013 Management Update: All authorized cash handling facilities are in the process of updating their cash handling procedures. Animal Services, Art Center, Foothills Park, Junior Museum and Zoo, Lucie Stern Community Center, Mitchell Park, Police Records and Revenue Collections have updated procedures in draft form. The City’s Payment Card Industry (PCI) compliance officer began a City wide training program in May and has informed ASD that he will visit each facility for assessment. He will then make recommendations related to ensuring that PCI rules and regulations are met. Based on these recommendations, language will be inserted into each facility’s updated procedures prior to final approval. 3. Audit of Citywide Cash Handling and Travel Expense Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 4 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 3 09/15/10 Finding 2: Increased oversight and coordination can improve the employee travel expense process Oversight of employee travel expenses can be improved 6 ASD should review the nighttime meeting reimbursement policy. If the City decides to maintain this practice, ASD should report the amounts as income on employee Form W-2s to conform to Internal Revenue Service requirements. In addition, ASD should review other types of meal expense to ensure any reportable amounts are included on employee Form W-2s. Administrative Services Department Significant In Process Not Provided Not Provided Nighttime meeting reimbursement will be maintained. ASD has established new G/L numbers to capture taxable and non-taxable meals. ASD has discussed changes needed by Purchasing staff for use of CAL-Cards. Budget and Purchasing changes will be made before implementation date of 7/1/2011. Taxable meals will be captured in a specific G/l account and added to the employees W2 for FY 2011. In addition, updated P&P and forms (A/P & Petty cash) will reflect specific coding for taxable meals. ASD also plans to have City-wide training once ELT approves draft P&P. ASD updated the travel policy and disseminated it to staff citywide. Meal reimbursement has been updated and amounts will be included in the Form W-2, however employees are encouraged to seek reimbursement for only those meals within the IRS guidelines. ASD is in the process of updating the portion of the petty cash policy related to meal reimbursement. 2013 Management Update: Staff has determined that there are a limited number of instances in which a meal is considered taxable income by IRS standards. These include meals provided during one-day training and meals provided to employees during overtime. It takes considerable staff time to track and record these meals and to make them show up on employee W-2 forms as compensation. Given the small number of incidents and the low dollar amounts, probably in the few thousand dollars citywide in a given year, staff is looking at phasing out these types of meals. Meanwhile, staff will begin tracking the meals and recording reimbursements in the designated key code. Staff has updated the Petty Cash reimbursement form to ensure that the proper coding of meals is achieved. This form will be distributed to employees in Aug. 2013. A further complication is that meals are sometimes purchased with the PCard and may be for several staff. There is currently no easy way to assign these charges to the appropriate person receiving the meal. 3 09/15/10 Finding 2: Increased oversight and coordination can improve the employee travel expense process Oversight of employee travel expenses can be improved 8 The City Manager’s Office should include additional guidance to prevent gifts of public resources on the City’s Ethics Center intranet site. City Manager Useful In Process 4/30/12 9/30/13 The City Manager's Office determined that guidance regarding the use of travel expenses should most appropriately be updated in the City’s Travel & Expense Policy. This clarification was completed in August 2012. The employee Intranet site will be updated once the Ethics Policy is complete. As of March 2011, the City retained the services of Dr. Tom Shanks of The Ethics Company to assist with the development of the City's values based ethics code of conduct, policy development and implementation, employee interviews, training implementation program and first round of citywide training. The project goal was to be completed by Spring 2012. 2013 Management Update: The City terminated the services of Dr. Tom Shanks of The Ethics Company as the work to develop the City's values based ethics code of conduct was never completed by the consultant as outlined in the contract with the City. Staff from the City's Leadership Team have opted to complete the writing of the new ethics policy rather than engage a new consultant due to cost. First draft of the new policy will be completed in August 2013 for review by the City Manager and rollout to all City staff immediately after approval by City Manager. 3 09/15/10 Finding 2: Increased oversight and coordination can improve the employee travel expense process The City should reorganize existing budgetary accounts related to travel and meetings to assist in tracking of taxable activities 11 ASD should reorganize the existing budgetary travel- related accounts into a “Travel and Training” account for professional development and a “Meetings” account for tracking taxable forms of reimbursement, such as nighttime meeting meal expenses. Administrative Services Department Useful Completed Not Provided N/A Recommendation reported as completed. ASD has established new G/L accounts, changed title of existing G/L account and eliminated use of one G/L account. Budget will reallocate budget to new G/L accounts for FY 2012 budget. Purchasing staff will update CAL- Cards to accept charges for new G/L accounts. Budget & Purchasing changes will be ready for 7/1/2011 implementation. A/P and Petty Cash forms will be updated once ELT approves draft policies and procedures. ASD Director will present draft to ELT for input by end of FY 2011. ASD will provide Citywide training once policies and procedures are finalized. ASD has updated the travel policy and disseminated to staff citywide. New accounts have been established in SAP. 2013 Management Update: N/A Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 5 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 4 10/18/11 Finding 2: ASD violated two critical security principles by not properly restricting access for all user accounts. SAP user administration practices violated information systems security principles 5 To ensure SAP user account administration functions are properly separated, ASD should: • Segregate responsibilities for creating and maintaining roles/profiles, assignment of roles/profiles, and creating and maintaining user accounts. • Prohibit IT staff from maintaining Human Resources Department employee records. • Assign all SAP user administrators to a designated SAP user group, preventing them from managing their own and other administrators’ accounts and access levels, and designate an individual to manage the SAP user group. Information Technology Department Essential In Process 12/31/12 12/31/2013 Original Response: Staff concurs and recommends independent external security expert evaluation. Status: Open. Risk level assessment: Low (09/2011) to be further validated by independent external security expert. Segregation of duties is important but difficult to implement without additional resources. We have implemented a mitigation control in the SAP System Monitoring Policy and Procedures to review all user change logs done by the SAP user administrator. In addition, request to transfer maintenance of Employee records back to Human Resources Department (HR) has been initiated. Target review date: 6/30/2012 2012 Management Update: The Department will be reviewing options to segregate responsibilities for creating and maintaining roles/profiles, assignment of roles/profiles, and creating and maintaining user accounts. The controls will prevent SAP user administrators from managing their own and other administrators' accounts and access levels. The Department has planned to implement an automated SAP user account creation process. The process will result in creation of SAP user accounts and updating email addresses in the SAP HR master file without requiring staff access to HR data. Expected implementation period: Q2-FY13 - Q3-FY13 2013 Management Update: The SAP team has implemented a work order tracking tool to: • Maintain roles and profiles (per role owner approval) • Assign roles and profiles (per role owner approval) • Create and maintain user accounts (automated program for new hires since Oct 2012) In addition, SAP management has planned to segregate the following SAP basis roles: Role 1: Maintain roles and profiles Role 2: Assign roles and profiles Role 3: Create and maintain user accounts. Role 4: Transport roles, profiles and user accounts into the production environment 4 10/18/11 Finding 4: The City needs to formally adopt and implement a recognized information systems control standard to ensure SAP security. ASD has not adopted or implemented a recognized information systems security control standard 12 ASD should adopt and implement the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard (DSS) and the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) SP 800-53 information systems security control frameworks to help ensure security of the City’s key information systems. Information Technology Department Essential In Process PCI: 03/30/2013 ISO: 06/30/2014 12/30/2014 Original Response: Staff recommends external security expert evaluation. Status: Open. Risk level assessment: Low (09/2011) to be further validated by independent external security expert. PCI DSS contains six major categories and a total of 200 control points. NIST SP‐53 contains a similar number of control points. Implementing both standards would require significant IT resources and business resources. Staff suggests a comprehensive security audit to determine the risk level and cost. 2012 Management Update: The Department reports the City's Information Security Committee has determined to implement the International Standardization Organization (ISO) 27001 Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) framework and standards at the City. The City's information security manager has planned to implement PCI- DSS security control framework by Q3-FY13. In addition the information security manager has planned to implement ISO 27001 based information systems security control frameworks by Q4-FY14 Security Countermeasures Implementation Roadmap: Implement PCI-DSS high risk countermeasures: Q3-FY13 (March 2013) Implement ISO 27001 framework at the City: Q4-FY14 (June 2014) 2013 Management Update: The City’s Information Security Manager has developed a three year roadmap to implement the ISO 27001 framework at the City, which is consistent and aligned with NIST SP 800-53 and PCI-DSS standards. 4. SAP Security Audit Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 6 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 4 10/18/11 Finding 4: The City needs to formally adopt and implement a recognized information systems control standard to ensure SAP security. ASD does not have a comprehensive security policy 13 ASD should develop and implement a formal and comprehensive security policy consistent with PCI DSS, NIST, the SAP Library, and other industry standards. Information Technology Department Essential In Process SAP: 12/31/2012 ISO: 06/30/2013 12/31/2014 Original Response: Staff recommends external security expert evaluation. Status: Open. Risk level assessment: Medium (09/2011) to be validated by independent external security expert. Target review date: pending on external security audit. 2012 Management Update: The Department reports the City's Information Security Committee has determined to implement ISO 27001 [Information Security Management Systems (ISMS)] framework and standards at the City. Also The City’s Information Security Manager has planned to implement an SAP security policy by Q2-FY13. In addition, the Information Security Manager has plans to implement a formal and comprehensive ISO security policy. Security Countermeasures Implementation Roadmap: Implement SAP Security Policy: Q2-FY13 (December 2012) Implement ISO Information Security Policy: Q4-FY13 (June 2013) 2013 Management Update: The City’s Information Security Manager has already developed and released an information privacy policy, password policy and several information security procedures. The policies and procedures are based on the ISO 27001 framework, and begin to address the audit recommendation to impelement a formal and comprehensive security policy consistent with PCI DSS, NIST, the SAP Library. 4 10/18/11 Finding 4: The City needs to formally adopt and implement a recognized information systems control standard to ensure SAP security. ASD does not have a formal information systems security awareness and training program 15 ASD should implement a formal security awareness and training program that meets minimum control standards stated in PCI DSS and NIST control frameworks. The program should include provisions to ensure SAP technical staff is trained on current SAP security controls and practices. Information Technology Department Significant In Process SAP: 12/31/2012 ISO: 06/30/2014 12/30/2014 Original Response: Staff recommends external security expert evaluation. Status: Open. Risk level assessment: Low (09/2011) to be further validated by external security expert. 2012 Management Update: The Department reports that the City's Information Security Committee has determined to implement ISO 27001 [Information Security Management Systems (ISMS)] framework and standards at the City. Also the City’s Information Security Manager has developed a strategy and roadmap to implement a Citywide information security awareness and training program including but not limited to providing PCI-DSS and SAP security controls and practices training to SAP technical staff. The City’s Information Security Manager has planned to provide training to all City employees including SAP technical staff. Security Countermeasures Implementation Roadmap: Train SAP technical staff for the PCI DSS security awareness: Q2-FY13 (December 2012) Train the City's employees for ISO security awarness: Q4-FY14 (June 2014) 2013 Management Update: The City’s information security manager has already provided PCI DSS security awareness and information security awareness training to technical staff and functional staff associated with processing of credit card transactions and data. In addition, the City’s Information Security Manager has planned to provide information security awareness training to all the employees of the City. Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 7 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 4 10/18/11 Finding 4: The City needs to formally adopt and implement a recognized information systems control standard to ensure SAP security. ASD does not have a formal risk assessment process to effectively identify and manage information systems security and business risks 16 ASD should implement a formal risk assessment process that meets minimum standards stated in PCI DSS and NIST SP 800-53 to ensure key information system threats and vulnerabilities are routinely (at least annually) and effectively identified, ranked, and addressed. Information Technology Department Significant In Process PCI: 12/31/2012 ISO: 03/30/2013 6/30/2014 Original Response: Staff recommends external security expert evaluation. Status: Open. Risk level assessment: Medium (09/2011) to be further validated by independent external security expert. Target review date: pending on external security audit. 2012 Management Update: The Department reports that the City's Information Security Committee has determined to implement ISO 27001 - Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) framework and standards at the City. The City’s Information Security Manager has developed a strategy and roadmap to implement a formal risk assessment process through ISO 27001 standards, including a PCI-DSS risk assessment through the PCI-DSS Self- Assessment Questionnaire “D” and Attestation of Compliance. Beginning Q2-FY13 the City’s Information Security Manager will initiate a formal risk assessment process through PCI-DSS Self-Assessment Questionnaire “D” and ISO 27001 standards. Security Countermeasures Implementation Roadmap: Implement PCI-DSS risk assessment process: Q2-FY13 (December 2012) Implement ISO 27001 risk assessment process: Q3-FY13 (March 2013) 2013 Management Update: The City’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) has hired an Information Security Manager (ISM) to manage risk at the City. In 2012, the ISM conducted a PCI-DSS security assessment to identify areas of improvement. The ISM has initiated an “Information Security Risk Assessment” project to conduct a comprehensive IT risk assessment [per ISO 27001/2 Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) standards] by June 2014 to identify all of the possible risks to the City’s IT department, the delivery of IT services and the accuracy and integrity of the City’s financial and personnel data. The risk assessment will also include network penetration testing to ascertain the vulnerabilities of the City’s computer network from hacking attempts. 4 10/18/11 Finding 4: The City needs to formally adopt and implement a recognized information systems control standard to ensure SAP security. ASD has not restricted access to SAP security parameters 18 ASD should ensure access to SAP system parameters is restricted to only authorized staff, and that policies and procedures incorporate change controls stated in NIST SP 800-53 to ensure all changes are properly planned, authorized, executed, and monitored. Information Technology Department Significant In Process 12/31/2012 12/31/2013 Original Response: Staff recommends independent external security expert evaluation. Status: Open. Risk level assessment: Low (09/2011) to be further validated by external security expert 2012 Management Update: The Department reports that the City's Information Security Committee has determined to implement the ISO 27001 [Information Security Management Systems (ISMS)] framework and standards at the City. Also the SAP team may make changes to the profile parameters based on a number of reasons that may or may not be related to security. For instance, a change to a profile parameter may be required due to a performance problem and recommendations made by SAP support personnel or a specific SAP note. Access to the SAP system parameters is restricted to authorized individuals and change to profile parameters must go through a work order system for tracking and approval. In addition, profile parameter changes can be monitored and reviewed manually at the operating system level by comparing the profile information in the database with the profile existing on the operating system. Expected implementation period: Q1-FY13 - Q2-FY13 2013 Management Update: The SAP system parameter change authorization process was implemented in September 2012. According to the process, roles providing authorization in SAP to change system parameters are restricted to only authorized SAP Basis staff, and the role assignment is reviewed by the role owner on a semiannual basis. The SAP team is following the formal Request for Change (RFC) process to execute any changes to SAP system parameters. In addition, the SAP team is in the process of implementing and automating scripts to monitor changes in SAP parameters. The SAP Project Management Office is in the process of implementing a new process (through TRACK-IT) to identify all SAP system parameter changes. In addition, the IT Department has implemented an exception procedure to grant access to non-employee (consultants/contractors) to SAP’s production environment. Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 8 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 4 10/18/11 Finding 4: The City needs to formally adopt and implement a recognized information systems control standard to ensure SAP security. ASD has not developed policies and procedures to retain, review, and analyze SAP audit trails (logs) 19 ASD should develop policies and procedures and implement minimum NIST SP 800-53 and PCI DSS controls applicable to log management in order to ensure: • SAP and Oracle log data is secured using appropriate “write-once” media and/or backup procedures. • Access to SAP and Oracle logs is restricted based on the principles of least privilege and segregation of duties. • Accountability is established for monitoring SAP and Oracle logs and for reporting any incidents to the appropriate levels of management. • SAP and Oracle are properly configured to ensure logs capture appropriate information and retain the information for an appropriate duration. Information Technology Department Significant In Process 6/30/2013 12/31/2013 Original Response: Staff recommends external security expert evaluation. Status: Open. Risk level assessment: Low (09/2011) to be further validated by independent external security expert 2012 Management Update: The Department reports that the City's Information Security Committee has determined to implement ISO 27001 - Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) framework and standards at the City. SAP/ IT staff has provided supporting documents per the IT Security Manager's request for his development of new policies and procedures. The IT Security Manager will develop new policies and procedures specifically for the City following the ISO 27001 standard for the four areas addressed in the recommendation. Expected implementation period: Q3 FY13 - Q4 FY13 2013 Management Update: Access to SAP and Oracle logs is restricted based on the principles of least privilege and segregation of duties. Accountability is established for monitoring SAP and Oracle logs and for reporting any incidents to the appropriate levels of management. SAP and Oracle are properly configured to ensure logs capture appropriate information and retain the information for an appropriate duration. Update for item #19A (OPEN): SAP management is researching a "write-once" solution. An appropriate solution will be implemented by December 2013. Update for item #19B (CLOSED): Access to SAP and Oracle logs is already restricted based on the principles of least privilege and segregation of duties. IT management is in the process of implementing an information security policy to enforce administrative restrictions so that an administrator cannot modify anyone else’s authorization within the group of administrators defined in SAP, including the administrator's own authorizations. Update for item #19C (CLOSED): Accountability is already established for monitoring SAP and Oracle logs and for reporting any incidents to the appropriate levels of management. In addition, the IT security manager has implemented an incident reporting and tracking procedure to enhance security. Update for item #19D (CLOSED): SAP and Oracle environments are properly configured to capture and retain all log data in accordance with the City’s data retention policy. 4 10/18/11 Finding 4: The City needs to formally adopt and implement a recognized information systems control standard to ensure SAP security. Implementing the SAP system-provided tool Audit Information System (AIS) would enhance the Auditor's Office access and the effectiveness of future security reviews 21 To enhance the Auditor’s Office’s efficiency and independence in conducting audits, and its ability to ensure compliance with generally accepted government auditing standards, we recommend ASD implement the Audit Information System (AIS) tool and provide the Auditor’s Office with access to it. Information Technology Department Useful Completed 12/31/2012 Recommendation reported as Completed Original Response: Staff concurs. Status: Open. Risk level assessment: Low (09/2011) to be further validated by independent external security expert. Audit Information System (AIS) is not a turnkey solution. Project funding and resource must be planned in advance. Staff suggests the Auditor’s Office to initiate AIS implementation project during annual CIP planning. 2012 Management Update: The Department reports that two custom made SAP authorization roles (CPA_AUDITOR and CPA_AIS_HR_AUDITOR) were created for testing. Expected implementation period: Q1-FY13 - Q2-FY13 2013 Management Update: Two custom made SAP authorization roles (CPA_AUDITOR and CPA_AIS_HR_AUDITOR) have been created and implemented. The roles were tested in the SAP quality system for user acceptance and transported to the SAP production system in December 2012, with the auditor's approval. Completed: Dec 17, 2012 5 12/06/11 Finding 1: The City has used Library Bond monies appropriately, policies and procedures should be formalized. Library Bond monies were used appropriately, but the City should formalize policies and procedures regarding the oversight and expenditure of bond funds 2 ASD and PWD should formalize policies and procedures regarding the oversight and expenditure of Library Bond funds to ensure continued compliance with federal and state regulations and best practices. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 9/28/2012 09/28/12 Recommendation reported as completed. The Department reports that ASD and Public Works are in the process of writing a formal written procedure codifying existing guidelines and practices. This will incorporate the existing written Accounts Payable procedures for paying GO bondable expenditures. A draft has been completed; further work is needed and will be completed as time allows. 2013 Management Update: The Department has completed a procedure for the disbursement of bond proceeds. 5. Audit of the Use of Library Bond Proceeds Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 9 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 6 11/20/12 Finding 1: OfficeMax overcharged the City at least $47,563 by applying unauthorized changes to pricing OfficeMax overcharged the City at least $47,563 by applying unauthorized changes to pricing for items with specified contract prices. 1 ASD should consult with the City Attorney’s Office to pursue recovery of unauthorized charges from OfficeMax, including at least $47,563 for contract item overcharges under the America Saves program during the period November 1, 2007 through May 31, 2011. Administrative Services Department Significant In Process Not Provided Not Provided ASD will work with the City Attorney’s Office to request reimbursement. 2013 Management Update: Pending update from City Attorney's Office. 6 11/20/12 Finding 2: The City could have received additional discounts for non-contract office supplies The City could have reasonably anticipated additional discounts between $148,921 and $341,863 for non-contract office supplies. 2 ASD should consult with the City Attorney’s Office to determine if the City can recover additional discounts ranging from $148,921 to $341,863 for non-contract items it purchased under the America Saves program terms from November 1, 2007 through May 31, 2011. Administrative Services Department Significant In Process Not Provided Not Provided ASD will work with the City Attorney’s Office to consider options for recovering additional discounts. 2013 Management Update: Pending update from City Attorney's Office. 6 11/20/12 Finding 4: ASD should ensure the City's financial records accurately identify office supplies and should properly budget for and control office supplies expenditures City records indicate the City has spent considerably more for office supplies than other local jurisdictions sampled, however, we could not reasonably associate a significant portion of office supplies expenditures with office supplies vendors. 4 ASD should develop and communicate to staff policies and procedures to ensure the office supplies accounting code is clearly defined, its use is monitored, and that office supplies are accurately recorded in the City’s accounting records. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 12/31/2012 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. City departments handle the classification of expenses at the point of purchase. ASD will make clear to departments via policy and training and periodic review to ensure compliance to properly classify office supply expenses in the accounting system. As a result of staffing reductions and increased work volume ASD does not have the person power to monitor how accurately departments classify all expenses. 2013 Management Update: ASD staff notified department budget coordinators of the requirement to charge office supplies to the correct cost centers. ASD will periodically audit the office supply code in SAP to ensure expenditures are accurately coded. 6 11/20/12 Finding 5: Strategic contracting practices may provide savings opportunities The City’s procurement policies and procedures do not clearly identify and communicate requirements for establishing negotiated contracts for goods and/or services the City purchases mainly using purchasing cards, which likely results in lost savings opportunities. 5 ASD should clarify the City’s procurement policies and procedures, while ensuring consistency with the Municipal Code, to specify when Purchasing should negotiate contracts, based on dollar amount thresholds applicable to total citywide expenditures for goods and/or services (or payments to vendors) in aggregate, regardless of payment method. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 3/31/2013 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. As staffing levels allow, ASD periodically reviews spending activity, services used and commodities to determine if a contract with a vendor would be advantageous. Due to staffing reductions and increased work volume, this level of review is time consuming for staff and staff may not always be available to perform this type of analysis. Staff will continue to perform this review as time permits and will also look into automated tools to flag this activity. In addition, staff will consider hiring temporary help to accomplish this review, which could offset savings. When ASD conducts this review a threshold will be set to flag purchasing activity with vendors when aggregate spend meets the level of $5,000. Where spending levels are met, Purchasing staff will take action to ensure competitive pricing agreements are put in place and are consistent with the muni code. 2013 Management Update: Staff hired a contractor to assist with this analysis. Initial analysis has been accomplished. A savings program has been initiated with Home Depot. Staff will continue to monitor. 6 11/20/12 Finding 5: Strategic contracting practices may provide savings opportunities The City did not have authorized contracts for several vendors selected for review. OCA did not find evidence ASD Purchasing monitors expenditures for goods and/or services from vendors through the use of the City’s SAP Enterprise Resource Planning system reports in order to determine whether cost savings opportunities could be maximized by entering negotiated contracts. 6 ASD should develop policies and procedures to ensure it monitors total citywide expenditures on categories of goods and/or services (or expenditures by vendor) and periodically assesses whether the total volume of the transactions and expenditures, regardless of payment method, may require the City to contract for the goods and/or services either through the City’s competitive solicitation methods or by using another agency’s contract, in order to maximize cost savings. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 3/31/2013 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. As staffing levels allow, ASD periodically reviews spending activity, services used and commodities to determine if a contract with a vendor would be advantageous. Due to staffing reductions and increased work volume, this level of review is time consuming for staff and staff may not always be available to perform this type of analysis. Staff will continue to perform this review as time permits and will also look into automated tools to flag this activity. In addition, staff will consider hiring temporary help to accomplish this review, which could offset savings. When ASD conducts this review a threshold will be set to flag purchasing activity with vendors when aggregate spend meets the level of $5,000. Where spending levels are met, Purchasing staff will take action to ensure competitive pricing agreements are put in place and are consistent with the muni code. 2013 Management Update: ASD hired temporary contract staff to assist with the spend analysis and to develop procedures for ongoing analysis. 6. Audit of Contract Oversight: Office Supplies Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 10 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 6 11/20/12 Finding 5: Strategic contracting practices may provide savings opportunities OCA found that the City did not have authorized contracts for several vendors selected for review, despite significant aggregate purchases in 2011 and/or historical total purchases from the vendor. 7 ASD should develop policies and procedures to ensure the City has properly approved contracts, when required by the Municipal Code, prior to conducting business. Specifically, the City should ensure it establishes a process to prevent and/or detect issuance of purchasing documents or purchasing card payments to vendors without a properly approved contract, if required. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 12/31/2012 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. ASD has in place a Purchasing Manual that outlines the process for contract approval. ASD will continue to work with other departments to ensure that contracts are approved consistent with the process outlined in the Purchasing Manual prior to work commencing. ASD will implement additional review steps in the contract process to ensure contracts are executed properly. 2013 Management Update: Purchasing has revised its checklist to ensure validation of executed contracts. 6 11/20/12 Finding 5: Strategic contracting practices may provide savings opportunities The City does not have a properly authorized office supplies contract. Although the America Saves program master purchasing agreement expired on June 30, 2011, we found no evidence the City subsequently took steps to appropriately contract for office supplies. 8 ASD should develop policies and procedures to ensure ASD Purchasing staff monitors expiring contracts and ensures contracts are re-established in a timely manner. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 3/31/2013 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. ASD will work with departments to help develop a process for highlighting contracts that are due to expire. There are reports available that departments can use to review upcoming expiration dates. Purchasing staff will be assigned to review SAP reports on a quarterly basis to flag contracts that are due to expire. 2013 Management Update: A new procedure has been implemented for staff to prepare expiring contract reports and circulate those reports to departments. 6 11/20/12 Finding 5: Strategic contracting practices may provide savings opportunities ASD does not have a process to document and approve all exemptions from competitive procurement. As shown in Exhibit 13, there was no evidence to support that contracts for 8 of 13 vendors sampled were awarded competitively or properly exempted from competitive solicitation requirements. 9 ASD should develop policies and procedures to ensure it complies with Municipal Code requirements for applying and documenting exemptions from competitive solicitation in the procurement of goods and services (A City working group that promotes efficient and effective purchasing methods has drafted a new “City of Palo Alto Sole Source Justification Form” which includes all 18 exemptions listed in the Municipal Code). Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 12/31/2013 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. ASD prepares a report that goes to the City Council documenting contracts that were approved with exemptions. This has been established process for many years and offers efficiency and approvals at the appropriate staff level while satisfying accountability. Staff will review the municipal code and current practice to ensure they are both in sync and recommend revisions to the municipal code where needed. Should Staff, in collaboration with the City Attorney’s Office, consider streamlining the municipal code requirements for exemptions then staff will make the appropriate recommendation to the City Council. 2013 Management Update: Staff has created a checklist that requires documentation of the basis for any exemptions from competitive solicitation, including sole source justification. Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 11 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 6 11/20/12 Finding 6: The City has not sufficiently defined contract administration roles and responsibilities In reviewing the Municipal Code and the City’s Purchasing Manual, we did not find sufficient guidance regarding contract administration roles, responsibilities, and business practices to ensure compliance with the City’s contract terms and also to ensure the City receives contracted benefits. 10 ASD should ensure contract administration roles and responsibilities are defined and appropriately communicated. At a minimum, ASD should broadly define contract administration and develop a process to: • Formally identify the contract administrator and assign contract administration responsibilities. • Identify and document key contract terms. • Identify and provide the necessary training to ensure the contract administrator has the required expertise. • Identify or develop specific methodology, reports, and/or tools required to administer the contract. • Establish and monitor timelines and milestones in administering the contract. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 12/31/2013 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. • ASD roles and responsibilities are defined and communicated (e.g., the Contract Administrator or Buyer who handled the solicitation is listed). • ASD will implement a checklist of minimum requirements for project managers and contract administrators and hold departments accountable for satisfying their responsibilities. • Contract Administrator and or Buyer are formally identified and assigned administration responsibilities pursuant to their respective job description. • ASD Purchasing staff is trained to understand specific terms and conditions of a contract, and is knowledgeable pursuant to the qualifications required to hold the position as described within the job description. Additionally, Team training is held on selected topics (e.g., Risk Management) as needed. • ASD will look to determine if it would serve the organization for Purchasing and Contract Administration to take over the overall contract administration of contracts for the City. Current process is Purchasing and Contracts Administration Division performs the activities required to award a contract. Contract Administration duties are managed by the individual Departments who the contract was issued for. Improved training, to address turnover, and easy access to information will be important. • The role of departments in the contract administration process must be clearly defined. 2013 Management Update: ASD has created a checklist of roles and responsibilities and requirements. The Purchasing Team has begun a training program. The team attended CAPPO training. 6 11/20/12 Finding 3: ASD has not effectively administered the City's office supplies contract ASD has not established effective processes and procedures to ensure the City receives contracted discounts and other key benefits, and that the office supplies contract meets the City’s business needs. 3-A ASD should develop formal procedures to effectively administer the City’s office supplies contract in order to ensure the contract supports the City’s business needs, policies, and goals, including the City’s environmental policies. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 3/31/2013 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. ASD has completed a request for proposal process for a new office supply contract with the involvement of department stakeholders and members of the City’s environmental team. Collectively, this review panel selected a new office supply provider that meets the City’s needs, policies and goals. A contract with the new office supply provider is estimated to save the City $40,000 compared to the current contract. This estimated savings figure may be reduced if: new costs are realized for compliance with environmental policies, incentives are not achieved, purchases from non contract vendors is not prevented, purchases of non discounted items is not prevented. 2013 Management Update: ASD has initiated the transition to a new office supply contract with Staples set to begin 9/3/13. ASD has created a procedure for monitoring the office supplies contract. 6 11/20/12 Finding 3: ASD has not effectively administered the City's office supplies contract ASD has not established effective processes and procedures to ensure the City receives contracted discounts and other key benefits, and that the office supplies contract meets the City’s business needs. 3-B ASD should develop formal procedures to effectively administer the City’s office supplies contract in order to ensure Purchasing monitors discounts provided to the City in order to timely detect any negative trends, such as a decline in the purchase of highly discounted contract items, and to ensure the City receives all contracted discounts and other key benefits. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 3/31/2013 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. Using tools offered by the new contract, ASD will monitor and ensure that discounts and incentives offered are realized. New tools will enable staff to prevent the purchase of non-discount items. 2013 Management Update: ASD has initiated the transition to a new office supply contract with Staples set to begin 9/3/13. ASD has created a procedure for monitoring the office supplies contract. 6 11/20/12 Finding 3: ASD has not effectively administered the City's office supplies contract ASD has not established effective processes and procedures to ensure the City receives contracted discounts and other key benefits, and that the office supplies contract meets the City’s business needs. 3-C ASD should develop formal procedures to effectively administer the City’s office supplies contract in order to ensure use of the contract is maximized and purchases of office supplies from other vendors or suppliers the City has not contracted with is restricted or minimized. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 3/31/2013 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. ASD will require departments to purchase office supplies via the new contract and will consider ways to restrict the purchase of office supplies outside of the contract via restrictions in the PCard system. 2013 Management Update: ASD has created a procedure for monitoring the office supplies contract, which states a dedicated person will run a quarterly report and conduct analysis on the citywide office supplies expenditures to ensure the City receives contracted prices and savings. Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 12 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 6 11/20/12 Finding 3: ASD has not effectively administered the City's office supplies contract ASD has not established effective processes and procedures to ensure the City receives contracted discounts and other key benefits, and that the office supplies contract meets the City’s business needs. 3-D ASD should develop formal procedures to effectively administer the City’s office supplies contract in order to ensure the City identifies and maximizes its eligibility for available contract incentives. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 3/31/2013 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. Using tools offered by the new contract, ASD will monitor and ensure that discounts and incentives offered are realized. New tools will enable staff to prevent the purchase of non-discount items. 2013 Management Update: ASD has created a procedure for monitoring the office supplies contract. 6 11/20/12 Finding 3: ASD has not effectively administered the City's office supplies contract ASD has not established effective processes and procedures to ensure the City receives contracted discounts and other key benefits, and that the office supplies contract meets the City’s business needs. 3-E ASD should develop formal procedures to effectively administer the City’s office supplies contract in order to ensure the City discontinues storing and delivering office supplies, unless staff can provide a cost/benefit analysis justifying the current practice. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 3/31/2013 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. ASD will review the practice of storing office supplies to see if it is the best approach given the benefits of the new contract. 2013 Management Update: With the new Staples office supply contract Staples will deliver all office supplies, including paper, to the location of the ordering individual. ASD staff will phase out storage and delivery of office supplies in 2013. A limited amount of copier paper will be kept at the City warehouse for urgent needs only. 6 11/20/12 Finding 3: ASD has not effectively administered the City's office supplies contract ASD has not established effective processes and procedures to ensure the City receives contracted discounts and other key benefits, and that the office supplies contract meets the City’s business needs. 3-F ASD should develop formal procedures to effectively administer the City’s office supplies contract in order to ensure responsibility for contract administration is formally assigned, documentation of contract administration activities is retained, and contract administration is minimally impacted by staff turnover. Administrative Services Department Significant Completed 3/31/2013 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. ASD has formally assigned and documented contract administration duties and transitions those duties when there is staff transition. 2013 Management Update: Office supply contract administration duties have been assigned to a staff person in the Purchasing Division. 7 12/04/12 Finding 1: Rate Stabilization Reserves are not consistently maintained within Council‐approved guidelines. The City does not currently have a formal, comprehensive reserve policy for its utility funds. 1 The Utilities Department should establish formal and comprehensive policies and procedures for its Utility Reserves. Utilities Department Significant In Process 6/30/2013 12/31/2013 Utilities Department will establish formal and comprehensive policies and procedures for its Utility reserves. 2013 Management Update: Utilities is developing formal policies and procedures for its Utility reserves within the broader context of financial management and rate-making. The completion of the project is delayed until December 2013 due to the loss of key staff and the breadth of the project that is now being undertaken. 7 12/04/12 Finding 1: Rate Stabilization Reserves are not consistently maintained within Council‐approved guidelines. Key City documents show inconsistency in communication of the City’s reserve policy decisions. Rate Stabilization Reserve balances were often outside of Council approved guideline ranges. 2 The Utilities Department should re‐evaluate and determine the use of reserve balance guidelines, updating the City’s resolution and the language in key City documents accordingly. Utilities Department Useful In Process 6/30/2013 12/31/2013 Utilities Department will re‐evaluate and determine the use of reserve balance guidelines, updating the City’s resolution and the language to key City documents accordingly. 2013 Management Update: As part of its project to develop financial management policies and procedures, Utilities will develop reserve balance guidelines that support the rate-making objectives that are approved by the Council. Council action will be by resolution. The completion of the project is delayed until December 2013 due to the loss of key staff and the breadth of the project that is now being undertaken. 7. Utilities Reserves Audit Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 13 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 7 12/04/12 Finding 1: Rate Stabilization Reserves are not consistently maintained within Council‐approved guidelines. Although the Utilities Department performs an annual risk assessment to determine the adequacy of Rate Stabilization Reserves, there are no explicit criteria or a specified target to indicate appropriate levels of working capital. 3 The Utilities Department should revisit its annual risk assessment model to determine, establish, and document appropriate levels of utility fund working capital held in unrestricted reserves. Utilities Department Significant In Process 6/30/2013 12/31/2013 The Utilities Department will revisit its annual risk assessment model to determine, establish and document appropriate levels of utility fund working capital held in unrestricted reserves. 2013 Management Update: As part of its project to develop financial management policies and procedures, Utilities will revisit its risk assessment models and practices and make any appropriate revisions and will consider the funds available in all unrestricted reserves to support those risks. The completion of the project is delayed until December 2013 due to the loss of key staff and the breadth of the project that is now being undertaken. 7 12/04/12 Finding 1: Rate Stabilization Reserves are not consistently maintained within Council‐approved guidelines. Reserve balances are inconsistently reported and do not always reconcile, specifically excluding Capital Improvement Program (CIP) carryforward reserves. 4 The Utilities Department should revisit and update the 5‐year financial projection rate making worksheets to completely state all reserve balances consistent with the City’s key financial documents and improve visibility over all unrestricted reserves. Utilities Department Significant In Process 6/30/2013 4/30/14 The Utilities Department will revisit and update the 5‐year financial projection rate making worksheets to completely state all reserve balances consistent with the City’s key financial documents and improve visibility over all unrestricted reserves. 2013 Management Update: Utilities now reports all unrestricted reserves on a quarterly basis to the Utilities Advisory Commission and Council. When the 5-year financial forecasts and rate projections are prepared next (in early 2014 for the FY 2015 budget process), the balances of all reserves will be visible. 7 12/04/12 Finding 2: Capital Improvement Program reserves are not consistently and clearly reported to Council. The reports issued regarding CIP are not sufficient to adequately support effective financial and project planning. Improvements to the consistency and completeness of reporting CIP carryforward reserve balances could better support the City Council’s operating budget, capital budget, and reserves processes. 5 The Utilities Department should develop a mechanism to consistently and clearly report Capital Improvement Program (CIP) carryforward reserves to the oversight bodies. Utilities Department Significant Completed 6/30/2013 N/A Recommendation reported as completed. The Utilities Department will develop a mechanism to consistently and clearly report Capital Improvement Program (CIP) carryforward reserves to the oversight bodies. 2013 Management Update: As of Q3 FY 2013, Utilities has begun reporting detail on all CIP reserves on a quarterly basis to the UAC and Council. Utilities will continue to improve on these reports to provide more detail as requested. The quarterly report for Q3 FY 2013 has been finalized and goes to the UAC on July 31, 2013 and to the Council as an informational report on August 5, 2013. 8 12/11/12 Finding 4: Required documentation to verify the eligibility of dependents was not always available Required documentation to verify the eligibility of dependents for enrollment was not always available. 4 Improve dependent eligibility verification procedures to ensure that required supporting documentation is obtained, reviewed, and maintained in accordance with the CalPERS Circular Letter No. 600-045-12. Department of People Strategy and Operations (formerly Human Resources <HR>) Significant In Process 4/30/2013 Not Provided Verification procedures will be reviewed and improved to ensure that required supporting documentation is obtained and if not, medical insurance will be cancelled promptly. 2013 Management Update: Procedure document was provided to the Department of People Strategy and Operations (PSO) staff and review completed to ensure verification documentation is obtained and filed in accordance with CalPERS Circular Letter No. 600-045-12. If supporting documentation is not received, dependents will not be added to medical insurance. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the verification procedures due to insufficient supporting documentation. This recommendation will be not be considered completed until additional information is provided by the department to support the adequacy of the criteria and procedures. 8 12/11/12 Finding 5: Personally Identifiable Information (PII) has not been adequately protected and controlled PII has not been adequately protected and controlled. 5 Take applicable steps recommended by the NIST Guide to appropriately maintain the confidentiality of PII. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 6/30/2013 Not Provided The NIST guidelines have been reviewed with HR staff. An internal policy will be created. 2013 Management Update: The NIST guidelines have been reviewed with PSO staff and will be periodically reviewed. 8. Audit of Employee Health Benefits Administration Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 14 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 8 12/11/12 Finding 1: Retiree reimbursements were not accurately calculated Retiree reimbursements were not accurately calculated. Retroactive transactions are not consistently documented and processed to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the adjustments to the reimbursements. 1-A (1)Establish clear, documented procedures to ensure the accuracy of the Reimbursement Report. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 3/31/2013 8/19/2013 Written procedures on the Retiree Medical Reimbursement Report process will be created. 2013 Management Update: Procedure has been created and documented. 2013 OCA Update: The written procedures provided by the department are not adequate or sufficient to ensure the accuracy of the Reimbursement Report. Staff will respond to OCA with supplemental information by 8/19/13. 8 12/11/12 Finding 1: Retiree reimbursements were not accurately calculated Retiree reimbursements were not accurately calculated. Retroactive transactions are not consistently documented and processed to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the adjustments to the reimbursements. 1-A (2)Establish a methodology for reconciling the CalPERS billing to the Reimbursement Report and perform a monthly reconciliation to identify, track, and follow up on any discrepancies. Create and maintain common data fields among key data sources to facilitate such reconciliation in an accurate, complete, and efficient manner. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 1/31/2013 8/12/2013 HR staff will request additional resources to establish an automated methodology for reconciling the CalPERS billing to the HR Reimbursement Report, including a common data field between CalPERS and Employee Benefit Specialists (EBS). 2013 Management Update: Third party administrator (TPA) has created a methodology, including a common data field between CalPERS and EBS, to reconcile the CalPERS billing to the Reimbursement Report. Adjustments and discrepancies are identified, tracked and followed up on with notes on third party administrator monthly report. City staff reviews TPA monthly report during monthly teleconference to review retroactive transactions and notes. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the TPA methodology due to insufficient supporting documentation. Staff will request TPA to provide additional information to support the adequacy of their methodology. 8 12/11/12 Finding 1: Retiree reimbursements were not accurately calculated Retiree reimbursements were not accurately calculated. Retroactive transactions are not consistently documented and processed to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the adjustments to the reimbursements. 1-A (3)Establish criteria and a methodology for addressing, recording, and reviewing retroactive transactions in the Reimbursement Report. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 1/31/2013 8/12/2013 A methodology for recording and reviewing the monthly retroactive transactions will be developed. 2013 Management Update: Staff currently reviews CalPERS Health Event Notification Report and EBS Billing Summary Report under "Adjustment Variance Detail" and will establish methodology for maintaining record by 8/12/13. 8 12/11/12 Finding 1: Retiree reimbursements were not accurately calculated Eligibility criteria for retiree health benefits were not clearly defined and documented. FY 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) note disclosure and the retiree health eligibility information provided to the City’s actuarial firm were inaccurate. The effective implementation date of retiree health tiers is not clearly communicated to stakeholders. 1-B Enhance current procedures to ensure that the Retiree Medical Tier Matrix is maintained accurately, completely, and in an organized manner along with a complete set of the labor agreements, resolutions, and CalPERS letters. Consider making the Tier Matrix available to all business partners and stakeholders to ensure that the eligibility criteria are clearly communicated to all parties. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 1/31/2013 Not Provided Current process for maintaining Retiree Medical Tier Matrix will be improved and organized and will be available on the HR intranet site for business partners. Labor Agreements are currently available on the HR internet site. 2013 Management Update: Staff created an index to accurately and thoroughly organize documentation related to health information for eligible active employees and retirees for all bargaining units and non-represented employee group. This will be maintained as changes are adopted by Council in order to accurately maintain the Retiree Medical Tier matrix. This will be posted on City intranet site. Labor agreements are currently available on the HR internet site and will be posted no later than 30 days after Council adoption. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate that the Retiree Medical Tier Matrix is accurately maintained. The retiree medical tier information documented in the newly established procedural guidelines was incorrect, and the revised Tier Matrix itself has not been made available by the department. Staff will insert the correct tier matrix used by TPA into a procedure document and provide it to OCA. Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 15 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 8 12/11/12 Finding 1: Retiree reimbursements were not accurately calculated Eligibility criteria for retiree health benefits have not always been accurately applied in the calculation of retiree reimbursements. 1-C (1)Establish procedures for determining the health tier for each retiree and maintaining a complete and accurate record of retiree health tiers. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 2/28/2013 Not Provided A written procedure for documenting health tier as soon as a new retiree appears on CalPERS billing will be documented. 2013 Management Update: TPA is provided with new retiree information on a monthly basis along with CalPERS billing data, including the retiree's address, social security number and applicable retirement tier, determined by referencing the tier matrix guide. This new retiree enrollment report is uploaded onto the EBS secure website approximately by the 16th of each month. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the procedures for determining the health tier for each retiree and maintaining a complete and accurate record of retiree health tiers due to insufficient supporting documentation. The retiree medical tier information documented in the newly established procedural guidelines was incorrect. This recommendation will be not be considered completed until additional information is provided by the department to support the adequacy of the procedures. 8 12/11/12 Finding 1: Retiree reimbursements were not accurately calculated Eligibility criteria for retiree health benefits have not always been accurately applied in the calculation of retiree reimbursements. 1-C (2)Ensure that the tier determination is based on the hire date, retirement date, and employee group at the time of retirement as recorded in SAP and based on the Retiree Medical Tier Matrix. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 3/31/2013 Not Provided Review retirees who separated prior to SAP implementation in 2003 to ensure they are accurately recorded on Retiree Medical Tier Matrix. 2013 Management Update: Staff interviewed a third party contractor to conduct this work and received a proposal. Staff is in the process of issuing a request for proposal (RFP) for this work. 8 12/11/12 Finding 2: CalPERS billing was not adequately monitored The Human Resources Department (HRD) did not always update the CalPERS system when a change in employee group was recorded in SAP. 2-A (1)Enhance the current procedures to ensure that any changes in employment affecting the employee’s health eligibility status are accurately and consistently recorded in both SAP and CalPERS system in a timely manner. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 3/31/2013 Not Provided HR process for promotions will be updated to include recording changes in SAP as well as the CalPERS system until such time that the two systems are integrated. 2013 Management Update: The HR process for promotions and any changes in employment affecting the employee's health eligibility status have been updated to include recording changes in SAP as well as the CalPERS system until such time that the two systems are integrated and duplicative entry is no longer necessary. Staff corrected SAP health record errors found during audit. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the updated procedures due to insufficient supporting documentation. This recommendation will be not be considered completed until additional information is provided by the department to support the adequacy of the procedures. 8 12/11/12 Finding 2: CalPERS billing was not adequately monitored HRD did not always update the CalPERS system when a change in employee group was recorded in SAP. 2-A (2)Verify the accuracy of the CalPERS system record by comparing to the SAP record for each employee at the time of retirement to ensure accurate billing by CalPERS. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 3/31/2013 Not Provided A quarterly process for reviewing CalPERS billing to ensure accurate billing will be established as well as determining appropriate internal or external resources to accomplish this review. 2013 Management Update: Not yet started. 8 12/11/12 Finding 2: CalPERS billing was not adequately monitored Duplicate active employee records in the CalPERS system went undetected resulting in the City making overpayments to CalPERS. CalPERS did not have the correct formula to calculate the employer share. 2-B (1)Establish procedures for providing CalPERS with clear, written instructions for the employer share calculation on a regular basis. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 12/31/2012 Not Provided Although written instructions were provided in the past, to ensure accuracy, HR staff will provide annual instructions to CalPERS to ensure calculations are clearly understood. 2013 Management Update: Although written instructions were provided in the past, to ensure accuracy, HR staff will provide annual instructions to the CalPERS health division to ensure calculations are clearly understood. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the updated procedures due to insufficient supporting documentation. This recommendation will be not be considered completed until additional information is provided by the department to support the adequacy of the procedures. Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 16 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 8 12/11/12 Finding 2: CalPERS billing was not adequately monitored Duplicate active employee records in the CalPERS system went undetected resulting in the City making overpayments to CalPERS. CalPERS did not have the correct formula to calculate the employer share. 2-B (2)Establish monitoring procedures to ensure that the City instructions are followed by systematically reviewing the methodology applied to calculate the employer share. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 1/31/2013 Not Provided An automated methodology for reviewing the CalPERS billing calculations will be established. 2013 Management Update: An automated methodology for reviewing the CalPERS billing calculations has not been established. Staff met to discuss how automated method could be developed and determined this is not possible at this time. An alternate solution, possibly with an outside consultant will need to be identified. 8 12/11/12 Finding 3: HRD has not effectively administered the EBS contract HRD is paying for services it is not receiving. 3-A Review the EBS contract to ensure the adequacy of the contract terms and accuracy and clarity of the scope of services including the retiree tier definition. Establish monitoring procedures to ensure the contract terms remain adequate and any changes in the scope of services are documented and properly authorized in accordance with the terms and conditions under the contract. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 12/31/2012 Not Provided HR staff will review the EBS contract with the vendor to ensure the contract accurately reflects retiree tier definitions and services that can be provided given limitations in access to CalPERS records. Periodic review of the contract to ensure scope of services remains accurate will be conducted. 2013 Management Update: Reviewed scope of contract and provided retiree tier definitions. Will conduct annual review of contract terms. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the review or procedures due to insufficient supporting documentation. This recommendation will be not be considered completed until additional information is provided by the department to support the adequacy of the procedures. 8 12/11/12 Finding 3: HRD has not effectively administered the EBS contract Payment instructions to EBS are provided without adequate supporting documentation resulting in an overpayment of at least $2,148. 3-B (1)Establish recordkeeping procedures for maintaining monthly Reimbursement Reports and additional payment instructions provided to EBS along with adequate supporting documentation. Department of People Strategy and Operations Useful In Process 1/31/2013 Not Provided Recordkeeping procedures for any payment instructions and adjustments provided to EBS will be established. 2013 Management Update: Recordkeeping procedures for any payment instructions and adjustments provided to EBS have been outlined in internal staff procedural guidelines and are filed in an electronic file. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the recordkeeping procedures for maintaining additional payment instructions along with adequate supporting documentation. This recommendation will be not be considered completed until additional information is provided by the department to support the adequacy of the procedures. 8 12/11/12 Finding 3: HRD has not effectively administered the EBS contract Payment instructions to EBS are provided without adequate supporting documentation resulting in an overpayment of at least $2,148. 3-B (2)Establish review procedures to ensure accuracy and completeness of retiree reimbursements prior to instructions being provided to EBS for payment. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 12/31/2012 8/15/2013 A review process will be established to ensure retiree reimbursement instructions are complete prior to submitting to EBS for payment. 2013 Management Update: Since City staff no longer creates retiree reimbursement report, this has eliminated review procedure prior to EBS distributing payments. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the monitoring procedures to ensure accuracy and completeness of retiree reimbursements due to insufficient supporting documentation. Staff will provide additional information regarding payment instructions and outline other monitoring steps by 8/15/13. 8 12/11/12 Finding 3: HRD has not effectively administered the EBS contract Payment instructions to EBS are provided without adequate supporting documentation resulting in an overpayment of at least $2,148. 3-B (3)Request EBS to provide monthly and annual reconciliations of their check register to the Reimbursement Reports and to notify the City of any exceptions noted during the month. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 11/31/2012 Not Provided HR staff will request a monthly reconciliation of the check register and notification to the City of any exceptions noted. 2013 Management Update: HR staff requested the third party administrator to provide monthly reconciliation of the check register and to notify the City of any exceptions noted. This is reviewed during monthly teleconference meetings. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the TPA procedures due to insufficient supporting documentation. This recommendation will be not be considered completed until additional information is provided by the department to support the adequacy of the procedures. Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 17 of 18 Attachment A Rpt #Date Issued Finding Title Finding Rec #Recommendation Responsible Department Rating Current Status Original Target Date Target Date City Manager's Action Plans 8 12/11/12 Finding 3: HRD has not effectively administered the EBS contract Payment instructions to EBS are provided without adequate supporting documentation resulting in an overpayment of at least $2,148. 3-B (4)Establish procedures for reviewing the monthly reconciliations and tracking and following up on any discrepancies including returned, voided, reissued checks in a timely manner. If the exceptions require corrective actions, they should be documented and related written communication to EBS be maintained. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 2/28/2013 8/6/2013 Procedures will be established for reviewing monthly reconciliation reports, including follow up on any discrepancies and documenting corrective action. 2013 Management Update: The reconciliation report is reviewed monthly during a teleconference meeting and any discrepancies are reviewed. Documentation outlining issues and corrections is filed electronically and also noted on the summary report. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the procedures for tracking and following up on returned, voided, and reissued checks in a timely manner. Staff will provide additional information and add documentation steps to written procedures by 8/6/13. 8 12/11/12 Finding 3: HRD has not effectively administered the EBS contract HRD was not aware that 20 checks issued in 2011 remained uncashed. 3-C Work with ASD to establish procedures for handling uncashed EBS checks. Based on the procedures, formalize the EBS procedures for notifying the City of the returned or uncashed checks and how to handle them. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 2/28/2013 Not Provided HR will work with ASD to establish a procedure for EBS notification of uncashed checks and steps to follow in such circumstances. 2013 Management Update: Staff worked with ASD to create a stale dated check procedure. Steps for handling uncashed EBS checks have been established. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the TPA procedures due to insufficient supporting documentation. This recommendation will be not be considered completed until additional information is provided by the department to support the adequacy of the procedures. 8 12/11/12 Finding 3: HRD has not effectively administered the EBS contract HRD process for ensuring required 1099 tax forms are received by applicable retirees was not always complete or accurate. 3-D Establish a methodology for EBS to follow and require specific supporting documentation to be provided to HRD for review. Identify review criteria and establish procedures to verify the accuracy and completeness of the EBS services provided for Form 1099 issuance. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 12/31/2012 Not Provided Recordkeeping procedures will be established to ensure EBS accurately issues 1099 forms to retirees who have not submitted substantiation forms and at the same time, accurately documents forms received. 2013 Management Update: Recordkeeping procedures to ensure EBS accurately issues 1099 forms to retirees who do not submit substantiation forms have been established with EBS. A tracking spreadsheet located on the EBS site was created, accurately reflecting 1099 issuance based on forms not received. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the review criteria or procedures due to insufficient supporting documentation. Staff will provide a substantiation tracking report for OCA review and monitoring steps will be added to the written procedure document. 8 12/11/12 Finding 3: HRD has not effectively administered the EBS contract Inadequate review of EBS invoices left invoicing errors undetected. 3-E Establish procedures to review EBS invoices to ensure the accuracy of the EBS billing. Review should include reconciliation of the invoice to the actual services provided. Department of People Strategy and Operations Significant In Process 2/28/2013 Not Provided Procedure for reviewing EBS invoices will be created to ensure accuracy of EBS billing and completion of services. 2013 Management Update: A procedure for reviewing EBS invoices by an Assistant Director, PSO or appropriate designee has been created to ensure accuracy of EBS billing, including reconciliation with checks and Automated Clearing House (ACH) transactions completed and other services within the scope of the contract. Invoice copies are maintained in electronic files. 2013 OCA Update: OCA could not validate the adequacy of the review procedures due to insufficient supporting documentation. This recommendation will be not be considered completed until additional information is provided by the department to support the adequacy of the criteria and procedures. Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations as of June 30, 2013 18 of 18 Attachment A POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE EXCERPT Page 1 of 7 Special Meeting September 10, 2013 Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations (June 2013). Jim Pelletier, City Auditor, reported on the status of audit recommendations as required by the Municipal Code. Sixty-seven audit recommendations from eight completed reports were available, 27 of which were included in the prior status report. The Auditor's Office provided the recommendations and an action plan. The report indicated the items not completed by the original due date provided by the department. Council Member Klein noted many recommendations directed to the Human Resources (HR) Department regarding recordkeeping for retirement and healthcare plans. He inquired about actions being taken in response to the recommendations. Kathy Shen, Director of Human Resources, indicated the Department was documenting all recommendations. The Department was developing procedures for reimbursing retirees and updating the retirement tiers. A regular monthly schedule was in place to compare reports from Employee Benefit Specialists (EBS), SAP and California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). She was recruiting for a benefits manager who would focus on the processes. Council Member Klein believed the reconciliation could be computerized. Ms. Shen was reviewing the use of SAP for HR purposes and the possible purchase of software to create reports. Software could make the reconciliation easier. Council Member Klein asked why the SAP system did not synchronize with the CalPERS system. Ms. Shen reported CalPERS utilized a different program. Her Department needed new software to compare the reports from SAP and CalPERS. Council Member Klein requested Mr. Reichental comment on the synchronization of software. Attachment B EXCERPT Page 2 of 7 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Excerpt Item 2: 09/10/2013 Jonathan Reichental, Chief Information Officer, indicated current software was designed to interplay; however, the City was using older software. New software appeared to be the right solution. David Ramberg, Assistant Director of Administrative Services, reported within the past year CalPERS opened a portal that allowed Staff to securely upload employee information. That was not the same as synchronization of information; however, CalPERS was gradually making improvements that allowed Staff to communicate with their data files. Council Member Holman inquired about other cities' solutions to interface with CalPERS. The addition of new software appeared to be adding another layer of technology. Ms. Shen stated the new software would allow Staff to create reports from SAP but was not an add-on to SAP. Some cities utilized a manual process, similar to the City's process, to interface with CalPERS; some cities utilized EBS as a third-party administrator. Council Member Holman inquired whether EBS should be utilized. Ms. Shen replied yes. EBS wrote the checks and performed the reconciliation with CalPERS. She intended to request the new benefits manager create a strategy for outsourcing services. Council Member Klein inquired whether the Council should make these problems known to the State Government. It was incredible that CalPERS did not have a method to interface with cities. Mr. Reichental agreed to review the CalPERS system for additional information. Chair Price did not know if the League of California Cities (LCC) or CalPERS had a technical division that could converse with the entities using CalPERS. Cities could be vulnerable with respect to application of formulas and amounts issued to individuals. She inquired about the lack of target dates for many items. Ms. Shen explained her Department was short four employees but was working toward a full Staff by the end of 2013. Having a Benefits Manager would help with the process. Cities in the Bay Area were having similar issues with CalPERS technology. Attachment B EXCERPT Page 3 of 7 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Excerpt Item 2: 09/10/2013 Chair Price agreed with Council Member Klein regarding a discussion with State Government. She asked if Staff was working on the recommendations while searching for a Benefits Manager. Ms. Shen noted Sandra Blanch; the Assistant Director of Human Resources was working on the documentation plan. Ms. Blanch requested a working session with EBS and the Auditor's Office to determine the documentation needed to satisfy the Auditor's Office. Chair Price inquired whether Staff training and support was needed to better coordinate efforts. Ms. Shen answered yes. A Benefits Manager was needed to help with strategy and efficiency. Council Member Holman requested an estimation of the percentage of items completed. Ms. Shen reported most of the items were almost complete, if not complete. She needed to know the information the Auditor needed in order to close out items. She could return with a report of the items open and closed or a percentage of items completed. Council Member Holman inquired about Ms. Shen's comment that some items could not be closed for a few years. Ms. Shen meant that it would be a few years before the issue of the HR information system could be resolved. Most items could be addressed by the end of 2013. Council Member Holman asked if two years was a realistic timeframe to identify and correct the information system issue. Mr. Reichental reported the Information Technology (IT) Department would begin evaluating the SAP system in a few weeks. In the first half of 2014 he would have a better idea of whether a SAP upgrade or new HR software would be appropriate for the City. A two-year timeframe to resolve issues was not unreasonable. The problem was not only choosing and implementing software but also integrating processes and training Staff. Council Member Holman was hoping the timeframe would be closer to a year because of the length of time items remained open. She asked if Attachment B EXCERPT Page 4 of 7 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Excerpt Item 2: 09/10/2013 Mr. Reichental had any knowledge of whether LCC had tools or communication to work with CalPERS. Mr. Reichental would follow up on that issue. Mr. Pelletier indicated the HR Department had some critical risks that needed to be addressed. The Department needed to understand and prioritize risks and determine temporary fixes while waiting for a final solution. With temporary fixes in place, the Auditor's Office could close items. He was looking for accuracy and completeness in the responses in order to work with the HR Department. Council Member Holman inquired whether there was a method to prioritize the items for the HR Department. Mr. Pelletier prioritized items by including them in the audit report. The next step was for Ms. Shen to prioritize them for her department. Ms. Shen felt the priority was ensuring retirees received the correct reimbursement. The second priority was internal recordkeeping. Many of the items concerned reimbursement or documentation of tiers. New software would help; however, new procedures would increase accuracy. She needed help from the Auditor's Office to understand when an item could be deemed closed. Council Member Klein did not understand why the State Government's technology was not as accurate and efficient as the Federal Government's technology. He asked if the Auditor considered whether deficiencies were attributable to CalPERS and how the City's problems compared to other cities' problems. Mr. Pelletier knew CalPERS had problems with technology. The audit reviewed items the City could control. The manual processes did not produce accurate results. Council Member Klein inquired whether City processes regarding the Federal Government produced accurate results. Mr. Pelletier explained the processes for the Federal Government were different. Council Member Klein asked how the interaction was different. Attachment B EXCERPT Page 5 of 7 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Excerpt Item 2: 09/10/2013 Mr. Pelletier indicated the process was different and a different department processed payroll. Benefits administration was a specialized area and the City had a complex multi-tiered structure that required multiple modes of interacting with CalPERS. Council Member Klein requested a comparison of the City's deficiencies with other cities' deficiencies. Mr. Pelletier was unsure how he would audit in terms of other cities' procedures. Part of the process relied on the City to perform reconciliations to ensure the data was correct and to input data into the system correctly. Staff had the responsibility of reviewing CalPERS reports for accuracy and reconciling those reports with City data. The audit focused on the responsibilities and processes under the City's control. Improving City processes could make the process better. CalPERS could also make improvements; however, that was outside the scope of the audit. Council Member Klein expressed concern about City Staff having to perform reconciliations. He questioned why CalPERS did not accept the City's data at face value. Ms. Shen reported CalPERS did not administer the plans. She agreed with Mr. Pelletier's comment that the City had to reconcile data properly and pay retirees properly. Staff had to perform those reconciliations because CalPERS did not administer their own plans. Mr. Pelletier added that CalPERS only managed the minimum contribution and the City was responsible for reimbursing employees. Council Member Klein inquired about the number of tiers in the City's plan. Ms. Shen replied there were five tiers. Council Member Klein felt it would be useful for the Council to have a report from Ms. Shen. Chair Price observed other cities had a variety of tiers. The problem included issues all cities were having with CalPERS and successful practices of other cities to manage data with CalPERS. Someone must have information about successful practices in other cities. Mr. Pelletier explained that processes became too complex for CalPERS' abilities to handle the information. Attachment B EXCERPT Page 6 of 7 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Excerpt Item 2: 09/10/2013 Chair Price felt the City's situation was not unique. Mr. Pelletier agreed other cities were in the same situation. Pam Antil, Assistant City Manager, suggested Chair Price was inquiring whether Staff consulted with other cities about similar problems and whether there were solutions. Ms. Shen reported cities in similar situations were also performing manual reconciliation. There were no best practices she was aware of. She wanted to release a bid for a vendor who could handle all aspects of benefits. Chair Price believed there would be financial implications for funding the different options. Council Member Holman inquired about the employee ethics policy. Ms. Antil recalled at the prior meeting Staff indicated they were updating the ethics policy. Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff received outside assistance with updating the ethics policy. Ms. Antil replied no, Staff was revising the policy internally. Council Member Holman felt the advantage of using an outside contractor was their experience with many different entities. Ms. Antil reported Staff had employee ethics policies from various cities and from the private sector. Those policies were similar and covered core areas. Some aspects of the ethics policies existed in other City policies. Staff could have an outside vendor work on the ethics policy if the Council directed. Council Member Holman inquired whether the policies from other entities were current. Ms. Antil indicated some of the policies were current. Staff wanted to include some language concerning use of social media and images. Staff was working to ensure the new policy did not conflict with or duplicate existing policies. Council Member Holman noted the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) had its own code of ethics and asked if the proposed ethics policy would incorporate the AICP code of ethics. Attachment B EXCERPT Page 7 of 7 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Excerpt Item 2: 09/10/2013 Ms. Antil noted several professional organizations had codes of conduct. Language could be included in the ethics policy regarding incorporation of professional ethics. Incorporating ethics from all professional organizations would make the policy too large. In addition, those policies would not apply to all employees. Council Member Holman asked how the proposed ethics policy would be presented to the Council to allow the Council to interpret and evaluate it. Ms. Antil stated Staff was assigned to present an employee ethics policy. It could be implemented by the City Manager rather than by Council adoption. It was acceptable to have separate ethics policies for employees and elected and appointed officials. Staff could provide the Council with samples from various ethics policies for comparison. Council Member Holman suggested Staff indicate whether policies were appropriate for employees or for the City as a whole. Chair Price inquired about the participants in the SAP team. Mr. Reichental reported that the SAP team was comprised of individuals from departments across the City. Mr. Ramberg indicated the Administrative Services Department (ASD) managed all of the SAP footprint for the first two years but now only managed the functional or business process side. ASD ensured the business processes were operating correctly throughout the City and worked with the IT Department to make adjustments to those processes as needed. Members of ASD participated in the SAP team and SAP Program Management Office. Chair Price believed there was a considerable amount of attention on SAP at the current time. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to recommend the City Council recommend the City Council accept the Report on the Status of Audit Recommendations (June 2013) MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Kniss absent Attachment B CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR October 21, 2013 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Policy and Services Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2013 The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2013. At its meeting on September 10, 2013, the Policy and Services Committee approved and unanimously recommended the City Council accept the report. The Policy and Services Committee minutes are included in this packet. Respectfully submitted, Houman Boussina Acting City Auditor ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2013 (PDF) Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (September 10, 2013) (PDF) Department Head: Houman Boussina, Acting City Auditor Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR September 10, 2013 The Honorable City Council Attention: Policy & Services Committee Palo Alto, California Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2013 RECOMMENDATION The City Auditor’s Office recommends the Policy and Services Committee review and recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2013. SUMMARY OF RESULTS In accordance with the Municipal Code, the City Auditor prepares an annual work plan and issues quarterly reports to the City Council describing the status and progress towards completion of the work plan. This report provides the City Council with an update on the fourth quarter for FY 2013. Respectfully submitted, Jim Pelletier City Auditor ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2013 (PDF) Department Head: Jim Pelletier, City Auditor Attachment A Page 2 Attachment A “Promoting honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable city government." Attachment A 2 FY 2013 Fourth Quarter Update Overview The audit function is essential to the City of Palo Alto’s public accountability. The Office of the City Auditor’s independence and accountability, mandated by the City Charter and Municipal Code, means the public, the Council, and City staff can rely on us for objective information and practical advice. We thoroughly review and analyze City performance to give you the information you need about complex and difficult issues. Taking action on our audit recommendations will help the City to reduce risks and protect its good reputation. Audits Below is a summary of our Audit work for the fourth quarter of FY 2013 (as of June 30, 2013): Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments SAM – Cash Handling This Special Advisory Memorandum (SAM) is a non-audit service being provided by the City Auditor’s Office. The Office is working closely with ASD staff and certain departments to identify and fix gaps on the City’s cash handling policies and procedures. 2/2013 4/2013 Complete Based on our review of City policies and procedures, we identified some gaps between the current City requirements and controls commonly expected to be in place to mitigate the associated risks. We provided that was developed to document expected cash handling controls that include controls required by ASD as well as additional controls identified by OCA. SAM - Follow Up to the 2008 Audit of Employee Ethics Policies and Results of 2013 Ethical Climate Survey Update relating to the 2008 Audit of Employee Ethics Policies. Additionally, communication of the results of an Ethical Climate Survey conducted by my office in May 2013. The objective of this survey was to understand how City employees view ethics at work and identify any ethics related risks that may need to be addressed. 5/2013 7/2013 In Process TBD Attachment A 3 Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments Inventory Management (formerly Utilities Asset Management) Specific concerns regarding the effective and efficient safeguarding of certain assets were identified during the Risk Assessment process. This audit will follow up on those concerns and assess the adequacy of controls over Utilities assets including compliance with relevant policies and the Municipal Code. 2/2013 9/2013 In Process TBD Utilities Contract Oversight This is a new audit created as a result of a hotline investigation. The audit reviews the efficiency and effectiveness of controls over certain Utilities’ contracts. 1/2013 9/2013 In Process TBD Solid Waste Program Determine whether there are adequate controls in place to effectively manage the City’s Solid Waste Program to ensure sufficient revenue to recover the cost of services while pursuing zero waste goals in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and City policies and procedures. 5/2013 11/2013 In Process TBD Attachment A 4 Other Monitoring and Administrative Assignments Below is a summary of Other Assignments as of the fourth quarter of FY 2013 (as of June 30, 2013): Title Objective(s) Status Results/Comments Sales and Use Tax Allocation Reviews The OCA conducts sales and use tax monitoring in-house and also contracts with an outside vendor. Ongoing The OCA continues to submit inquiries to the State Board of Equalization. As of the end of the fourth quarter, the City received $130,760 in total Sales and Use Tax Recoveries, including an additional $20,393 in recoveries related to new businesses. Also, due to processing lags at the State Board of Equalization, there are 38 potential misallocations waiting to be researched and processed (17 from OCA and 21 from the vendor). Total Sales and Use Tax Recoveries: FY 2013 ($59,724 from OCA inquiries and $71,036 from vendor inquiries). Quarterly Reporting Each quarter, the OCA prepares Quarterly Status Updates and Sales Tax Digest Summaries for Council review. Ongoing N/A City Auditor Advisory Roles Provide guidance and advice to key governance committees within the City. Ongoing The City Auditor is an advisor to the following: Utilities Risk Oversight Committee, the Library Bond Oversight Committee, the Information Technology Governance Review Board, and the Information Security Steering Committee. Attachment A 5 Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration On August 16, 2012, we launched the City’s Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline. Below is a summary of Hotline Activity as of the fourth quarter of FY 2013 (as of June 30, 2013): Complaint Number Category Status Action Taken 1 Inquiry Closed Inquiry answered – No Further Action 2 Improper Receipt of Gifts, Favors, or Money Closed Unsubstantiated - Closed 3 Substance Abuse Closed Unsubstantiated – Referred for Further Action1 4 Bribery/Kickbacks Open Investigation in Progress 5 Policy Violation/Theft of Time Open Investigation in Progress 6 Bribery/Kickbacks, Theft, Inappropriate Behavior Closed Unsubstantiated – Closed 7 Policy Violation/Theft of Time Open Investigation in Progress 8 Hostile Work Environment Closed Unsubstantiated - Closed 1 While the allegations made in this case were found to be unsubstantiated, the Human Resources Department took action to clarify the related policy. Attachment A POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE EXCERPT Page 1 of 2 Special Meeting September 10, 2013 Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2013. Jim Pelletier, City Auditor, reported the Auditor's Office worked on the Special Advisory Memorandum regarding cash handling, an audit of supporting ethics policies and results of the 2013 Ethical Climate Survey, an audit of inventory management, and an audit of the Utilities Contract Oversight. The Utilities Contract Oversight audit would be presented to Council in a few weeks. Staff was beginning a preliminary draft of the inventory management audit. The audit of the Solid Waste Program remained in process with a projected completion date of November 2013. Recovery of sales and use taxes for the year totaled $59,700 from Staff inquiries and $71,000 from vendor inquiries. The Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline received eight calls since its inception. Three items remained open; one item was being closed; and two items were passed to Human Resources for investigation. Council Member Klein requested more information regarding reports of fraud and abuse with respect to substantiation of information. Mr. Pelletier indicated Staff reviewed the specific allegations made in the calls. If the call provided insufficient information for Staff to investigate an allegation they would place questions in the system for the caller to answer if he/she called again regarding the original call. If no additional information was provided, Staff could not investigate. For other calls, Staff would begin their investigation and find there was no evidence to support an allegation. Those calls were noted as unsubstantiated and were closed. Council Member Klein wanted to understand if the allegations were frivolous. Mr. Pelletier stated Staff seriously considered all allegations, but investigated the more serious ones. One investigation determined that an employee accepted a gift of approximately $20. Staff's recommendation was to retrain the employee regarding City policies. The allegation of kickback and/or bribery was serious; however, the investigation determined the allegation was not a major concern. Attachment B EXCERPT Page 2 of 2 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting Excerpt Item 1: 09/10/2013 Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff received allegations but could not obtain sufficient information to determine the seriousness of the allegations. In addition, she inquired whether a call could lead Staff to review a broader array of allegations. Mr. Pelletier explained the first consideration was whether the caller provided sufficient information for Staff to initiate an investigation. Staff attempted to follow-up with the caller via the system, but did not directly contact the caller in order to maintain anonymity. Generally Staff received access to information once a department was aware of an investigation. At times, allegations did lead to a broader investigation. In response to the most recent investigation, a separate audit into contracting practices was initiated. Staff investigated the allegations and performed the audit in parallel in an attempt to minimize the impact to the department. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to recommend the City Council accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of June 30, 2013. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Kniss absent Attachment B City of Palo Alto (ID # 4101) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/21/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Utility SCADA Server & Work Station Replacement Title: Approval of a Utilities Enterprise Fund Contract with Efacec Advanced Control Systems, Inc. in the Amount of $107,647 for Software and Hardware Support Services for the City's Utility SCADA System (EL-02010) and 10% Contingency of $10,700 for Related, but Unforeseen Work; for a Total Authorized Amount of $118,347 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Efacec Advanced Control Systems, Inc. (“Efacec ACS”) in the amount of $107,647 for software and hardware support services for the City’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCADA system. Staff also recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Efacec ACS for additional related, but unforeseen, work which may develop during the project, the total of which shall not exceed $10,700, equal to ten percent of the contract amount. Staff is therefore requesting a total authorization amount of $118,347 to cover the contract amount of $107,647 plus a 10% contingency amount of $10,700. Project Description The City’s SCADA system is used for real time monitoring of conditions and alerts to problems on the Electric, Gas and Water utility systems, and is critical for providing safe, reliable service to utility customers. The software and hardware support work to be performed under this contract includes replacement of the SCADA system’s servers, software and Utility Control Center (“UCC”) Operator Work Stations, software licenses, equipment upgrades and City of Palo Alto Page 2 performance testing and adjustments as needed to complete the upgrade. The work is necessary because the SCADA system servers must be upgraded on a periodic basis in order to ensure the reliable operation of the City’s Utility SCADA system. The existing servers were last replaced in 2008 and are beyond their recommended useful life. Staff estimates that this project will keep the SCADA system operating reliably for up to 5 years. Summary of Bid Process Maintenance of the current system is covered by an annual maintenance support agreement with Efacec ACS, which is managed by the IT Department. The annual maintenance agreement only provides for software updates, diagnostics and other support services necessary to keep the existing equipment operating efficiently; it does not cover the cost of replacing or upgrading the existing hardware or new software which was not previously licensed. There will be no charges or fees associated with reinstalling existing software already licensed and supported under the current annual maintenance support agreement. Utilities staff is therefore requesting a separate contract to cover this SCADA system upgrade. Efacec ACS is the only company with a history of both maintaining and providing services to their proprietary SCADA system used by the City. There is no other vendor who can provide this upgrade while continuing to offer integrated support and software upgrades for the current system. For this reason, staff recommends awarding a sole source contract to Efacec ACS as authorized by Section 2.30.360(d) of the City’s Municipal Code. Staff requested and received departmental level approval for a sole source contract with Efacec ACS on August 20, 2013. Utilities staff negotiated the proposed contract scope and price with Efacec ACS on March 13, 2013. The bid is 7.6 percent above staff’s original 2012 estimate of $100,000. Resource Impact Funding for this project is available in CIP Project EL-02010 FY2013-2014. This action will require approximately 100 hours of Utilities staff time, but the majority of work will be performed by Efacec ACS. Policy Implications The approval of this contract is consistent with existing City policies, including the Council- approved Utilities Strategic Plan to operate the system safely and replace infrastructure before the end of its useful life. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Environmental Review Environmental review of Council’s approval of this contract is not required, because the hardware and software support services to be provided do not meet the California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) definition of a “project” pursuantto Public Resources Code Section 21065. Attachments: Attachment A: Contract No. C14151100 Efacec (PDF) CITY OF PALO. ALTO. Co.NTRACT NO.. C141S1100 GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on October 21, 2013, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO,. Cnlifornla Chartered Municipal Corporation ("CITY"), and EFACEC, ADVANCED CONTROL SYSTEMS INC, a Georgia corporation, located at 2755 Northwoods Parkway, Norcross, Georgia, 30071. Telephone Number: 770-446-8854 ("CONTRACTOR"). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or ti.lmish the services ("Services") described in the Scope of Services, attached as Exhibit A. 2. EXHLBITS. The following exhibits arc attached to and made a part of this Agreemont: I81 "A II • Scope of Services [8J "8" -Schedule of Perfom18nce [8] "C" -Compensation ~ "D'~ -Insurance Requirements o "E" -Performance andlor Payment Bon.d o "F" -Liquidated Damages CONTRACT IS NOTCOMPLETf'.lJNLf'.SS A.LL £)(IfIBITS ARE ATTACHED. 3. TERM. The term of this Agreement is fTom October 21,2013 to April 30,2014 inclusive, subject to the provisions of Sections Q and V of the General Tenns and Conditions. 4. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term ofihis Agreement in Il reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set fonh in the Schedule ofPerfonnance, attached as Exhibit B. Time is of the essence ill this Agreement. S. COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY sball pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept as not to exceed compensation for the full performance of the Sorvices and reimbursable expenses, if any: o The total maximum lump sum compensation of dollars ($ ); OR The sum of amount of dollars ($ dollars ($ ) per hour, not to exceed a total maximum comp'ensalion ); OR A slim calculated ill accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amOuh[ of One Hundred Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty Seven dollars ($107,647.00). CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a lOla I exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for perform ... oe of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY. jgj The City has set aside the sum of Ten Thousand Seven Hundred doUars ($10,700.00) for Additional Services. CONTRACTOR shall provide Additional Services only by advanced, written authorization from the Ciiy Manager Or designee. CONTRACTOR,.t the CITY's request, Rev. July 11,2011 shall submit a detailed writtcn proposal including a description of the scope of services~ schedule, level of effOTt, and CONTRACTOR's proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services. Compensation shall be based On the hourly rotes set forth above Or in Exhibit C (whichever is applicable), or if such rates are not applicable, ~ negotiated lump sum. CITY shall not authorize and CONTRACTOR shall not pel'fOml any Additional Services for whicb payment would exceed the amount set forth above for Addition'al Sel'Vices. Payment for Additional Services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. 6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAl. TERMS, I CONTRACTOR'S compensation rales for each additional term shall be the same as the original term; OR CONTRACTOR's compensation rates shall be adjusted effective on the commencement of each Additional Term. The lump sum compensation amount, hourly rates, or fees, whichever is applicable as set forth in section 5 above, shall be adjusted by a percentage equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San FI~llcisco Oakland-San Jose area, published by the United States Depmtment of Labor Statistics (CPI) which is published most immediately preceding the commencemenl of the applicable Additional Term, which shall be compared with the (PI published most immediately preceding the c.ommencemont date of the then expiring tenn. Not>.vithstanding the foregoing, in no event shaH CONTRACTOR's compensation rales be increased by an amount exceeding five percent of the rat .. effeclive during the immediately preceding term. Any adjustment to CONTRACTOR's compensation rates shall be reflected in a written amc~dment to this Agreement. 7_ INVOICING. Send all invoices to the CITY, Attention; Project Manager. The Projcci Manager is: K.B. Paige, Dept.: Information Technology, Telephone: 650-329-2284. Invoices' shall be submitted in arrearS for Services performed. Invoices shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY. CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices wilhin 30 days of receipt. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITlONS A, ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to .lItorms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and conditions set forth in sections I through 6 above, these general tenns and conditions and the attached exhibits. B_ QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represenls and warrants that ii has the expertise and qualifications to complete the services described in Section I of this Agreement. entitled "SERVICES," and thm every individual charged with the performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficienl skill and experience and is duly licensed or certified! to the extent such hcensing Or certification is required by law, to perfoml the Services. CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR's representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally accepted busines~ practices and pcrfonnance standards of the industry, in"eluding all federal? state, and local operation and safety regulations. C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any pelSon employed by CONTRACTOR shall al all tillles be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and nol an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or eng~ging all persons necessary to complete the work required under this Agreement. D_ SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may noi use subcontractorS to perform any Sel'Vices under this Agreeinent unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior wrillen consent of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. Rev, My II. 2011 E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTO~ shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR's business. F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the perfomlance of the Services comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, nrdinances, regulations, Md orde,·s. G. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole exponse, repair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct, any damage to public or private' property that occurs in connection with CONTRACTOR's perfonnallco of the Services. CITY may decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole or in part to such extent as may be necessary to protect CITY from loss because of defective work not remedied Or other damage to the CITY occutl'ing in conneotion with CONTRACTOR's performance of the Services. CITY shall submit written documentation in support of such withholding upon CONTRACTOR's request. When the grounds described above are removed, payment shall be made for amounts withheld because of them. H. WARRANTIES. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all services provided under this Agreement shall be perfom1ed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with generally accepted business practices and perfonnance standards of the industry and the requirements of this· AgreemenL CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all materials, goodS and equipment provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall be fit for the particular purpose intended, shall be free from defects, and shall oonfonn to the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly replace or correct any material or service not in compliance with these warranties, including incomplete, inaccurate, or defective material or service,'at no further cost to CITY. The warranties set fOrjh in this section shall be in effect for a period of one year from completion of the Servic.es and shall survive th~ completion of the S~rvices Or termination of this Agreement. I. MONITORING OF SERVICES, CITY may monitor the Services perfomled under this Agreement to detennine whether CONTRACTOR's work is completed in a satisfactory manner and complies with the proviS.ions of this Agreement. ,J. CITY'S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data Or other material (including copyright interests) developed. collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be prepared under this Agreement will become the property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use and will not be made available to any individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without the prior written approval of the City Manager. K. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to penni! CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the tenn of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the dote of final payment, CONTRACTOR's records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least three (3) following the tenns of this Agreement. L. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment. partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall op"'ate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. M, INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full force during the tenn of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in E~hibit D. InsurMce must be provided by compMies with a Best's Key rating of A·:VII or higher and which are otherwise acceptable to the City'S Risk Manager. The City's Risk Manager must approve deductibles Md self-inSured retentions. In addition, all policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by the Risk Manager as to fonn and cOn ten!. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured under My general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR shall obtain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be oanceled or materially reduced in coverage or limits until after providing 30 days prior wtitten notice of the cancellation or modification to the City's Risk Manager. CON'fRACTOR shall provide certificates of such policies nr other evidence of coverage satisfactory to CITY's Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and evidence of payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and shall throughout the tem of this Agreement provide current certificates evidencing the required insur.ance coverages and endorsements to the CITY's Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall includc all subcontractors as insured Rev. July 11,2011 under its policies or shall obtain and provide to CITY separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor that meet all the requirements of this sectioo. The procuring of such required policies of insurance shall not operate to limit CONT~CTOR's liability or obligation to indemnify CITY under this Agreement. N. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without limitation by the provisions of section M relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members,. officers, employees Ell1d ·agents from and against any and all demands, clairtls, injuries, losses, or liabilities of any nature, including dcath or injury to any persOll, property damage or any other loss and inCluding without limitation all damages. penalties, fines and judgments, associated investigation and administrativc cxpenses and defense COS1S, including, but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees, couns costs and costs of alternative dispute reSOlution), arising out of, or resulting in any way from Or in connection with the performance 01' this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR's obligations under this Sec.tion apply regardless ofwhethet Or not a liability is caused or contributed to by any negligent (passive or active) act Or omission of CITY. except that the CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnitY for liability arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY. The acceptance of the Services by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemni'fication. The provisions of this Section survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Contract. O. NON-DISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONTRACTOR certmes that in the performance of this Agreement, it shail not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race., skin color, gender, age, religion~ disability, national ori·gin. ancestry, se>"''lJal orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such perSOn. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2,30.510 of the ralo Alto Municipal Code relating to NondiscriminRtion Requirement<; and the penalties for violRtion thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 p.ertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. P. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in Rccordance with the provisions of that Code, and certiftes that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and during the performance of the Services. Q. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving ten (10) days' prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreemen~ in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City Manager may tenninate this Agreement immediately upon written notice of tennination. Upon receipt of such notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY, CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily perfurmed up to the effective date of termination. If the termination if for cause, CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual damage. if any, sustained by CITY due to Contractor's failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement, UpOn termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver to the City ManageI' any and all copies of studios. sketches, drawings, computations, and other material or products, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR or given to CONTRACTOR, in connection with this Agreement. Such triaterials shall become the property of CITY. R. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the· parties· and their sucCessors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written consent of the CITY. No amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written consent of the CITY . S. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Contract, CONTRACTOR further covcnants tha~ in the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any person having such an Interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no City Officer, employee, Or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and th.t nO person associated with controctor has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees to advise CITY i'fany conflict arises. RC\I. July II, 21)11 T. GOVERNING LAW. This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of California. U. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement. including all exhibits,. represents the entire agreement between the panies with respect to the serVices that may be the subject Oflhis Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls ovor any c<;mflicting provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written, V. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Mun.icipal Code. This Agreement will tenninate wiihout any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year irt the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event th~t funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event ofa conflict with any other covenant, tenn, condition, or provision of this Contract. W. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the City's Environment~lIy Preferred Purchasing policies which arc available at the City's Purchasing Department which are incorporated by reference Md may be amended from time to time. CONTRACTOR shall comply with waste reduction. reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City'S Zero Waste Progt·am. Zero Waste bcst practices include first minimizing and reducing waSle; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Contractor shall comply with the foll owing zero waste requirements: • All printed materials provided by Contractor to City generated tTom 8 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 gre~tE:r post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional print"ing ~ompany shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable ba •• d inks. • Goods purchased by Contractor on behalf of the City shall be purchased in accordance with the City's Environmenta1 Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A eepy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Ollice. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Contractor, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Contractor shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallots to verify that pallets are not being disposed. X. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so 011 behalf of their respective legal entiti.es. V. CONTRACT TERMS: All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Contract IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties horeto have by their duly authorized reprcsentatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO EFACEC ADVANCED CONTROL SYSTEMS By iJ'tJ)fJC City Manager Name fel!! 'f\ k ).". Su.bk '\-.4- Title if S«!~5 ~ y)'\ac-ke..i,~_ Approve as to Form Rev. July 1 l. 20 II EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Under Ihe lerms and condiiions of this General Services Agreemenl, C141511 00, Efacec Advanced Conlrol System" (CONTRACTOR) shall conlinue to provide the following software and hardware support services for the CitY's SCADA 's System: Date: September 201 2013 ACS Quotes: 1]·0244 ft 1]·0246 Customer P.O. or Contract #: ACS Payment 20% Due at Receipt of Order F.O.e, (X) Norcross Schedule: 33% Due at Receipt of Hardware at ACS Factory Ship Via: Best Way 35% Due at Delivery of System f(om ACS Factory 10% Due at Customer AcCeptance of system, or 90 Days after system dellvery Customer Requested Date: Sales Tax %: Not Included ACS Estimated Shipping Date: 120 Days ARO Shipping Charges: Invoice at Cost. {de~eodi[!s QO ~~ EA£Sg!Y ~chedul~ at time of order} minimum of S20 Item I Qty I Description Unit Price I Total Scope of Work for S~tem Upgrade of PRISM Linux system 1 PRISM SCADA Moster 2 HP ProLiant DL3BO G7 Server equipped With: Intet X.on ES649 (1 P·6C, 2.53 GHz, BOW) proce"or 16GB 4 x.4GB PC3·10600E 2~.nk memory Two (2) 300GB 6G SAS 15k 2.5" HD, 512MB Flash DVD·RW drive Two (2)10/100/1000 NIC Raid 1 Confjgurat1on Red Hat Enterprise linux v5 ES 2 PRISM Historfan Sel"Vel' 1 HP ProLiant DL380 G7 Server equipped with: Intel Xeon ES649 (1 P·6C, 2.53 GHz', 80W) processor 16GB 4 x 4GB PC3·106ooE 2Ronk ",emory Six (6) 300GB 6G SAS 15k 2S' HD, 512MB Flosh DVD·RW drive Two (2)10/100/1000 NIC Raid 5 Configuration Red Hat Enterprise Unux v5 ES 3 PRISM Report Server' 1 HP ProLiant Dl380 G7 Server equipped with: Intel Xeon ES649 (1 P·6C, 2.53 GHz, BOW) processor 2 x 4GB (2Rx4) PC3·10600R·9 memory Two (2) 300GB 6G 15K rpm SAS 2.5" DP HDD, Roid 1 DVD·RW drlvo Two (2)10/100/1000 NIC Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Std Ed Roy. July 11.2011 Item Qty Description Unit Price Total 4 Operator / Dispatch Workstation 3 HP 1.620 PC workstation (or equivalent) configured w1th: Intel Xeon E5-2630 (6(. 2.4GHz. 12MB/H)l) processor 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3·1333 ECC memory Two (2) 600GB 15k ill disk drives LSI 9212-41 4-port SPS/SATA drive conuolter card 16x DVO+/-RW drive NVIOIA QuadrO NVS 4SO 512MB graphics card USB standard k!!yboard and optical scroll mouse Red Hat Enterprise Llnux v5 Workstation Opt1on 5 Monitors for Workstation!. b 24" LCD monitors b N@otwork and Miscellaneou~ Hardware 2 Network Switch with 10/100/1000BaseT ports 1 Lot PRIs.v. Linux Restore Plus 1 Lot Cables and miscellaneous hardware for system integration in equipment cabinets. 7 Exlstfng Equipment Based on ACS drawings, the existing system currently has (2) PCls, (2) Equinox Hubs, a ,yPN router, and a peripheral switch B Existing PRISM Software L.icenses Lot The fol(owlng system software will be upgraded to the latest revision of ACS software (r~lslon 10 for Llnux) per the customer"s full support agreement. Redunda:nt PRISM SCADA. Standard Vector Graphics System, Dynamic Mapboard Driver, Distributed Database/OJ Open Office, ePRISM, Short Term LOlld Forecasting, Web Portal with 6usiness Oblects, Oiael!! 9 Upgrade PRISM R.eport Serveor Software (Portal) 1 PRISM Report Sel'Ver Licenses: 51+ Users · Report Server · Web R'eports (tabular, Xtab, Charts. etc) · Report Schedulei (Emall, Yersioning) · Application Server Report Dashboard 10 New PRISM Web Service Gataway Software 1 PRISM Web Service GlIteway Server Ucense ·includes: Application is licensed for a NISC OMS Interface Application is licensed for Status/Telemetry Application is licensed for. a sIngle PRISM Node Rev. July 11.2011 Item Qty Description Unit Price Total " ACS Certified System Upgrade Services Lot Design 8: Consultation: R@view existing drawings and update as necessary to make certain that they accurately depict the current system, ensuJing that ACS Is aware of any prior configuration chang@~ and existing interfaces that could impact system design. Review 'any outstanding tss,u@s and spedal customer requirements, Identifying the appropriate solutions. Lot Ensineering and Docum@ntatlon: Equipment manufacturing &: testing, system engineering and integration testing of the stased equipment at ACS' facUitles,. Provide new product documentation and ACS hardware & software manuals where required. Lot Post Installation, Testing and Certification: After installation and start· up, services, the Cus~omer Engineer will (est the reo configured system and make adjustments as needed in order to t!nsure that the system is performing AS expected. The Engineer will make backup caples' for the customer and for AC.S, and hold a closeout meetini' prior to departure. Lot Additiona.l Services: Customer wiH receive 24x7 HelpDesk Phone support for seven (7) consecutive days upon completion of Installation. Customer wlll receive foHow-up from ACS Quality Assurance and Customer Service to verify that the upgraded system continues to function properly. 12 Onslte Engineering Services LOt ACS has Included the tlme that wtU be required to in~tall software) and test the new SCAOA Master systeom and PRISM software. Portal Services Lot ACS has Included the time that wiH be required to Instan and test the new Portal Serier t!lnd Reporting softWare With the SCADA Master system and PRISM software. Includes: Software Installation PRISM Portal confii/uration and reports Engineering Service"s for Web Gateway Lot Assistance with modifying the PRISM system Interface confisuratlon to handle the data mapping Technical assistance with Mult;Spe8k~ vendor Interface onty- no cad ins assistance SCAO"A UtiUty tools, and Documentation Services Rev" July 11,2011 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONTRACTOR shall perfonn the Services according to the following schedule: Term of Coverage: October 21,2013 through April 30, 2014. I 0 [T •• t, .me • j>uration... : 5''''' FIn~" ... I Pred.eces.sOf'l!l ... , ~ -Palo Alto Preliminary SCAOA Upgli!d& Schedule I 104 days Mon 10/28/13i Frl4/4/14 2 -EFACEC ACS Internal Processes 9 days Mon 10/22113 Thu 11"/13 9 Re-r;:eipl of PO from the C*y of Pll io Alto ----,-J 1 day 1,lon 10/28/13 Mon 10/261131 4 a Project Released 10 Projoecll.lsollgerr.ent 3day& TUe 10/29/13 Thu 10131113 13 3 Project A&&igni!d 10 II Proj6ct Manager 2 d~ys Fri 11/1113 "Ion 11/411 3 4 6 Project Maneger review and approvsl of Project 3 dll~'s Tue 11 /5113 Thu 11nl131S 7 .. Project Plllnning 1 day Fri 11/15/13 Fr111i16/13 8 !a Project KICk Of! Call 1 day Fri 11/15/13 Fr111115/13 8FS+5 days 9 -Procurement of Equipment and Materials 40 d~ys Mon 11/18/13 Mon 11271141 ,0 I!l'iI Place 411 Hardware on order S days Mon 11/16113 fr111122J1318 " Reclept of 1I111'lIudwllra 7wk& Mon 11126113 Mon 1127/1'1 0 12 -prepare System forlnteg~tlon 3 day. Tue 1/28/14 Thu 1/30/141 ,3j Stage IJy5111m on Factory Floor 3 days Tu! 1128J1! Thu 1/30/14 11 -------, ,d -Integrate and Upgrade System 1"9 daya Frl1/31/14 Wed 2126114 13 Load OS and PRISM <$ dlloysl Fri 1/31/1':' 'IVed2J'S/1413 16 Convert dalabll5-S 10 PRISJ.110 and loae! 3 days. Thu ZiOJ1t; Mon 2J10/1 4 15 ~ Con1lgur! PRISM 6 days. Tue Vll1it; TU62/18.114 .16 18 Load &. Configure' Histo-rian Servers 3 days 'Ned 2119/14 F rl 212 "14 17 '9 L~ad & Confrgure PORTAL Servers 3 days I Mo.n 212t/14 Wed 212611 ': 18 ----20 Setup f,lul lSpttllK Softwart 4 days Tue 2/1 1114 Fn2J14I14116 2' PRISt! modifir;alions 10 IlUp~ort L\uitiSOfak 2 days "'on 2/17/14 Tue :2118/14 ·20 22 Integr81.e s)'stem Wl1ether " days I I/o[,d 2119/14 1.I0n 212411 ~ 21 23 -System Testing 10 d8)'s Tue 2126114 Mon 31101141 21 + fAT (nGn cus.lcmer witnell$ed} 50 day!> Tue Z,'25J1.4 Mon 3r.ilH 22 FAT Variance Correctton (fion-cuJlomer \'Iilnnsed) SdaY'-Tue: 3/(/104 1.Ion 3-i10/14 2.4 26 -Relocs1s Equipment 14 days Tue 3J11 f14 FrI3J28/'-4 27 Pack s~tem fer shipment ~ days "iue 2'.111114 Fri;:JUJ1': 25 28 Shipment 01 S;,'stem , wk 1o10n 31'17/"1.:. F"tl :!J21JHh7 23 Pa.1o AHc to place equipment in '1I'!:i final poso,n Sd.!lY!i; 1.lon 3l2411~ Fri :?J2e.t1.; 28 30 -s.ystem Commissioning and SAT 5 days i ,",on 3f3'/14 Frl4l4/14 3! Onsitll CCrnrn&sionifl~ 01 sy!!>tem &. SAT 5 tays-; ).Ion 1I~1/1~ Fri4J.{Jl04 12& Rev, July 11,2011 EXHIBITC SCHEDULE OF FEES Compensation based upon fee sch.edule CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR according 10 the following schedule. The maximum amount of compensation to be" paid to Contractor, including both payment for services and reinlbursnble expenses •. shall not exceed One Hundred Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty Seven Dollars ($107,647.00). Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to City. Additional Services is set at Ten Thousand Seven Hundred dollars ($1 0,700.00). EXHlBITD INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THEClTY or PALO AI"TO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AN!) MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECifiED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENsEO OR AllTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BlI~INESS IN TI:IE STATE OF CAl..iFORNIA , AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIriED. BELOW' MINIMUM LIMITS RI;QUIREO TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH YES YES YES YES NO YES OCCURRI;NCE AGGREGATE WORKER'S COMPENSA 1'10N STATUTORY EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY BODILY INJURY SI,OOO,OOO $'1,000.000 GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY. BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE SI.OOO,OOO SI,OOO,OOO PROP.RTY DAMAGE ~LANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL ~ODlLY INJURY & PROPERTY $1 ,000 ,000 $1 ,000,000 LIABILITY DAMAGE COMBINED. BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1 ,000,000 EACH P<.RSON $1,O{IO,oon $1,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, -EACH OCCURRENCI; $1.000.000 $1,000,000 iNCLUDING ALL OWNED. HIRED, NON·OWNED PROPI;RTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1.000,000 BODILY INJURY AND PROPf.RTY $1.000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE. COMBINED PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY. INCl.UDING, ERRORS AN'D OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WI'IEN APPLICABLF.), ANI) N£GLlGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES SI ,OOO.OOO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITfONAL rNSURED: 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 rNSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS. ANb EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A, A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY !)AY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANC;ELLATION: AND B. A CONTRACTUAL. L1ABILlTY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDIN(i INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBL.E AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRJOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT I'ROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFtORDED.TO "ADDITIONAL INSUREDS" A, PRIMARY COVERAGE WITl-I RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY Tl-IIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTl-IER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR fOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INS UREDS, B. CROSS !.lABILITY THE NAMING OF MOR" THAN ONE I'ERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNlJER THE POUCY Sl-IAl.L NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE. EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF Tl-IE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, lIUT Tl-IIS ENDORSEMENT. AND THE NAMING OF MUl.TIPl.E INSUREDS. SHALL NOT iNCREASE THE TOTAL'LIABILITY OF HIE COMrANY UNDER THIS POLICY , C, NOTICE OF CANCELLA TlON 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE IT$ EXI'Uu\ nON DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN Tl-IB NON·PAYMENT Of PRE!vUUM, Tl-IE ISSUING COMPANY SHALl. PROVIDE CITY' AT LEAST A Tl-IlRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE I:fFECTIVE lJA TE OF CANCELtATION, 2. If THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM. n~E ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRIHEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVI: DATE OF CANCEtLATION, NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: I'URCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF rAW ALTO 1',0. 80X-10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4127) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/21/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Annual Report of Williamson Act Contracts Title: Approval of Annual Report of Williamson Act Contracts Within the City of Palo Alto From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council review the Williamson Act Properties Report for Calendar Year 2013 (Attachment A), approve the renewal of 19 contracts, and direct staff to file the current list of Williamson Act properties with the appropriate agencies. 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. 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 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. City of Palo Alto Page 2 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 The attached report and map (Attachments A & B), describe the parcels that were under contract during calendar year 2013. No notices of nonrenewal have been received since the last report. At this time, the Council may initiate a notice of nonrenewal for any contract and have that notice take effect this year. If the Council does not initiate any notices of nonrenewal at this time, and approves the attached list, then this list will be filed in the City Clerk’s Office and the information will be forwarded to the appropriate agencies. Under the California Open Space Subvention Act (OSSA), the City is entitled to partial replacement of local property tax revenue foregone by participating in the Williamson Act. Planning staff will file the information with the State Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. Then, on January 1, 2014, the nineteen contracts will renew for another 10-year term. Notes are included on the attached report and map to clarify that, although the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club is under Williamson Act contract, no tax benefits accrue to the owners. 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. 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.” At this time, the staff recommendation is to renew the existing contracts. Planning staff is currently working with Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office to conduct research on the nineteen properties under Williamson Act contract in Palo Alto. This research includes a study of the benefits these Williamson Act properties provide to the City compared to the loss of property tax revenue. City staff will provide this information to the City Council at mid- calendar year 2014 as an informational report. City staff also plans to provide a recommendation with as to whether or not to discontinue the contracts, particularly those that comprise residential homes on lots of 10 acres or less in size (the minimum lot size in the Open Space zone). The current research has been initiated due to the uncertainty regarding the City of Palo Alto Page 3 overall benefits of the program (see Resource Impacts section below). Resource Impacts Minimal resource impacts would result from the recommended action. Property tax revenue is generally not significant from these properties. Historically, the City of Palo Alto has been receiving approximately $1,000 a year in subvention payments from the State; however, recent legislation has resulted in the suspension of State funding for these payments. Assembly Bill X4 was enacted on July 24, 2009 and 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. A total of approximately 425 acres in Palo Alto are protected under the Williamson Act contracts, as compared to 306,551 acres in Santa Clara County. Policy Implications 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 is ministerial and pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3), is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that this action of approving the attached report does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Attachments: Attachment A: Williamson Act Parcel Report (PDF) Attachment B: Williamson Act Map (PDF) Williamson Act Properties Report for Calendar Year 2013 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 2013. 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. 19 contracts will renew on January 1, 2014 if the Council approves this report. 4 contracts will not renew because Notices of Nonrenewal have been approved. See individual records for termination dates. Note: One of the 19 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. 9/24/2013 Page 1 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2013 Will Renew on January 1, 2014 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: 2011:$1,317,995.00 Value Notes: 4279Resolution No: 2012:$1,344,354.0 2013 $1,371,241.0 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: 2011:$47,825.00 Value Notes: 4279Resolution No: 2012:$48,781.00 2013 $49,756.00 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: 2011:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$0.00 2013 $0.00 9/24/2013 Page 2 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2013 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: 2011:$118,153.00 The City of Palo Alto leases this land for public use; however, it is privately owned.Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$127,999.00 2013 $133,565.00 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: 2011:$8,492.00 The City of Palo Alto leases this land for public use; however, it is privately owned.Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$9,199.00 2013 $9,599.00 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: 2011:$923.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$1,000.00 2013 $1,043.00 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: 2011:$366,599.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$373,957.00 2013 $381,446.00 9/24/2013 Page 3 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2013 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: 2011:$48,180.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$49,166.00 2013 $50,158.00 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: 2011:$1,350,000.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$1,411,375.0 2013 $1,326,000.0 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: 2011:$478,538.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$488,108.00 2013 $497,870.00 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: 2011:$33,091.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$33,779.00 2013 $34,465.00 9/24/2013 Page 4 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2013 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: 2011:$461.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$500.00 2013 $521.00 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: 2011:$900,000.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$979,301.00 2013 $918,000.00 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: 2011:$233,568.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$238,266.00 2013 $243,041.00 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: 2011:$1,037,775.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$918,000.00 2013 $174,796.00 9/24/2013 Page 5 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2013 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: 2011:$1,470,236.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$1,499,757.0 2013 $1,529,799.0 5061, 5065, 22601 Skyline Blvd Non Prime Owner: 17 Assessed Value Land Class: 3/6/1973Contract Start: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years.Contract Status: Irene V. Fogarty Trustee & Et Al, 1009 Rosewood Ave., San Carlos, CA 94070 Acreage: General Notes: 139.59 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 138.59 351-12-006APN: 2011:$34,699.00 Value Notes: 4707Resolution No: 2012:$35,894.00 2013 $36,813.00 22601 Skyline Blvd, Palo Alto, 94306 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: 10.39 351-12-062APN: 2011:$509.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$552.00 2013 $575.00 No address; adjacent to 22601 Skyline Blvd Non Prime Owner: 19 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: 2011:$292,738.00 Value Notes: UnknownResolution No: 2012:$298,637.00 2013 $500,000.00 9/24/2013 Page 6 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2013 Will Not Renew on January 1, 2014 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: 2011:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: 5657 and 5658Resolution No: 2012:$0.00 2013 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: 2011:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: 4706Resolution No: 2012:$0.00 2013 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: 2011:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: 5067Resolution No: 2012:$0.00 2013 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: 2011:$0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agencyValue Notes: 4708Resolution No: 2012:$0.00 2013 9/24/2013 Page 7 of 7S:\PLAN\PLADIV\Advance Planning\Williamson Act\2013 2013 1/1/14 Note: Although the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club is under contract, it is not eligible to receive tax benefits; only golf cources open to the public are eligible. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK October 21, 2013 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Council Direction on Selection of Voting Delegate for the National League of Cities Annual Business Meeting on Saturday, November 16, 2013 The City Council should designate Council Member Liz Kniss as the voting delegate for the National League of Cities (NLC) Annual Business Meeting to be held on Saturday, November 16, 2013. BACKGROUND: The National League of Cities (NLC) Congress of Cities and Exposition is scheduled for November 13-16 at the Washington State Convention Center in Seattle, Washington. The Annual Business Meeting will be held at the conclusion of the Congress of Cities and Exposition on November 16, 2013. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, the City Council must delegate a voting delegate and could appoint an alternate voting delegate. Vice Mayor Shepherd, Council Member Klein and Council Member Kniss will be attending the Conference. Attached please find correspondence received from the National League of Cities. ATTACHMENTS: NLC (PDF) Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk Page 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4139) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/21/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Parking Exemptions Code Ordinances Title: Parking Exemptions Code Review: Review and Recommendation to City Council to Adopt: 1. Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance 5167 and Amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Delete Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) Related to Parking Assessment Districts to Eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking Exemption Which Allows for Floor Area up to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be Exempt From Parking Requirements Within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area and Floor Area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be Exempt Within the California Avenue Area Parking Assessment District. 2. Interim Ordinance to Amend Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD) District, and 18.52, (Parking and Loading Requirements) to Make the Following Changes to be Effective for a Period of Two Years: a. Delete Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to Eliminate the 200 Square Foot Minor Floor Area Bonus and Related Parking Exemption for Buildings not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus. b. Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to Eliminate the Parking Exemption for On-site Use of Historic and Seismic Bonus. c. Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to Remove the On-site Parking Exemption for Historic and Seismic Transfer of Development Rights up to 5,000 Square Feet of Floor Area to a Receiver Site in the CD or PC Zoning Districts. d. Amend Section 18.18.120(a)(2) and (b)(2) Related to Grandfathered Uses and Facilities to Clarify that a Grandfathered Use May be Remodeled and Improved, But May Not be Replaced and Maintain its Grandfathered Status. e. Amend Section 18.52.070(a)( 3) Related to Remove the Sentence Allowing Square Footage to Qualify for Exemption That Was Developed or Used Previously for Nonresidential Purposes but was Vacant at the time of the Engineer's Report. These actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061 and 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. From: City Manager City of Palo Alto Page 2 Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that Council adopt: 1. An Ordinance to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to permanently delete Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) related to Parking Assessment Districts to eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemption which allows floor area up to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be exempt from parking requirements within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area, and floor area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the California Avenue area parking assessment district (Attachment A); and 2. An Interim Ordinance (Attachment B) to amend PAMC Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD) District, and 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), to make the following changes, to be effective for a period of two years: a. Delete Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to eliminate the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus and related parking exemption for buildings not eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus. b. Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to eliminate the parking exemption for on-site use of Historic and Seismic Bonus. c. Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to remove the on-site parking exemption for floor area bonuses derived through historic and seismic upgrades via the transfer of development rights (TDR) program (where up to 5,000 square feet (SF) of floor area for each type of upgrade is allowed for receiver sites in the CD or downtown PC zoning districts). d. Amend Sections 18.18.120(a)(2) and (b)(2) related to Grandfathered Uses and Facilities to clarify that a grandfathered use/facility may be remodeled and improved while maintaining ‘grandfather’ status, but that the floor area may not be demolished and replaced onsite while maintaining such ‘grandfathered’ status. e. Amend Section 18.52.070(a)(3) to disallow the parking exemption for floor area developed or used previously for non-residential purposes and vacant at the time of the engineer’s report during the parking district assessment. Executive Summary The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80 sets forth the process for amendments to the City’s zoning regulations. The attached ordinances would amend the City’s zoning regulations related to exemptions from provision of parking spaces for the development of new floor area. The ordinances are recommended unanimously by the PTC and staff and would City of Palo Alto Page 3 become effective 31 days following Council adoption. The City Council is requested to consider and adopt the first ordinance (Attachment A) before mid-November, as it amends Chapter 18.52 to address “Exempt Floor Area parking exemption” in both the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Districts. Adoption by mid-November would allow this ordinance to become effective before the end of the current moratorium on Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemptions, December 28, 2013. The Interim Ordinance (Attachment B) addresses parking exemptions related to floor area bonuses, and is proposed to expire in two years (sunset) from the date of Council action unless the ordinance is replaced by a permanent code change or otherwise modified. Pursuant to Section 18.80.090, the attached Ordinances include findings as to why the public interest or general welfare requires these amendments. The findings cited to support the urgent need for limiting parking exemptions in the Downtown Assessment District include the increase in development within the past five years, including eight projects approved between 2008 and 2012 which included seismic, historic and minor floor area bonuses totaling 28,676 square feet with parking exemptions granted equivalent to 115 parking spaces. In addition, as of October 1, 2013, there are three additional projects pending in the downtown totaling approximately 77,788 square feet and requesting exemptions equivalent to 100 parking spaces. Also, there have been no new parking structures added to the City’s inventory since 2003 and there has been a drop in the downtown commercial vacancy rate from a high of 6.39 per cent in 2008- 2009 to a 1.6 per cent rate in the 2011-2012 reporting period. The Downtown Parking Survey conducted in Spring of 2013 shows that within the downtown core area, the on-street parking occupancy between 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. reached 87.9 per cent overall, and parking in hourly public lots and garages was at 87.2 per cent occupancy, while permit parking was at 65.9 per cent occupancy. The parking surveys also show that compared to previous years, on-street parking use has increased in the Downtown North, Professorville and South of Forest Avenue neighborhoods. Background Planning and Transportation Commission Review On September 25, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed and recommended, by a 5-0-2 vote (Commissioners Tanaka and Martinez absent), the two attached ordinances relating to parking exemptions in the zoning code. The PTC Report and meeting minutes are provided as Attachments F and G. The Commissioners noted that the ordinances are a step in the right direction. They discussed how charging higher in-lieu fees for not providing required parking on a site could incentivize providing parking on site, and how an update to the parking ratio and further progress in transportation demand management, such as looking at incentives for other modes of transportation to bring fewer cars downtown and using a business registry to obtain mode data from businesses, are needed. The PTC wanted to ensure there are clear guidelines for what constitutes “remodel”, given that the interim ordinance was written to disallow only replacement of grandfathered facilities. Commissioners City of Palo Alto Page 4 also noted that the parking exemptions were put in place as incentives based on conditions at that time; however, based on current conditions they are no longer needed. The Commissioners would like to see the long term planning efforts, such as the update of the Comprehensive Plan and the California Avenue Concept Plan move forward to provide guidance on development and parking issues. There were four public speakers, including three residents of Professorville or Downtown North and one property owner with a planning application pending review by the Architectural Review Board (scheduled October 17, 2013). The residents noted concern with destruction of neighborhoods and the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that the intrusion of parking into the neighborhoods has increased over the years. Two of these speakers asked that the City stop approvals of all permits via a moratorium. The property owner (of 636 Waverley) noted that his project would be directly affected by a moratorium. He also noted that his project included a 200 sf bonus floor area. Staff looked into this and can confirm that the bonus floor area is requested for additional residential area above the 1:1 allowable residential floor area. However, it is not associated with exemption for parking since residential parking is determined by the number of bedrooms; i.e. two or more bedrooms require the provision of two covered parking spaces on site, not total floor area. Council Direction On July 16, 2012, the City Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts for the Downtown and directed staff to look at a variety of approaches to address the concerns of businesses and neighbors. Council requested an evaluation of existing zoning regulations, and an assessment of realistic parking ratios and the desirability and viability of parking exemptions. Following that meeting, staff identified one particular parking exemption, applicable to the Downtown and California Avenue assessment districts likely to exacerbate the parking problems without providing a public purpose. This provision had allowed exemptions from parking requirements for any property within the two parking assessment districts; specifically, up to a 1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in the Downtown Assessment District and up to a 0.5:1 ratio in the California Avenue Assessment District. On October 15, 2012, the City Council adopted an Interim Urgency Ordinance that established a 45-day moratorium on the use of this “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemption pending further study of Downtown and California Avenue parking issues (refer to Attachment C, CMR Report and Minutes Excerpt dated October 15, 2012). On December 10, 2012, the City Council adopted another Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend this moratorium for a period of one year through December 28, 2013 (refer to Attachment D, CMR Report and Minutes Excerpt dated December 15, 2012). On March 18, 2013, the Council gave additional direction on several items related to parking City of Palo Alto Page 5 policy. This included directing staff to review and provide recommendations on Municipal Code parking exemptions and the City’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Since that time, staff has examined the Municipal Code, and is recommending the subject changes. It is important to note that this is the first step. Staff will most likely have additional recommendations in the coming year. While the staff recommended interim suspension of the subject parking exemptions is narrowly focused in the Downtown area, future recommendations may be citywide and/or more comprehensive in nature. Furthermore, the subject “interim” changes may or may not be recommended for permanent inclusions after additional analysis is conducted during the two-year, interim stage. Description of Proposed Ordinances There are two types of ordinances under review. The first is a standard ordinance revision permanently eliminating the Chapter 18.52 definition and rules for “Exempt Floor Area” within the boundaries of the City’s two assessment districts. The ordinance would permanently eliminate the use of this parking exemption for floor area of a building “at or nearest grade”. This would affect the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Districts. The second ordinance focuses on several parking exemptions that only affect downtown properties zoned Commercial Downtown (CD), whether inside or outside the assessment district. This is an interim ordinance which would be in effect for a trial 2-year period. Ordinance to Eliminate the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemptions: The first ordinance would make permanent the elimination of the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemptions related to the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Districts. There is currently a one year moratorium on the use of this exemption that expires on December 28, 2013. In the Downtown Assessment District Area, this zoning code section allows floor area equal to the lot size to be “un-parked”. For example, on a 10,000 sq. ft. property, the first 10,000 sq. ft. of building would have to provide zero parking spaces. This provision was originally included in the zoning code in the 1980s to encourage downtown development by providing a benefit to offset the parking assessments enacted at that time. This was also done at the same time when properties were downzoned within the downtown area. This strategy was successful in its time, but the downtown area is now thriving and the exemption is no longer needed to encourage development. In the California Avenue Assessment District Area, this code section allows floor area equal to half the lot size to be un-parked. For example, on a 10,000 square foot lot in the California Avenue area, the first 5,000 sq. ft. of building would have to provide zero parking. Given that there is no longer a need to incentivize development in the Downtown and California Avenue areas and parking shortages are prevalent, the permanent elimination of this unnecessary parking exemption is recommended. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Interim Ordinance to Eliminate other Parking Exemptions within the Downtown Area: Since the Council direction given in March, staff identified four (4) key areas where additional code changes could be made to eliminate future use of parking exemptions for properties in the Downtown area zoned CD. The second ordinance would be an interim ordinance for a period of two years to eliminate the following four code provisions related to floor area and parking only within the CD zone district. 1. Parking Exemptions Associated with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program: The TDR program encourages seismic and historic rehabilitation of buildings within the CD district by allowing for the transfer of certain development rights to eligible CD-zoned sites that are not historic properties. These provisions include both transfer of bonus floor area to another site and provisions for exempting some of the bonus floor area from parking requirements. The program has been successful and has resulted in seismic and historic restoration of many older buildings in the Downtown area. However, staff believes an incentive can still be provided through bonus FAR area, without increasing nearby parking issues. The Interim Ordinance, therefore, would prohibit the creation of new bonuses as they relate to parking. Specifically, 5,000 SF of transferred bonus floor area to a site would no longer be exempt from on-site parking requirements. This exemption has been applied to floor area transferred to a receiver site within a CD or PC district from another CD-zoned site or even from an RT zoned site within the SOFA district. TDRs that have already been approved and earned under existing zoning code provisions before the effective date of this ordinance would still be allowed to be utilized. Likewise, “receiver” properties could still utilize TDRs for parking exemptions that were transferred after the effective date of the ordinance provided they came from qualfiying “sender” sites that had earned the TDRs before the effective date of the ordinance. Eliminating the use of already approved and earned TDRs would likely be subject to judicial challenge under a “takings” or “vested rights” legal theory. Staff is expecting to address the provision of parking related to already earned TDRs during future recommendations. 2. Minor Exemptions for Buildings Not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus: The CD zone district regulations also contain an exemption that allows a one time 200 square foot floor area bonus increase for any building that does not qualify for the seismic or historic bonuses. This increase, which has been used to increase floor area in both new buildings and existing buildings, does not count towards the site’s gross floor area (GFA) and floor area ratio (FAR), and is exempt from on-site parking requirements. Although it is minor, any CD zoned property not eligible for the other bonuses may request it and the impacts have been and will continue to be cumulative. The Interim Ordinance proposes to eliminate this 200 square foot minor floor area bonus. City of Palo Alto Page 7 3. Grandfathered Uses and Facilities: The CD Zone District contains provisions for “grandfathered uses and facilities” that allow continuation of uses and rebuilding of facilities that were in place prior to August 28, 1986 but which are no longer conforming to the standards of the district. One of the provisions allows that the grandfathered uses/facilities are permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements on the same site as long as it is within the same footprint and does not result in an increase in floor area, height, building envelope or building footprint. Because the existing code language allows replacement of a grandfathered facility’s “site improvements”, this provision has been used when completely rebuilding a structure to allow the same amount of floor area without providingparking for the replacement floor area that is considered “grandfathered”. Any additional square feet beyond that grandfathered must be served by on site parking. The Interim Ordinance proposes to clarify that one may remodel or improve the grandfathered floor area and keep the parking exemption, but the floor area may not be demolished and rebuilt into a replacement structure. Staff believes that this exemption will not be proposed for permanent elimination in entirety after the interim ordinance as it could “lock” property owners into older buildings that do not function well for modern businesses. However, during this interim period, staff would like to quantify the impact of building modernization, particularly in terms of parking, so that suitable impact fees, conditions and/or municipal code provisions can be incorporated. 4. Unoccupied/Vacant Floor Area Exemption: This portion of the interim ordinance would eliminate, with respect to properties within the CD assessment district, a sentence in Section 18.52.070(a)(3) allowing exemption for existing floor area developed or used previously for nonresidential purposes but unoccupied at the time of the engineer’s report for the parking district assessment. In other words, as currently written, the Municipal Code allows for floor area that was unoccupied at the time the Downtown Assessment District was created, and therefore not assessed, to be “grandfathered” for rebuilding purposes. These properties are not responsible for providing or paying for additional parking when a building is razed and rebuilt, even though payments were not made to the assessment district for the previously unoccupied square footage. The interim ordinance will eliminate this existing inequity in the Code. Discussion TDR Categories In 1986, the City enacted its TDR program designed to encourage private property owners to upgrade seismically unsafe buildings and to encourage preservation of known historic buildings in the downtown area zoned CD. Lacking the financial resources to provide monetary incentives for safety upgrades and historic preservation, the City instead adopted development regulations that would provide property owners in the downtown area incentive to upgrade and preserve their properties through a bonus program. In 2002, the TDR program was expanded to the City of Palo Alto Page 8 SOFA 2 area. According to City records, the downtown has approximately 78 buildings that are eligible for a seismic or historic bonus under the TDR program. These buildings fall into three general categories: (1) properties which have applied for and received TDRs under the City’s ordinance; (2) properties which have been seismically or historically upgraded, but which have not applied for or received TDRs and (3) properties which may be eligible for TDRs, but which have chosen not to upgrade. Table 3 summarizes the potential TDR bonuses and parking exemptions of the 78 eligible historic and seismic buildings previously identified by the City. (Note that some of the City’s records are incomplete and therefore this table is subject to further refinement.) Table 3: TDR Bonuses for Originator Sites by Entitlement, October 2013 Origination Type Floor Area Parking Exemptions Number of Properties Properties with Documented Bonuses & TDRs Downtown 123,783 471 32 SOFA 7,813 31 3 City Owned 7,500 30 3 Sub-Total 139,095 532 38 Property Upgraded, No Claim Downtown 29,307 117 11 SOFA 7,500 30 3 City Owned 0 0 0 Sub-Total 36,807 147 14 Eligible Properties but not Upgraded Downtown 65,976 264 25 SOFA 2,500 10 1 City Owned 0 0 0 Sub-Total 68,476 274 26 GRAND TOTAL 244,378 998 78 Notes: City of Palo Alto Page 9 1. City Owned properties include three properties outside of the Downtown area that could only be used in the Downtown area. Properties included: Children’s' Library, College Terrace Library, and Sea Scout Building. 2. TDRs generated in the SOFA may be used on site or transferred into the downtown area. Assumption is that SOFA current remaining 5,000SF (20 parking) TDRs will be transferred into the downtown area. Thus, if all TDR bonuses were in fact utilized, there would be a total of 244,378 additional square feet added to the downtown and a total of 953 exempt parking spaces. While all properties in fact did not take advantage of the TDR program, the City’s data collected to date shows that the TDR program was successful in incentivizing the private redevelopment and upgrade of historic and seismically unsafe buildings in the downtown. Table 4 summarizes the TDRs that were created, the TDRs that were transferred to a receiver site, the TDRs that were used on site and finally the TDRs that were created but which still remain. (Again note that some of the City’s records are incomplete and it is expected that these numbers will be further refined.) Table 4: Documented TDR Bonuses Used in the Downtown Area by Origin, October, 2013 Floor Area Parking Exemptions Number of Properties Properties with Documented Bonuses & TDR's By Origination Downtown 123,783 471 32 SOFA 7,813 31 3 City Owned 7,500 30 3 Total 139,095 532 38 TDR's Transferred Downtown 57,926 212 14 SOFA 2,000 8 1 City Owned 2,500 10 1 Total 62,426 230* 16 TDR's Used On Site Downtown 47,586 219 20 SOFA 2,000 8 1 City Owned 0 0 0 Total 58,022 229* 21 City of Palo Alto Page 10 TDR's Remaining Downtown 10,334 40 7 SOFA 3,313 13 2 City Owned 5,000 20 2 Total 18,647 73 11 *Some FAR transferred was not eligible for parking exemption. Thus, according to the City’s records there are currently 18,647 square feet of TDRs that have not been used and 73 available parking space exemptions. Approved and Pending Projects The Council has fairly broad discretion to decide how new regulations should be applied to projects that have begun planning review but not received final planning entitlements. (These pending projects are generally referred to as “pipeline” projects.) However, under State law, projects that have obtained their entitlements and building permits and have begun work in reliance on the building permit are largely exempt from new zoning provisions. (This is sometimes referred to as the “vested rights doctrine.”) A key issue raised when the moratorium on use of the “exempt floor area” parking was adopted in 2012 was the applicability of the ordinance to projects that were in process (on file, pending decisions by the Director, Council or building permit issuance). At that time, Council elected to exempt projects that had received building permits, and those who had received Planning Permit approval. Planning projects that had been submitted, but not yet approved, were subject to the moratorium. While Council is required to exempt projects receiving building permits, it is a policy call whether to exempt projects that are in earlier phases of entitlement review. As noted in the table below, there are a number of projects that have received recent planning approval or are currently under planning review. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Table 5 – Summary of Approved Planning Entitlements with Parking Exemptions Address Description Subject Parking Exemptions Applied (# of spaces) Planning Entitlement Status Building Permit Status 135 Hamilton A four-story 28,085 square foot mixed-use building (19,998 square feet commercial and two residential units) and below grade parking on a vacant lot. Zone: CD-C(P) (exemption using 5000 Sf TDR and 200 SF exemption) TDR 20 Bonus 1 Total 21 Approval Effective 2/7/13 Building Permit under review. It is expected that this permit will be issued prior to ordinance adoption. 611 Cowper A 34,703 square foot four-story mixed use building (three floors commercial and one floor residential) with below grade parking, replacing two buildings totalling 7,191 SF commercial floor area and 1,270 SF residential floor area. Zone: CD-C(P) (Exemption using grandfathered spaces, 10,000 SF TDR exemption and 400 SF exemptions for two parcels) Grandfather: 11 TDR 40 Bonus 2 Total 53 Approval Effective 8/16/13 No Building Permit Application submitted to date Table 6 – Summary of Pending Applications Requesting Subject Exemptions Address Request Subject Parking Exemptions Applied (# of spaces) Planning Entitlement Status Building Permit Status 240 Hamilton A 15,000 square foot mixed use building, replacing an (approx.) 7,000 SF building (building plus mezzanine). Zone: CD-C(P) (Exemption using 4,327 SF TDR exemption, 200 SF bonus, and “grandfathered” floor area, including 2,000 that was not assessed) Grandfather: 8 TDR 17 Bonus 1 Total 26 Approved 7/23/13 but Appealed to Council. Hearing to be scheduled. Not Applicable 261 Hamilton Application for relocation of basement SF in retail storage use to third story office atop an historic category III, “grandfathered” commercial building (over 3.0:1 FAR) having 38,926 SF (37,800 SF assessed for parking); 37,800 SF retail/office at end. Zone: CD-C(GF)(P). (requesting creation of 15,000 SF FAR TDR via rehabilitation). No Subject Exemptions Applied – Bonus Floor Area to be used off site equal to 60 parking space exemption Formal ARB submitted 6/18/13 Not applicable City of Palo Alto Page 12 Address Request Subject Parking Exemptions Applied (# of spaces) Planning Entitlement Status Building Permit Status 429 University 22,750 SF building with below grade parking for 29 cars, replacing “grandfathered” building. Zone: CD- C(GF)(P).(exemption using 5,000 SF TDR, 200 SF bonus and grandfathered building). Grandfather:TBD1 TDR 20 Bonus 1 Total TBD2 Prelim ARB submitted 9/12/13 Not applicable 261 Hamilton Application for relocation of basement SF in retail storage use to third story office atop an historic category III, “grandfathered” commercial building (over 3.0:1 FAR) having 38,926 SF (37,800 SF assessed for parking); 37,800 SF retail/office at end. Zone: CD-C(GF)(P). (requesting creation of 15,000 SF FAR TDR via rehabilitation). No Subject Exemptions Applied – Bonus Floor Area to be used off site equal to 60 parking space exemption Formal ARB submitted 6/18/13 Not applicable 640 Waverley ARB application for a new 10,463 SF mixed use building with 2 dwelling units and 5,185 SF commercial area (replacing 1,829 SF of “grandfathered” floor area) providing 17 spaces. Zone: CD-C(P). (exemptions grandfathered, mixed-use parking reduction and 200 SF bonus). TBD3 Prelim ARB submitted 9/16/13 Not applicable 500 University Three-story 26,806 SF commercial building replacing 15,899 SF previously assessed for 64 spaces not provided on site; includes 24 parking spaces below grade. Zone: CD-C(GF)(P). (Exemption using grandfathered building, TDR and 200 SF bonus). TDR 20 Bonus 1 Total 21 Prelim ARB reviewed. No formal submittal. Not applicable 301 High Addition and remodel of existing building. Proposes 6,706 SF (including existing 6,255 SF plus bonus an ADA area). Zone: CD- N(P). (requests 200 SF bonus). Bonus 1 Formal ARB Submitted 5/20/13 Not applicable 1 TBD = To be determined; project was recently submitted and floor area and parking determination are still under review. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. City of Palo Alto Page 13 In light of Council’s previous policy decision on this issue, staff makes the following recommendations for pipeline projects: 1:1 Exemption Elimination: Apply new ordinance to all pipeline projects that have not received final planning entitlement approval 200 Square Foot Bonus Exemption Elimination: Apply interim ordinance to all pipeline projects that have not received final planning entitlement approval On and Off site use of TDR Parking Exemption: Only apply to newly created TDRs. TDRs approved and created before effective date of interim ordinance eligible for on or off site parking exemption. TDRs created after effective date of ordinance would be eligible for square footage bonus, but not parking bonus. Grandfather Exemption Elimination: Apply interim ordinance to all pipeline projects that have not received final planning entitlement approval Vacant Building Exemption: Apply to all pipeline projects that have not received final planning entitlement approval Next Steps The Interim Ordinance is proposed to be in place for a period of two years, during which time staff will study the impacts on development of permanently removing these floor area bonuses and parking exemptions. Much of this will be done during the policy recommendation phases of the Downtown Development Cap Study. The following are some of the items that have been identified for further analysis and consideration: residential parking program, in-lieu parking provisions, adjustments to parking requirements, SOFA 2 parking exemptions (additional details below), and other, city-wide parking exemptions. Other adjustments to the Municipal Code may also be considered. Furthermore, historically made interpretations of the Municipal Code may be taken to the PTC for consideration and recommendation to Council. SOFA 2 Plan Area Policies and Programs: Within the SOFA 2 Plan Area are several sites within the Downtown Assessment District. The sites are located north of Forest Avenue, between Alma and Emerson Streets. The SOFA 2 Code allows for parking reductions and exemptions. Residential Transition (RT) zoned sites in the SOFA 2 area are allowed to participate in the City’s TDR program by transferring bonus floor area achieved via historic and seismic rehabilitations to CD zoned receiver sites. Bonuses can also be used within the SOFA 2 area. The same parking exemptions are currently available for bonus floor area generated in the SOFA 2 area. Following Council action on the propeosed ordinances, the SOFA 2 regulations and policies related to incentives for bonus floor area may need to be reviewed in light of the proposed ordinances. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Policy Implications The Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains a primary goal regarding parking to provide attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities. To implement this goal, Policy T-45 states: “Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business district to address long-range needs.” The proposed changes to the zoning regulations to eliminate some of the exemptions to the existing parking requirements will improve parking availability in these areas and would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (Refer to Attachment E, Transportation Element Goals and Policies regarding Parking). The Land Use and Natural and Urban Environment Elements contain the following policies and programs which encourage the use of incentives to preserve historic buildings and encourage seismic retrofits. Land Use Element: Policy L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. Program L-59: Allow parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation. Require design review findings that the historic integrity of the building exterior will be maintained. Program L-60: Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow the transfer of development rights from designated buildings of historic significance in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to non-historic receiver sites in the CD zone. Planned Community (PC) zone properties in the Downtown also qualify for this program. Program L-66: Revise existing zoning and permit regulations as needed to minimize constraints to adaptive reuse, particularly in retail areas. Natural And Urban Environment Element: Program N-70: Continue to provide incentives for seismic retrofits of structures in the University Avenue/Downtown area. Staff believes the proposed changes remain consistent with the policies above, as historic rehabilitation incentives would still be provided through the provision of additional floor area associated with the TDR program. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance would still allow historic buildings to be renovated and restored to retain their “grandfathered” status. Resource Impact The zoning evaluation work would be done within the currently approved work program of the City of Palo Alto Page 15 Planning and Community Environment Department. Timeline The Ordinance establishing the moratorium on the use of Parking Exemptions within the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment areas will expire on December 28, 2013. In order for these provisions to stay in effect the permanent ordinance will need to be adopted by the City Council 31 days prior to the expiration ((by November 27, 2013). City Council action on an Ordinance requires two actions, an introduction of the ordinance and a second reading. Environmental Review The proposed Ordinances eliminate certain exemptions to the parking regulations within the Downtown and California Avenue areas of the City of Palo Alto, which will result in projects that will comply with the remaining parking regulations established in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Further, each individual project submitted under the revised regulations will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, these ordinances are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that these proposed ordinances will have a minor impact on existing facilities. Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance for Elimination of 1 to 1 Parking Exemption (PDF) Attachment B: Interim Ordinance to Eliminate Certain Parking Exemptions within the Downtown Area (PDF) Attachment C: CMR and Excerpt Minutes dated October 15, 2012 (PDF) Attachment D: CMR and Excerpt Minutes dated December 15, 2012 (PDF) Attachment E: Transportation Element Parking Goals & Policies (PDF) Attachment F: Excerpt Minutes of the September 25, 2013 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting (DOCX) Attachment G: September 25, 2013 Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (PDF) Not Yet Approved 1 Revised September 20, 2013 130920 dm 0131136 Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows: A. On October 15, 2012, the City Council imposed a 45-day moratorium on the use of the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemptions related to the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment areas. On December 10, 2012, the City Council further extended the parking moratorium for an additional year in order to allow time to further study the issue and develop strategies to address the identified parking issues. The moratorium is due to expire on December 28, 2013, and if no new ordinance is adopted, the previous exemptions would be reinstated. B. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the zoning code to permanently delete these “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemptions for properties within the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment areas. C. The City of Palo Alto downtown and California Avenue areas have seen an increase in development and have experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown and California Avenue monitoring reports produced in the past five years. D. According to the Downtown Monitoring Report 2011-2012 provided to the City Council on March 11, 2013, since 2008, eight projects were approved which included seismic, historic and minor floor area bonuses totaling 28,676 square feet, with parking exemptions granted equivalent to 115 parking spaces. In addition as of October 1, 2013, there are three additional projects pending in the Downtown totaling approximately 77,788 square feet and requesting parking exemptions equivalent to 100 parking spaces. E. No new parking structures have been added to the City’s inventory since 2003. F. In addition, the overall vacancy rate within the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district has dropped from a high rate of 6.39 percent in 2008-2009 to a 1.6 percent rate in the 2011-2012 reporting period. Not Yet Approved 2 Revised September 20, 2013 130920 dm 0131136 G. The Downtown Parking Survey conducted in Spring of 2013 shows that within the Commercial Downtown core area, on-street parking occupancy between 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. reached 87.9 percent overall. H. According to the Downtown Parking Study, parking in hourly public lots and garages was at 87.2% occupancy, while permit parking in public lots and garages was at 65.9% occupancy. I. The Spring 2013 and Fall 2012 Downtown Parking Surveys also show that compared to previous years, on-street parking use has increased in the Downtown North, Professorville and South of Forest Avenue neighborhoods. J. The City is experiencing increased office occupancy as employers are beginning to transform work spaces from individual offices or cubicles to open space concepts permitting more employees per square foot. K. Increased demand for parking caused by recent addition of office square footage, increased office occupancy and an upswing in downtown retail activity has been coupled with a decreasing supply of parking due to the use of existing parking exemptions in new development and lack of a robust transportation demand management program. L. The Downtown Parking Code was adopted at a time when the downtown was underdeveloped and incentives for redevelopment were needed. One of the primary incentives incorporated into the Code was a series of parking exemptions. These parking exemptions were exceedingly successful in encouraging both the rehabilitation of historic and seismically unsafe buildings and redevelopment in the Downtown core in general. The City is now at a point where most of the historic and seismically unsafe buildings have been renovated and the downtown has transformed into an economically thriving area. M. The City is experiencing increased office occupancy as employers are beginning to transform work spaces from individual offices or cubicles to open space concepts permitting more employees per square foot. N. The lack of available daytime downtown and California Avenue parking for employees has resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for their employees. O. The lack of available daytime downtown and California Avenue parking for employees has also resulted in complaints from residents in the downtown, California Avenue and adjacent areas about congested parking in their neighborhoods. P. The lack of available daytime downtown and California Avenue parking results in traffic seeking available parking spaces to circulate for longer periods of time, resulting in related impacts on air quality from increased emissions. Not Yet Approved 3 Revised September 20, 2013 130920 dm 0131136 Q . The Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the downtown and California Avenue areas that result in less parking being provided than the calculated demand for parking in new projects. SECTION 2. Section 18.52.060 (Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.52.060 Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General (a) Definitions (1) Parking Assessment Areas" Parking assessment areas" means either: The "downtown parking assessment area," which is that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking assessment district entitled Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off-Street Parking Project No. 75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk; or The "California Avenue area parking assessment district," which is that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the California Avenue area parking assessment district entitled Proposed Boundaries, California Avenue Area Parking Maintenance District, dated December 16, 1976, and on file with the city clerk; (2) “Exempt Floor Area" Within the downtown parking assessment area, "exempt floor area" means all or a portion of that floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which does not exceed a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0; Within the California Avenue area parking assessment district, "exempt floor area" means either: (A) All or a portion of that floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which does not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 or (B) The amount of floor area shown on the 1983-84 California Avenue area assessment district rolls in the engineer's report for bonds issued pursuant to Title 13 of the municipal code, whichever is greater. (b) In-lieu fees Except as provided in subsection (c) below, within any parking assessment district established by the city for the purpose of providing off-street parking facilities, all or a portion of the off-street parking requirement for a use may be satisfied by payment of Not Yet Approved 4 Revised September 20, 2013 130920 dm 0131136 assessments or fees levied by such district on the basis of parking spaces required but not provided. (c) Exempt Floor Area (1) Unless a project for the construction of floor area has received design approval prior to December 19, 1983, or has undergone preliminary review pursuant to Sections 18.76.020 and 18.77.070 on December 1st or 15th, 1983, the only portion of off-street parking required for construction of floor area in a parking assessment area which may be satisfied by payment of assessments or levies made within such area on the basis of parking spaces required but not provided, is that portion of the parking requirements associated with the uses proposed to be conducted in that area of the floor equal to the exempt floor area for the site. Where only a portion of floor area constitutes exempt floor area, and uses with more than one parking standard as required by this chapter are proposed for said floor, the use on that portion of the floor which generates the highest parking requirement will be designated as the exempt floor area. (2) All other required off-street parking that is not satisfied by such payment of assessments shall be provided in accordance with this chapter. (3) This subsection shall be interpreted to allow changes in the use of all exempt floor area and nonexempt floor area existing as of February 16, 1984 without requiring additional parking; provided, that the change in use does not consist of a change from residential to nonresidential, or an increase in actual floor area which does not constitute exempt floor area. (4) No project which has received design approval prior to December 19, 1983, or which has undergone preliminary review on December 1st or 15th, 1983, shall increase the amount of floor area approved or reviewed or decrease the area designed or intended for parking without meeting the requirements of this chapter. SECTION 3. CEQA. The proposed Ordinance eliminates certain exemptions to the parking regulations within the Downtown and California Avenue areas of the City of Palo Alto, which will result in projects that will comply with the remaining parking regulations established in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Further, each individual project submitted under the revised regulations will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. Not Yet Approved 5 Revised September 20, 2013 130920 dm 0131136 SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment Not Yet Approved 1 Revised 10/15/13 130920 dm 0131137 Ordinance No. ____ Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD) District and 18.52, Parking and Loading Requirements, to Eliminate Certain Parking Exemptions within the Downtown Area The Council of the City of Palo ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows: A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in development and has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown monitoring reports produced in the past five years. According to the Downtown Monitoring Report 2011-2012 provided to the City Council on March 11, 2013, since 2008, eight projects were approved which included seismic, historic and minor floor area bonuses totaling 28,676 square feet, with parking exemptions granted equivalent to 115 parking spaces. In addition as of October 1, 2013, there are three additional projects pending in the Downtown totaling approximately 77,788 square feet and requesting parking exemptions equivalent to 100 parking spaces. B. No new parking structures have been added to the City’s inventory since 2003. C. In addition, the overall vacancy rate within the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district has dropped from a high rate of 6.39 percent in 2008-2009 to a 1.6 percent rate in the 2011- 2012 reporting period. D. The Downtown Parking Survey conducted in Spring of 2013 shows that within the Commercial Downtown core area, on-street parking occupancy between 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. reached 87.9 percent overall. E. According to the Downtown Parking Study, parking in hourly public lots and garages was at 87.2% occupancy, while permit parking in public lots and garages was at 65.9% occupancy. F. The Spring 2013 and Fall 2012 Downtown Parking Surveys also show that compared to previous years, on-street parking use has increased in the Downtown North, Professorville and South of Forest Avenue neighborhoods. G. The City is experiencing increased office occupancy as employers are beginning to transform work spaces from individual offices or cubicles to open space concepts permitting more employees per square foot. Not Yet Approved 2 Revised 10/15/13 130920 dm 0131137 H. Increased demand for parking caused by recent addition of office square footage, increased office occupancy and an upswing in downtown retail activity has been coupled with a decreasing supply of parking due to the use of existing parking exemptions in new development and lack of a robust transportation demand management program. I. The Downtown Parking Code was adopted at a time when the downtown was underdeveloped and incentives for redevelopment were needed. One of the primary incentives incorporated into the Code was a series of parking exemptions. These parking exemptions were exceedingly successful in encouraging both the rehabilitation of historic and seismically unsafe buildings and redevelopment in the Downtown core in general. The City is now at a point where most of the historic and seismically unsafe buildings have been renovated and the downtown has transformed into an economically thriving area. J. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for their employees. K. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also resulted in complaints from residents in the downtown and adjacent areas about congested parking in their neighborhoods. L. The lack of available daytime downtown parking results in traffic seeking available parking spaces to circulate for longer periods of time, resulting in related impacts on air quality from increased emissions. M. The Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance Chapters 18.18 (Downtown Commercial District) and 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the downtown area that result in less parking being provided than the calculated demand for parking in new projects. N. The Transfer of Development Rights provisions for Historic and Seismic Upgrades to Structures and the minor floor area bonuses were enacted to encourage restoration of historic buildings and to make existing structures seismically safe and the program has been successful. However continued application of the parking exemptions granted by these provisions will exacerbate Downtown parking deficiencies. O. The provision allowing replacement of floor area within grandfathered buildings extends the life of the grandfathered use without requiring it to meet current code standards. P. The City Council desires on an interim basis for a period of two years to eliminate the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus for buildings not eligible for Historic Bonus; to eliminate the Transfer of Development Rights provision that allows a 5,000 square foot floor area exemption from on-site parking requirements and for floor area transferred to a Not Yet Approved 3 Revised 10/15/13 130920 dm 0131137 receiver site within the CD zone district; and to clarify that a grandfathered use may be remodeled and improved, but may not be replaced and maintain its grandfathered status. Unless a new ordinance is adopted to permanently establish these provisions, the these zoning code amendments shall “sunset” (expire) two (2) years following the effective date of the amendment; after which time, if revised regulations have not been adopted, the previous provisions related to parking exemptions contained in Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.080(g), 18.18.090(b)(1)(B) and (C), 18.18.120(c)(2), and 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and (C)(i) shall be reinstated. SECTION 2. Subsection 18.18.070(a) (Floor Area Bonuses) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (a) Available Floor Area Bonuses (1) Minor Bonus for Buildings Not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus A building that is neither in Historic Category 1 or 2 nor in Seismic Category I, II, or III shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 200 square feet without having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts. (2)(1) Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus A building that is in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic rehabilitation, but is not in Historic Category 1 or 2, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts. (3)(2) Historic Rehabilitation Bonus A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic rehabilitation, but is not in Seismic Category I, II, or III, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts, except as provided in subsection (5). (4)(3) Combined Historic and Seismic Rehabilitation Bonus A building that is in Historic Category 1 or 2, and is undergoing historic rehabilitation, and is also in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic rehabilitation, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 5,000 square feet or 50% of the existing building, whichever is greater, without having this increase count toward the FAR, subject to the Not Yet Approved 4 Revised 10/15/13 130920 dm 0131137 restrictions in subsection (b). Such increase in floor area shall not be permitted for buildings that exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-N or CD-S subdistricts, except as provided in subsection (5). (5)(4) Historic Bonus for Over-Sized buildings A building in Historic Category 1 or 2 that is undergoing historic rehabilitation and that currently exceeds a FAR of 3.0:1 if located in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 if located in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts shall nevertheless be allowed to obtain a floor area bonus of 50% of the maximum allowable floor area for the site of the building, based upon a FAR of 3.0:1 if in the CD-C subdistrict and a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-S and CD-N subdistricts, subject to the restrictions in subsection (b) and the following limitation: (A) The floor area bonus shall not be used on the site of the Historic Category 1 or 2 building, but instead may be transferred to another property or properties under the provisions of Section 18.18.080. SECTION 3. Section 18.18.080 (Transfer of Development Rights) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 18.18.080 Transfer of Development Rights (a) Purpose The purpose of this section is to implement the Comprehensive Plan by encouraging seismic rehabilitation of buildings in Seismic Categories I, II, and III, and encouraging historic rehabilitation of buildings or sites in Historic Category 1 and 2, and by establishing standards and procedures for the transfer of specified development rights from such sites to other eligible sites. Except as provided in subsection (e)(1) and for city-owned properties as provided in Chapter 18.28, this section is applicable only to properties located in the CD district, and is the exclusive procedure for transfer of development rights for properties so zoned. (b) Establishment of Forms The city may from time to time establish application forms, submittal requirements, fees and such other requirements and guidelines as will aid in the efficient implementation of this chapter. (c) Eligibility for Transfer of Development Rights Transferable development rights may be transferred to an eligible receiver site upon: (1) certification by the city pursuant to Section 18.18.070 of the floor area from the sender site which is eligible for transfer, and (2) compliance with the transfer procedures set forth in subsection (h). (d) Availability of Receiver Sites Not Yet Approved 5 Revised 10/15/13 130920 dm 0131137 The city does not guarantee that at all times in the future there will be sufficient eligible receiver sites to receive such transferable development rights. (e) Eligible Receiver Sites A site is eligible to be a receiver site only if it meets all of the following criteria: (1) It is located in the CD commercial downtown district, or is located in a planned community (PC) district if the property was formerly located in the CD commercial downtown district and the ordinance rezoning the property to planned community (PC) approves the use of transferable development rights on the site. (2) It is neither an historic site, nor a site containing a historic structure, as those terms are defined in Section 16.49.020(e) of Chapter 16.49 of this code; and (3) The site is either: (A) located at least 150 feet from any property zoned for residential use, not including property in planned community zones or in commercial zones within the downtown boundaries where mixed use projects are. (B) separated from residentially zoned property by a city street with a width of at least 50 feet, and separated from residentially zoned property by an intervening property zoned CD-C, CD-S, or CD-N, which intervening property has a width of not less than 50 feet. (f) Limitations On Usage of Transferable Development Rights No otherwise eligible receiver site shall be allowed to utilize transferable development rights under this chapter to the extent such transfer would: (1) Be outside the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district, result in a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1 above what exists or would otherwise be permitted for that site under Section 18.18.060, whichever is greater, or result in total additional floor area of more than 10,000 square feet. (2) Be within the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district, result in a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1 above what exists, or would otherwise be permitted for that site under Section 18.18.060, whichever is greater, or result in total additional floor area of more than 10,000 square feet. (3) Cause the development limitation or project size limitation set forth in Section 18.18.040 to be exceeded. (4) Cause the site to exceed 3.0 to 1 FAR in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0 to 1 FAR in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts. Not Yet Approved 6 Revised 10/15/13 130920 dm 0131137 (g) Parking Requirements The first 5,000 square feet of floor area transferred to a receiver site, whether located in the CD District or in the PC District, shall be exempt from the otherwise- applicable on-site parking requirements. Any additional square footage allowed to be transferred to a receiver site pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the parking regulations applicable to the district in which the receiver site is located. (h) Transfer Procedure Transferable development rights may be transferred from a sender site (or sites) to a receiver site only in accordance with all of the following requirements: (1) An application pursuant to Chapter 16.48 of this code for major ARB review of the project proposed for the receiver site must be filed. The application shall include: (A) A statement that the applicant intends to use transferable development rights for the project; (B) Identification of the sender site(s) and the amount of TDRs proposed to be transferred; and (C) Evidence that the applicant owns the transferable development rights or a signed statement from any other owner(s) of the TDRs that the specified amount of floor area is available for the proposed project and will be assigned for its use. (2) The application shall not be deemed complete unless and until the city determines that the TDRs proposed to be used for the project are available for that purpose. (3) In reviewing a project proposed for a receiver site pursuant to this section, the architectural review board shall review the project in accordance with Section 16.48.120 of this code; however, the project may not be required to be modified for the sole purpose of reducing square footage unless necessary in order to satisfy the criteria for approval under Chapter 16.48 or any specific requirement of the municipal code. (4) Following ARB approval of the project on the receiver site, and prior to issuance of building permits, the director of planning and community environment or the director's designee shall issue written confirmation of the transfer, which identifies both the sender and receiver sites and the amount of TDRs which have been transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder prior to the issuance of building permits and shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner(s) of the TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the applicant. (i) Purchase or Conveyance of TDRs - Documentation Not Yet Approved 7 Revised 10/15/13 130920 dm 0131137 (1) Transferable development rights may be sold or otherwise conveyed by their owner(s) to another party. However, no such sale or conveyance shall be effective unless evidenced by a recorded document, signed by the transferor and transferee and in a form designed to run with the land and satisfactory to the city attorney. The document shall clearly identify the sender site and the amount of floor area transferred and shall also be filed with the department of planning and community environment. (2) Where transfer of TDRs is made directly to a receiver site, the recorded confirmation of transfer described in subsection (h)(4) shall satisfy the requirements of this section. SECTION 4. Subsection 18.18.090(b) (Exceptions to On-Site Parking Requirement) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (b) Exceptions to On-Site Parking Requirement The requirement for on-site parking provided in subsection (a) of this section shall not apply in the following circumstances: (1) The following square footage shall be exempt from the on-site parking requirement of subsection (a): (A) Square footage for handicapped access which does not increase the usable floor area, as determined by Section 18.18.060(e); (B) An increase in square footage in conjunction with seismic or historic rehabilitation, pursuant to Section 18.18.070; (C) An increase in square footage for buildings not in Seismic Category I, II, or II or Historic Category 1 or 2 pursuant to Section 18.18.070(a)(1); (D)(B) Square footage for at or above grade parking, though such square footage is included in the FAR calculations in Section 18.18.060(a). (2) A conversion to commercial use of a historic building in Categories 1 and 2 shall be exempt from the on-site parking requirement in subsection (a), provided that the building is fifty feet or less in height and has most recently been in residential use. Such conversion, in order to be exempt, shall be done in conjunction with exterior historic rehabilitation approved by the director of planning and community environment upon the recommendation of the architectural review board in consultation with the historic resources board. Such conversion must not eliminate any existing on-site parking. (3) Vacant parcels shall be exempt from the requirements of subsection (a) of this section at the time when development occurs as provided herein. Such development shall be exempt to the extent of parking spaces for every one thousand square feet of site area, Not Yet Approved 8 Revised 10/15/13 130920 dm 0131137 provided that such parcels were at some time assessed for parking under a Bond Plan E financing pursuant to Chapter 13.16 or were subject to other ad valorem assessments for parking. (4) No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the development or replacement of the amount of floor area used for nonresidential use equal to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site shown on the engineer's report for fiscal year 1986-87 for the latest Bond Plan G financing for parking acquisition or improvements in that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking assessment district entitled, "Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off-Street Parking Project #75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California," dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk. However, square footage which was developed for nonresidential purposes or which has been used for nonresidential purposes but which is not used for such purposes due to vacancy at the time of the engineer's report shall be included in the amount of floor area qualifying for this exemption. No exemption from parking requirements shall be available where a residential use changes to a nonresidential use, except pursuant to subsection (2). SECTION 5. Subsection 18.18.120(a)(2) and (b)(2) (Exceptions to On-Site Parking Requirement) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are amended to read as follows: (a) Grandfathered Uses (1) The following uses and facilities may remain as grandfathered uses, and shall not require a conditional use permit or be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70: (A) Any use which was being conducted on August 28, 1986; or (B) use not being conducted on August 28, 1986, if the use was temporarily discontinued due to a vacancy of 6 months or less before August 28, 1986; or (C) Any office use existing on April 16, 1990 on a property zoned CD and GF combining, which also existed as a lawful conforming use prior to August 28, 1986, notwithstanding any intervening conforming use. (2) The grandfathered uses in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, or improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, or improvement, or replacement: (A) shall not result in increased floor area; (B) shall not shift the building footprint; Not Yet Approved 9 Revised 10/15/13 130920 dm 0131137 (C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement; (D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section 18.18.070; or (E) in the case of medical, professional, general business or administrative office uses of a size exceeding 5,000 square feet in the CD-S or CD-N district that are deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1), such remodeling, or improvement, or replacement shall not result in increased floor area devoted to such office uses. (3) If a grandfathered use deemed existing pursuant to subsection (1) ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for 12 consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. (4) A use deemed grandfathered pursuant to subsection (1) 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 grandfathered use to a conforming use, shall not thereafter be used except to accommodate a conforming use. (b) Grandfathered Facilities (1) Any noncomplying facility existing on August 28, 1986 and which, when built, was a complying facility, may remain as a grandfathered facility and shall not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.70. (2) The grandfathered facilities specified in subsection (1) shall be permitted to remodel, or improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, provided such remodeling, or improvement, or replacement: (A) shall not result in increased floor area; (B) shall not shift the building foot print; (C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, or any other increase in the size of the improvement; (D) shall not increase the degree of noncompliance, except pursuant to the exceptions to floor area ratio regulations set forth in Section18.18.070. SECTION 6. Subsection 18.52.070(a) (Parking Regulations for CD Assessment District, On Site Parking) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Not Yet Approved 10 Revised 10/15/13 130920 dm 0131137 (a) On Site Parking Any new development, any addition or enlargement of existing development, or any use of any floor area that has never been assessed under any Bond Plan G financing pursuant to Title 13, shall provide one parking space for each two hundred fifty gross square feet of floor area, with the following exceptions: (1) Square footage for: (A) Handicapped access which does not increase the usable floor area, pursuant to Section 18.18.070(CD District Floor Area Bonuses). (B) An increase in square footage granted for seismic rehabilitation, pursuant to Section 18.18.070 (CD District Floor Area Bonuses). (C)(B) Category I or II Historic Structures may take advantage of the following exceptions during the life of the historic building: (i) An increase in square footage pursuant to CD FAR Exceptions for Historic Structures as contained in Section 18.49.060 (b)(3), and (ii)(i) A conversion to commercial use that is 50 feet or less in height and that has most recently been in residential use, if such conversion is done in conjunction with exterior historic rehabilitation approved by the director upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board and in consultation with the Historic Resource Board. Such conversion must not eliminate any existing on-site parking. (D) A minor increase of two hundred square feet or less, pursuant to CD district FAR Exceptions for Historic Structures as contained in Section 18.49.060(b)(4). (E)(C) At or above grade parking, though included in the site FAR calculations (pursuant to CD district FAR Exceptions for non-historical/non-seismic buildings in Section 18.49.060(a)) shall not be included in the on-site parking regulations of this section. (2) Vacant parcels subject to redevelopment shall be exempt at the time when development occurs from the on-site parking requirements of one parking space for each two hundred fifty gross square feet of floor area to the extent of 0.3 parking spaces for every one thousand square feet of site area, provided that such parcels were at some time assessed for parking under a Bond Plan E financing pursuant to Chapter 13.16 or were subject to other ad valorem assessments for parking. (3) No new parking spaces will be required for a site in conjunction with the development or replacement of the amount of floor area used for nonresidential use equal to the amount of adjusted square footage for the site shown on the engineer's report for fiscal year 1986-87 for the latest Bond Plan G financing for parking acquisition or Not Yet Approved 11 Revised 10/15/13 130920 dm 0131137 improvements in that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking assessment district, entitled Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off- Street Parking Project #75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk. However, square footage which was developed for nonresidential purposes or which has been used for nonresidential purposes but which is not used for such purposes due to vacancy at the time of the engineer's report shall be included in the amount of floor area qualifying for this exemption. No exemption parking requirements shall be available where a residential use changes to a nonresidential use, except pursuant to subdivision (1)(C) of this subsection. SECTION 7. CEQA. The proposed Ordinance eliminates certain exemptions to the parking regulations within the Downtown area of the City of Palo Alto, which will result in projects that will comply with the remaining parking regulations established in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Further, each individual project submitted under the revised regulations will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 8. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 9. Applicability to Pipeline Projects. [Placeholder for Council discussion. See staff recommendation in Staff Report.] SECTION 10. Effective Date. This interim ordinance shall be in full force and effect on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption, and shall “sunset” (expire) two (2) years following the effective date of the amendment (November 21, 2015), unless extended by Council. Upon expiration of this interim ordinance, the previous provisions related to parking // // // // Not Yet Approved 12 Revised 10/15/13 130920 dm 0131137 exemptions contained in Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.080(g), 18.18.090(b)(1)(B) and (C), 18.18.120(c)(2), and 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and (C)(i) in effect immediately prior to adoption of this ordinance shall be reinstated. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto (ID # 3174) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 10/15/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Downtown Parking Exemption Title: Adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance to Place Temporary Moratorium on use of "Exempt Floor Area Ratio" Parking Exemption Contained in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance in the Downtown and California Avenue Assessment Districts From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the Interim Urgency Ordinance (Interim Ordinance) establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit, entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and California Avenue parking issues (Attachment A). Executive Summary On July 16, 2012, the City Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts for Downtown and directed staff to look at a variety of approaches to address concerns of businesses and neighbors. Some of the issues to be addressed, particularly in light of the downtown development cap, will include evaluation of zoning measures that might more accurately depict realistic parking ratios and assess the desirability and viability of parking exemptions. Staff has identified, however, that one particular parking exemption, applicable to both the Downtown and the California Avenue areas, is likely to immediately exacerbate parking problems without seeming to provide for any public purpose. This provision (Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance) appears to allow exemption from parking for any property within the relevant assessment district, up to a 1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in the Downtown area and up to 0.5:1 in the California Avenue area (see Attachment B.) This clause was included in language adopted in the 1980s to encourage downtown development and as a compromise for then-recently enacted downzoning and establishment of parking assessments. While the basis for those amendments is now outdated and downtown development is thriving, City of Palo Alto Page 2 the provision remains in place and applicants are now invoking it to further exempt parking. This is generally in addition to exemptions due to transfer of development rights (TDR) or other allowances pursuant to the code. Staff recommends that the “Exempt Floor Area exemption” be suspended, at least for the duration of staff’s study of downtown parking, to enable a more complete analysis of its effect in combination with other parking measures. An interim “urgency” ordinance is attached that would allow for such a moratorium on the use of this exemption. According to State law, the moratorium may be adopted on an “urgency” basis by Council with a 4/5 vote, meaning at least eight (8) Council members would need to agree to impose the change for a maximum of 45 days. The ordinance would become effectively immediately. State law requires that staff report back within 45 days on a procedure for review of the ordinance, at which time a public hearing would be held and the moratorium may be extended for an additional 10 months and 15 days. State law permits a second extension of the ordinance for a maximum duration of two years. Background The City of Palo Alto has studied parking limitations, particularly in Downtown, multiple times since the 1980s, when the original assessments for the Downtown and California Avenue areas were established, and Downtown was rezoned (downzoned) to more restrictive building standards. Downtown parking was re-evaluated in the 1990s, leading up to the construction of two new parking garages. Zoning requirements that limit downtown commercial development also mandated that the staff prepare an annual report to monitor downtown development, the use of transferable development rights (TDRs) and parking changes (the most recent report is included as Attachment C). Over the past year, staff has developed considerable data and initiated programs to evaluate the status of parking in Downtown and in the California Avenue area, as well as to assess the impact of overflow parking on nearby residential neighborhoods. On July 16, 2012, the City Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts and directed staff to look at a variety of approaches to address concerns of businesses and neighbors. Staff is initiating studies of the potential for adding parking facilities Downtown and in the California Avenue area, means to more efficiently use available parking garages and lots, technology to enhance customer service and the customer experience, and evaluation of the downtown development cap and related zoning provisions. Some of the issues to be addressed, particularly in light of the downtown development cap, will include evaluation of zoning measures that might more accurately depict realistic parking ratios and assess the desirability and viability of parking exemptions. Staff has identified, however, that one particular parking exemption, applicable to both Downtown and the California Avenue area, is likely to immediately exacerbate parking problems without seeming to provide for any City of Palo Alto Page 3 public purpose. This provision (Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance) appears to allow exemption from off-street parking requirements for any property within the relevant assessment district, associated with floor area up to a 1.0:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in Downtown and up to 0.5:1-1.0:1 FAR in the California Avenue area. This clause appears to have been added to the Zoning Code in the 1980s to encourage Downtown development and as a compromise for then-recently enacted downzoning and the establishment of parking assessments. The language is quite convoluted, resulting in varying interpretations by staff and applicants. The City has not been able to locate complete documentation of the history of the exemption. Property owners who never paid into the assessment district have argued that the Exempt Floor Area exemption allows them to retroactively “buy into” the assessment district in order to take advantage of the provision. The exemption has not, to staff’s knowledge, been requested or implemented until recently, specifically: In 2007, a one-story project at 135 Hamilton Avenue was exempted for approximately 7,700 square feet on a 10,000 square foot lot (approximately 31 parking spaces), providing no parking spaces on a site that had not ever paid into the assessment district (note: the project was approved, but was not built and the permit has expired). The applicant, however, was required and had agreed to pay into the assessment district to qualify for the exemption. In 2011, a subsequent application for the same site was submitted for a four-story building, with 10,000 square feet (40 parking spaces) to be exempted from providing on- site parking spaces or paying in-lieu fees, and another 5,000 square feet (20 parking spaces) exempted through the use of TDRs. This project has received review by the Architectural Review Board and is now under redesign. The applicant is again offering to pay into the assessment district to qualify for this exemption. (Note: the applicant has also recently provided a letter stating his intent to revise the application to accommodate the prior one-story proposal). In 2011, the applicants for the four-story Lytton Gateway project at 335 Alma Street requested the 1:1 FAR exemption for the portion of the floor area that was located within the Downtown assessment district, approximately 14,400 square feet (58 spaces). The project was considered as a Planned Community rezoning, however, and the Council did not accept the exemption as a given, instead requiring additional parking and contributions to the City’s In-Lieu Parking Fund. In September 2012, a Preliminary Architectural Review application was filed for a 4,903 square foot office development (with two residences above) at 636 Waverley Street, requesting exemption for the 1:1 FAR equivalent, amounting to 14 spaces of the total 20 required for the office on-site, in addition to other exemptions allowing existing parking deficiencies to be carried over to the new development. Staff has spoken with owners of at least two other sites, for which the 1:1 FAR exemption is being considered, but applications have not yet been submitted. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Given the current parking deficits in the City’s two assessment districts (downtown and California Avenue) and the outdated rationale for applying this exemption, staff has been discouraging recent applications since the 135 Hamilton Avenue and 335 Alma (Lytton Gateway) projects from using this parking exemption. To staff’s knowledge, no project applicant has requested use of the exemption for the California Avenue area. Discussion Staff believes that the basis for the “Exempt Floor Area Exemption”, i.e., encourage development Downtown and compromise for the downzoning and parking assessment requirements, is now outdated, as downtown does not require encouragement to develop, and any equity issues have long been addressed. Nevertheless, the provision remains in place and applicants are now invoking it to further exempt parking. There is also some ambiguity as to whether applicants who have never paid into the assessment district can qualify for the exemption by paying into the district retroactively, and if so, how to calculate the payment. Further, applicants are sometimes coupling this exemption with other parking exemptions due to transfer of development rights (TDR) or other allowances pursuant to the code. The result of the continued use of this exemption would be to exacerbate parking deficiencies in the Downtown and California Avenue assessment district areas. Proposed Ordinance The proposed Interim Ordinance (Attachment A) would suspend use of the “Exempt Floor Area Exemption” pending further study and changes to existing parking and zoning requirements, including re-evaluation of the Downtown development cap. Floor area will of course remain exempt from parking to the extent assessments have been paid for the site. Staff believes it is appropriate to apply the moratorium to both the Downtown and California Avenue areas, as it will in both areas exacerbate parking deficiencies documented previously by staff. Staff distinguishes this provision from others for review, particularly the transferable development rights (TDRs) section, as in those cases other public purposes are readily identified (seismic and historic rehabilitation), and significant investments (either rehabilitation or purchase of TDRs) have been made pursuant to the zoning ordinance. Those provisions will, however, be evaluated as part of the more comprehensive parking studies. Interim Ordinance Process State law allows for a city to enact an interim ordinance on an “urgency” basis, upon a vote of 4/5 of the members of the Council, to protect the health, safety or welfare of the community (the draft ordinance includes the relevant findings). No public hearing and no input from the Planning and Transportation Commission is required prior to the enactment of the urgency ordinance. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this provision of State law takes effect City of Palo Alto Page 5 immediately and does not require second reading. The next steps, pursuant to State law, would be to: 1. Return to Council not later than 45 days later for a public hearing with an interim report with steps taken to alleviate the parking problems associated with the continued use of the Exempt Floor Area Exemption. At that time the Council will also be asked to extend the Interim Ordinance for up to an additional 10 months and 15 days (as allowed under Government Code Section 65858) to allow staff to propose zoning changes; and 2. Recommendation of zoning changes, following public hearing and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission, to either revise the ordinance as necessary or consider permanent elimination of the exemption, prior to the expiration of the 10-month, 15-day extension. Applicability to Pending Projects Cities may revise zoning requirements at any time, except where a property owner has acquired a “vested right” to build a particular structure by obtaining a permit and performing substantial work in reliance on that permit. A vested right is not created by the existence of particular zoning, or by preparatory work performed in advance of obtaining a permit. While the Interim Ordinance as written does not make exceptions for projects that have begun the planning process but not completed it by securing final permits (“pipeline projects”), in the past the City generally has excepted pipeline projects from new ordinance requirements. The City is not legally required to make such exceptions, but the Council may make a policy decision to do so. Two projects are currently under review: a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, which has been under discussion and review for more than a year and has been reviewed once by the Architectural Review Board; and b) 636 Waverley, which was submitted as a Preliminary Architectural Review application on September 10, 2012. Staff has discussed the application of the Exempt Floor Area Exemption for a couple of other projects, but owners have not yet submitted applications for those projects. Council may choose to either include or exempt one or both of the “pipeline” projects from application of the moratorium. If the Council chooses to exclude one or both projects from the moratorium, staff suggests that exclusion be conditional upon: a) preparation of a robust transportation demand management (TDM) program for the project, and b) payment of the equivalent “assessment” amount or increment to the In-Lieu Parking Fund (rather than to pay down the bonds) to contribute to construction of additional parking spaces in the future (note: the amount of the “assessment” should be the present value of a stream of assessments as would originally have been applied over the life of the parking bonds). Staff will be prepared to suggest language to implement these requirements should Council desire. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Policy Implications Staff believes that the interim ordinance is necessary to assure parking availability for businesses and to protect nearby neighborhoods from further parking intrusion. The ordinance is also consistent with Council’s recent direction to study parking improvements and requirements for Downtown. Environmental Review Environmental review is not required for the urgency ordinance, as it simply maintains the status quo, and is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent ordinance changes will, however, require further environmental review prior to consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council. Attachments: Attachment A: Downtown Parking Exemption Urgency Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment B: Section 18.52.060 of Zoning Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment C: December, 2011 Downtown Monitoring Report to Council (PDF) Not Yet Approved 1 121010 jb 0131000 Ordinance No. _______ Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Temporary Moratorium on the Use of the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) [Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for New Development in Assessment Districts R E C I T A L S A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in development and has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown monitoring reports produced in the past 5 years; and B. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for their employees; and C. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also resulted in complaints from residents in downtown areas about congested parking in their neighborhoods; and D. Program L-8 of the Comprehensive Plan limits new nonresidential development in the Downtown Area to 350,000 square feet (10 percent above the amount of development existing or approved in 1986), and requires that this limit be re-evaluated when nonresidential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area; and E. Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development moratorium on downtown nonresidential development upon an increase of 350,000 square feet of net new nonresidential development (since 1986); and F. The 235,000 square foot study limit will be reached upon approval of projects now pending before the Architectural Review Board; and G. On July 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to initiate the preparation of the re-evaluation of the downtown development cap; and H. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial Districts) and Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the Downtown area and specifically within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area that result in less parking being provided than the calculated demand for parking for new projects; and I. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.060 (c) allows for floor area up to a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 to be “exempt” from parking requirements within the Attachment A Not Yet Approved 2 121010 jb 0131000 Downtown Parking Assessment Area and floor area up to 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the California Downtown Parking Assessment Area (“Exempt Floor Area”); and J. The Exempt Floor Area parking exemption was enacted in the mid 1980’s and appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown development and provide equity to parking assessment district members; and K. The Exempt Floor Area parking exception no longer appears necessary to achieve such purposes, given the vitality of downtown and the need for additional parking; and L. Continued application of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption will further exacerbate Downtown and California Avenue parking deficiencies; and M. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City as such use may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and N. This interim ordinance is adopted in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270 and is based on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare as set forth in the above findings and a 4/5 vote is required for passage. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The findings listed above are hereby incorporated. SECTION 2. Moratorium. The City Council hereby enacts this Interim Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption as set forth in Section 18.52.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any development or issuance of any permit or other land use entitlement for any project located in the Downtown or California Avenue Assessment Districts. SECTION 3. Study. The City Council directs the Planning Department to consider and study possible amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning ordinance to eliminate use of the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 4. Written Report. At least ten (10) days before this Urgency Ordinance or any extension expires, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of this Interim Urgency Ordinance. Not Yet Approved 3 121010 jb 0131000 SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 6. Effective Period. This urgency ordinance shall take full force and effect immediately upon adoption. In accordance with Government Code Section 65856, this ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of forty-five (45) days from adoption. Thus the moratorium shall expire on November 29, 2012, unless this period is extended by the City Council as provided in Government Code Section 65858. SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is designed to preserve the status quo. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Assistant City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENT B 18.52.060 Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General (a) Definitions (1) "Parking Assessment Areas" "Parking assessment areas" means either: The "downtown parking assessment area," which is that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking assessment district entitled Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off-Street Parking Project No. 75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk; or The "California Avenue area parking assessment district," which is that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the California Avenue area parking assessment district entitled Proposed Boundaries, California Avenue Area Parking Maintenance District, dated December 16, 1976, and on file with the city clerk; (2) "Exempt Floor Area" Within the downtown parking assessment area, "exempt floor area" means all or a portion of that floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which does not exceed a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0; Within the California Avenue area parking assessment district, "exempt floor area" means either: (A) All or a portion of that floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which does not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 or (B) The amount of floor area shown on the 1983-84 California Avenue area assessment district rolls in the engineer's report for bonds issued pursuant to Title 13 of the municipal code, whichever is greater. (b) In-lieu fees Except as provided in subsection (c) below, within any parking assessment district established by the city for the purpose of providing off-street parking facilities, all or a portion of the off-street parking requirement for a use may be satisfied by payment of assessments or fees levied by such district on the basis of parking spaces required but not provided. (c) Exempt Floor Area (1) Unless a project for the construction of floor area has received design approval prior to December 19, 1983, or has undergone preliminary review pursuant to Sections 18.76.020 and 18.77.070 on December 1st or 15th, 1983, the only portion of off-street parking required for construction of floor area in a parking assessment area which may be satisfied by payment of assessments or levies made within such area on the basis of parking spaces required but not provided, is that portion of the parking requirements associated with the uses proposed to be conducted in that area of the floor equal to the exempt floor area for the site. Where only a portion of floor area constitutes exempt floor area, and uses with more than one parking standard as required by this chapter are proposed for said floor, the use on that portion of the floor which generates the highest parking requirement will be designated as the exempt floor area. (2) All other required off-street parking that is not satisfied by such payment of assessments shall be provided in accordance with this chapter. (3) This subsection shall be interpreted to allow changes in the use of all exempt floor area and nonexempt floor area existing as of February 16, 1984 without requiring additional parking; provided, that the change in use does not consist of a change from residential to nonresidential, or an increase in actual floor area which does not constitute exempt floor area. (4) No project which has received design approval prior to December 19, 1983, or which has undergone preliminary review on December 1st or 15th, 1983, shall increase the amount of floor area approved or reviewed or decrease the area designed or intended for parking without meeting the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 4964 § 3 (part), 2007) City of Palo Alto (ID # 2424) City Council Informational Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 3/5/2012 March 05, 2012 Page 1 of 7 (ID # 2424) Title: Downtown Monitoring Report 2010-2011 Subject: Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report for 2010-2011 From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This is an informational report and no Council action is required. Executive Summary The annual Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report tracks total non-residential growth in the commercial downtown area (CD-C zones) and office and retail vacancy rates in CD-C and CD-C (GF)(P) zones. Through mid-January of 2012, there was a 4.8 percent vacancy rate within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 2.0 percent overall vacancy rate in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. In this monitoring cycle, approximately 13,500 square feet of space was approved or added to the total downtown non-residential square footage. An additional 61,650 square feet of new non-residential development can be accommodated before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached. Background Annual monitoring of available space in Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area was established in 1998 by Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9. These programs require reporting of non-residential development activity and trends within the CD zone district. Staff regularly tracks vacancy rates, changes in floor area and parking in the CD district resulting from approved development to comply with Comprehensive Plan programs and to determine the ground floor vacancy rate in the CD zone district. The zoning code, until 2009, included an exception process to allow office development on the first floor if the ground floor vacancy rate exceeds 5%. In 2009, the City Council adopted zoning ordinance amendments to enhance protection of retail uses in downtown commercial districts to ensure that retail uses are retained and viability enhanced during the economic downturn and beyond. A map of the districts subject to the amendments was included in the 2009 City Council report (CMR 20:09), available on the City’s website. The ordinance amendment eliminated the provision for an exception process if the GF vacancy rate is found to be greater than 5% during the annual monitoring period. March 05, 2012 Page 2 of 7 (ID # 2424) Staff completed field visits for this 2010/2011 monitoring period in early January 2012. Telephone interviews and email exchanges with local real estate leasing agents were also compiled at the same time to determine current vacancy rates and prevailing rents. This report also includes cumulative data on developments in the Commercial Downtown (CD)zone from January 1987 through August 31, 2011 and specific data on vacancy information and rental rates through January 2012. Discussion Economic conditions in Palo Alto downtown area are improving gradually. There is currently a 4.8 percent vacancy rate within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 2.0 percent overall vacancy rate in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. This is a noticeable drop of 2.1 percent vacancy in the Ground Floor Overlay District from last year. This number is close to the 2007-2008 period vacancy rate, just before the start of the economic downturn. In the 2010- 2011 monitoring period, the rental rates for retail varied from $2.75 to $4.00 per square foot based on the location, and the average office rental rate was between $4.50 and $7.00 per square foot. Office rental rates have increased in the last year and a half and retail rental rates have remained steady throughout the 2010-2011 monitoring period. The following table shows the approximate total vacant area and percentage of vacancy, beginning in the 2006-2007 monitoring period. TABLE 1: Total Vacancy in CD-C & CD-C (GF) (P) Zones in Downtown Palo Alto Year Total CD-C Vacant (SQFT) % of CD-C Vacancy Total CD-C (GF) (P) Vacant (SQFT) % of CD-C (GF) (P) Vacancy 2006-2007 88,368 2.63 18,330 2.94 2007-2008 120,004 3.60 26,294 4.21 2008-2009 212,189 6.39 56,109 8.99 2009-2010 85,271 2.56 37,888 6.91 2010-2011 66,226 2.0 26, 290 4.8 Non-Residential Development Activity The Downtown Study, approved in 1986, incorporated a growth limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area above the total floor area existing in 1986, and provided for a re- evaluation of the CD regulations when net new development reaches 235,000 square feet. Since 1986, a total of 173,356 square feet of non-residential uses has been added (or approved) in the Downtown CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2008-2010, March 05, 2012 Page 3 of 7 (ID # 2424) approximately 46,500 square feet of net new commercial floor area was added with a few major contributing projects such as: 317-323 University Avenue, 325 Lytton Avenue, 564 University Avenue, 310 University Avenue, 278 University Avenue, and 265 Lytton Avenue. In this current cycle (2010-2011) approximately 13,499 square feet of net new commercial floor area has been added. Though significant construction activities continue in the downtown CD-C zone area, most of the construction includes redevelopment of existing sites since the existing downtown is close to being built-out. In the current cycle there were approximately five sites that were redeveloped but only one project, at 524 Hamilton Avenue, added significant square footage. Based on this recent monitoring, an additional 61,650 square feet of new non-residential development remains available for development before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached. Demonstrating Special Public Benefits The Downtown Study reserved 100,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot growth limit to be used for projects demonstrating special public benefits. Since 1986, ten projects in the Downtown area have been developed under the Planned Community zoning that requires a finding of public benefit. Five of the projects exceeded the non-residential floor area that would otherwise be allowed under zoning by a total of 34,378 square feet. The total changes in square footage of these projects are shown in the fourth column of Attachment E. The remaining five projects were mixed-use projects that did not exceed allowable non-residential floor areas. All of the projects either provided parking or paid a fee in lieu of providing parking. Projects Qualifying for Seismic, Historic or Minor Expansion Exemptions The Downtown Study designated 75,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot cap for projects that qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions in order to encourage these upgrades. Since 1986, 93,931 square feet have been added in this category. Two projects, 524 Hamilton Avenue and 668 Ramona Street, have used close to 5,000 square feet of Transfer Development Rights (TDR) square footage in this evaluation period. These projects are shown in the fifth column of Attachment E. Parking Inventory At the time of the Downtown Study, performance measures were established that specify that new development in the Downtown should not increase the total parking deficit beyond that expected from development that was existing or approved through May 1986, or 1,601 spaces. In 2003, the City opened two new parking structures: one located on 528 High Street and the other at 445 Bryant Street, adding a total of 899 parking spaces. These parking structure projects, in addition to other projects that provide a parking component, decreased the original 1986 deficit to approximately 628 spaces. At the end of the 2003 monitoring period, the City determined that a re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations would be undertaken when the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions (transfer of development rights and FAR bonuses) reaches a cumulative 450 spaces. Currently, the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions is 323 parking spaces. Through various projects, the total cumulative parking deficit has been significantly reduced from 1,601 in 1986 to 722 in 2011. The main March 05, 2012 Page 4 of 7 (ID # 2424) reasons for the reduction are: 1) the two-floor addition to the Cowper/Webster Garage; 2) significant restriping of on-street parking spaces by the City’s Transportation Division, resulting in 96 additional spaces; and 3) the construction of the two previously mentioned parking structures located on 528 High Street and 445 Bryant Street. Attachment F is a chart of the CD (Commercial Downtown) parking deficit. Staff notes, however, that the effects of the parking deficit, particularly on adjacent neighborhoods, appear to have been exacerbated by the increased employee density of office uses in the downtown. Vacancy Rate for Ground Floor (GF) Combining District The Ground Floor Combining District (GF) was created to encourage active pedestrian uses in the Downtown area such as retail, eating and drinking and personal services. In October 2011, there was approximately 548,675 square feet of total Ground Floor area in the CD-C(GF)(P) zoning district following the adoption of the amended ordinance in December 2009 to enhance protection of retail uses in the heart (University Avenue and side streets) of the downtown commercial district. Attachment C provides the list of parcels affected by adoption of the ordinance. A map showing the location of these parcels is provided as Attachment D. The result was an approximate net 75,660 square feet reduction in the total square footage of GF district. During the staff survey of Downtown vacancies in first week of January 2012, there were seven properties, totaling 26,290 square feet, which met the requirements for vacant and available ground floor area. TABLE 2: Vacant Property Listings for Only Ground Floor (GF) Spaces in CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District. (As of January 4, 2012) Address Vacant Square Feet 541 Bryant 2,556 248 Hamilton 3,000 174 University 2,300* 180 University 12,459 435 University 1,450 429-447 University 1,800 522 Waverley 2,725 Total (GF) Vacancy 26,290 March 05, 2012 Page 5 of 7 (ID # 2424) *Vacant since last year This results in a GF vacancy rate of approximately 4.8 percent, a reduction of 2.1 percent from the vacancy rate of last year. Vacancy Rate for Entire CD District The entire Downtown Commercial (CD) area includes approximately 3,850,000 gross square feet of floor area, including approximately 330,000 square feet within the SOFA CAP Phase 2 area. About 525,000 square feet is used for religious or residential purposes or is vacant and not available for occupancy. Thus, the net square footage of available commercial space is approximately 3,325,000 square feet. Staff conducted a field survey in early January 2012 and communicated with local real estate agents during same time to assess overall vacancies in the downtown area. In this monitoring cycle there was a total vacancy of 66,226 square feet. This vacancy equals a rate of 2.0 percent, somewhat less than the 2.6 percent vacancy noted in last year’s monitoring report. The overall CD-C vacancy rate has reduced considerably since the 2008-2009 period, close to a drop of 4 percent. Table 3 was compiled based on staff conducted fieldwork, research of real estate websites and responses received from local downtown real estate agents. TABLE 3: Vacant Property Listings for Remainder of Commercial Downtown (CD) (As of January 4, 2012) Includes Upper Floor Office Space in CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District and all floors of CD-C (P) District Address Zoning District Vacant Square Feet 635 Bryant CD-C (P)545 644 Emerson CD-C (P)2,238 418 Florence CD-C (P)2,515 155 Forest CD-S (P); CD-C (P)550 120-122 Hamilton CD-C (P)2,260 209 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P)9,000 261 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P)783 400 Hamilton CD-C (P)3,320 245 Lytton CD-C (P)13,433 March 05, 2012 Page 6 of 7 (ID # 2424) 550 Lytton CD-C (P)2,892 552 Waverley CD-C (GF)(P)2,400 Total Rest of CD Vacancy 39,936 CD –Commercial Downtown, (C) –Commercial, (S) –Service, GF –Ground Floor Combining District, P -Pedestrian Overlay Trends in Use Composition The primary observation of change in the use composition of Downtown was, in this cycle, a reduction of approximately 12,860 square feet of religious/institutional use that was converted to office use at the 661 Bryant Street project. Since the enactment of new CD zoning regulations in 1986, the total floor area devoted to higher-intensity commercial uses such as office, retail, eating/drinking and housing has increased, while the total floor area in lower- intensity commercial uses like manufacturing and warehousing has decreased (see Attachment G). Retail Rents Retail rental rates have marginally increased since last year’s monitoring report. According to the data gathered from the January 2011 staff survey of commercial real estate agents offering properties for lease in Downtown, rents for retail space generally range from $2.75 to $4.00 per square foot triple net (i.e. rent plus tenant assumption of insurance, janitorial services and taxes). The lower end of this range is generally for spaces in older buildings and away from University Avenue. Retail rental rates in the core downtown University Avenue sometimes increase to highs of $5.00 to $6.00 per square foot. For some vacant properties outside the downtown core, rental rates have been listed as negotiable. Office Rents Based on the information gathered from the commercial real estate agents listing properties for lease in Downtown, rents for Class A Downtown office space (i.e. newer and/or larger buildings on University Avenue and Lytton Avenues) and Class B office space (i.e. older and/or smaller buildings further from University Avenue) range from $4.50 to $7.00 per square foot triple net, compared to $3.50 to $5.50 per square foot triple net in last year’s monitoring report. Timeline This is an annual report. Resource Impact This report has no impact on resources, though the implications of reduced vacancy rates have positive impacts on the City’s potential source of property and sales taxes. Policy Implications This report on the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area is mandated by Comprehensive March 05, 2012 Page 7 of 7 (ID # 2424) Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 and by the Downtown Study approved by the City Council on July 14, 1986. Environmental Review This is an informational report only and is exempted from CEQA review. Courtesy Copies Planning and Transportation Commission Architectural Review Board Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Downtown Palo Alto Palo Alto Board of Realtors Downtown North Neighborhood Association Professorville Neighborhood University Park Neighborhood Association Attachments: ·Attachment A: 1986 Downtown Study Results Summary (PDF) ·Attachment B: Commercial Downtown (CD) Zone District Map (PDF) ·Attachment C: List of Parcels Added and Removed From CD-C(GF) P District (PDF) ·Attachment D: Downtown Map Showing the Zone Changes (PDF) ·Attachment E: CD Non-Residential Change in SQFT 09/01/86 to 08/31/11 (PDF) ·Attachment F: CD Parking Deficit(PDF) ·Attachment G: CommercialDowntown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category (PDF) Prepared By:Chitra Moitra, Planner Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager ATTACHMENT A DOWNTOWN STUDY RESULTS SUMMARY (July 1986) The following are the primary measures adopted as a result of the study: 1. A new Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district, including three sub districts (CD-C, CD-S and CD-N), was created and applied to most of the Downtown area previously zoned Community Commercial (CC) or Service Commercial (CS). The basic provisions of the CD district include floor area ratios (FARs) that are more restrictive than in the previous CC and CS zones, limits to project size and to the overall amount of future development, and special development regulations for sites adjacent to residential zones. 2. Growth limits were applied to the CD district restricting future development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was existing or approved in May 1986 and providing for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development reaches 235,000 square feet. In addition, 100,000 square feet of the total new floor area was reserved for projects demonstrating special public benefits and 75,000 square feet for projects which qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions. 3. Exemptions to the floor area ratio restrictions of the CD zone were established for certain building expansions involving historic structures, seismic rehabilitation, provision of required handicapped access, or one-time additions of 200 square feet or less. 4. New parking regulations were established for the University Avenue Parking Assessment District that requires new non- residential development to provide parking at a rate of one space per 250 square feet of floor area. Exemptions to this requirement are provided for certain increases in floor area related to provision of handicapped access, seismic or historic rehabilitation, one-time minor additions (200 square feet or less) and development of vacant land previously assessed for parking. The regulations also permit, in certain instances, off-site parking and parking fees in lieu of on-site parking. 5. Performance measures were established that specify that new development in the Downtown should not increase the total parking deficit beyond that expected from development that was existing or approved through May, 1986 (1600 spaces) and that call for re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations when the unmet parking demand, resulting from exemptions, reaches one half (225 parking spaces) of the minimum 450 parking spaces deemed necessary for construction of a new public parking structure. Staff was directed to monitor the parking deficit. 6. A new Ground Floor (GF) Combining District was created and applied to the area along University Avenue and portions of the major side streets between Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, in order to restrict the amount of ground floor area devoted to uses other than retail, eating and drinking or personal service. 7. Staff was directed to monitor the Downtown area in terms of development activity, vacancy rates, sales tax revenues, and commercial lease rates to facilitate evaluation of the effectiveness of the new regulations. 8. Staff was directed to undertake a site and feasibility study to evaluate an additional public parking structure elsewhere in the Downtown, to consider development of a parking facility on public lots S, L and F, and to explore the possibility of leasing or purchasing privately-owned vacant lots suitable as parking structure sites. 9. Policies and regulations were adopted which encourage Planned Community (PC) zoning for parking structures and limit underground parking to two levels below grade, unless there is proof that regular pumping of subsurface water will not be necessary. 10. A Twelve-Point Parking Program was adopted to increase the efficiency of existing parking. 11. Traffic policies were adopted which prohibit new traffic signals on portions of Alma Street and Middlefield Road, and prohibit a direct connection from Sand Hill Road to Palo Alto/Alma Street. In addition, new signs were approved directing through traffic off of University Avenue and onto Hamilton and Lytton Avenues. 12. Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) were directed to consider the possibility of an Urban Design Plan for Downtown and to develop design guidelines for commercial structures in neighborhood transition areas and for driveways which cross pedestrian walkways. 13. A temporary Design and Amenities Committee was created and charged with developing an incentive program (including FAR increases of up to 1.5) to encourage private development to provide a variety of public amenities in the Downtown area. 14. Staff was directed to study possible restrictions on the splitting and merging of parcels as well as the establishment of minimum lot sizes in the new CD district. COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN (CD) ZONE DISTRICT MAP ATTACHMENT B o • , ATTACHMENT C LIST OF PARCELS ADDED AND REMOVED FROM CD-C (GF) P DISTRICT The following properties were added to the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District: 200-228 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-008 230-238 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-009 240-248 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-010 412 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-106 420 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-025 430 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-026 The following properties were removed from the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District: 115-119 University Avenue---APN 120-26-108 102-116 University Avenue---APN 120-26-039 124 University Avenue---APN 120-26-043 125 University Avenue---APN 120-26-138 525 Alma Street---APN 120-26-093 529 Alma Street---APN 120-26-110 535-539 Alma Street, 115 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-26-091 135 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-26-111 440 Cowper Street---APN 120-15-014 437 Kipling Street---APN 120-15-020 443 Kipling Street---APN 120-15-019 DOWNTOWN MAP SHOWING THE ZONE CHANGES ATTACHMENT D o :~ o .~ , gi • I i : J' .! I 1 ATTACHMENT E CD NON-RESIDENTIAL CHANGE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE 09/01/86 TO 08/31/11 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non- Residential Floor Area 520 Ramona Street A CDCGFP 11/20/84 - 400 +400 220 University Avenue CDCGFP 2/5/87 - 65 +65 151 Homer Avenue CDSP 3/17/88 - - -9,750 314 Lytton Avenue CDCP 5/5/88 - - -713 247-275 Alma Street CDNP 8/4/88 - - +1,150 700 Emerson Street CDSP 9/15/88 - - +4,000 431 Florence Street CDCP 9/15/88 - 2,500 +2,500 156 University Avenue CDCGFP 12/15/88 - 4,958 +4,958 401 Florence Street CDCP 3/2/89 - 2,407 +2,407 619 Cowper Street CDCP 5/6/89 - - +2,208 250 University Avenue PC-3872 5/15/89 11,000B 300 +20,300 2 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non- Residential Floor Area 550 University Avenue CDCP 6/1/89 - - -371 529 Bryant Street PC-3974 5/3/90 2,491C 2,491 +2,491 305 Lytton Avenue CDCP 9/28/90 - 200 +200 550 Lytton AvenueDE CDCP 10/22/90 - - +4,845 531 Cowper Street PC-4052 5/21/91 9,000 475 +9,475 540 Bryant Street CDCGFP 3/24/92 - 404 +404 530/534 Bryant Street CDCGFP 4/15/93 - 432 +432 555 Waverley Street/425 Hamilton AvenueE CDCP 9/21/93 - - +2,064 3 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non/Residential Floor Area 201 University Avenue CDCGFP 11/18/93 - 2,450 +2,450 518 Bryant Street CDCGFP 3/3/94 - 180 +180 245 Lytton Avenue CDCP 7/21/94 - - -21,320 400 Emerson StreetEF PC-4238 9/19/94 - 200 +4,715 443 Emerson Street CDCGFP 1/5/95 - 26 +26 420 Emerson Street CDCP 3/16/95 - 125 +125 340 University Avenue CDCGFP 4/6/95 - - -402 281 University Avenue CDCGFP 4/20/95 - - -2,500 456 University Avenue CDCGFP 5/18/95 - 7,486 +7,486 536 Ramona Street CDCGFP 7/11/95 - 134 +134 725/753 Alma Street PC-4283 7/17/95 - - -1,038 4 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non/Residential Floor Area 552 Emerson Street CDCGFP 7/18/95 - 177 +177 483 University Avenue G PC-4296 10/2/95 3,467C 2,789 +7,289 424 University Avenue CDCGFP 9/21/95 - 2,803 +2,803 901/909 Alma Street E,F PC-4389 8/1/96 - - +4,425 171 University Avenue CD-C(GF)(P) 9/19/96 - 1,853 +1,853 401 High Street CD-C(P) 10/3/96 - 350 +350 430 Kipling Street D,H CD-C(P) 10/22/96 - 200 +1,412 460-476 University Avenue CD-C(GF)(P) 3/20/97 - 1,775 +1,775 400 Emerson Street D PC-4238 3/21/97 - - +2,227 275 Alma Street CD-N(P) 7/8/97 - 200 +3,207 390 Lytton Avenue PC-4436 7/14/97 8,420C 689 +17,815 411 High Street H CDCP 12/18/97 - 2,771 +2,771 5 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in Non Residential Floor Area 530 Ramona CDCGFP 05/20/99 - 2852 +2852 705 Alma St CDSP 09/21/99 - 2814 +2814 200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10/21/99 - 10913 +10913 550 Lytton Ave CDCP 08/11/00 - - +93 437 Kipling St CDCGFP 02/01/01 - - +945 701 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +434 723 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +400 880 - 884 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +312 539 Alma St CDCGFP 10/23/01 - 2,500 +2,500 270 University Ave CDCGFP 11/01/01 - 2,642 +2,642 901 High St. E, F CDSP 12/12/02 - - +12,063 800 High St. I PC-4779 02/03/03 - - -15,700 6 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in Non Residential Floor Area 164 Hamilton Ave CDCP 01/13/05 - - -2,799 335 University Ave CDCGFP 08/10/05 - 4,500J +5,249 382 University Ave CDCGFP 07/27/06 - 194 +194 102 University Ave CDCGFP 10/10/2006 - - +8 325 Lytton Ave CDCP 5/2006 - - +17,515 310 University Ave CDCGFP 07/31/2008 - 7,481 +7,481 317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 01/2008 - 2,500 +3,290 564 University Ave CDCP 7/2008 - 2,500 +4,475 278 University CDCGFP 11/2008 - - +137 265 Lytton CDCP 7/2010 - 3,712 +21,151 340 University CDCP 12/2010 - - -1,360 524 Hamilton CDCP 2/2011 - 5,200 +9,345 7 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in Non Residential Floor Area 630 Ramona CDCP 6/2011 - 437 +437 668 Ramona CDCP 7/2011 - 4,940 +4,940 661 Bryant CDCP 2/2011 - 1,906 0 Totals 1986-2011 34,378 93,931 173,356 A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86), but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.” As a result, the project is counted among the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986 B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit instead of required 44 private spaces C: Project exceeded square footage otherwise allowed by zoning D: Project converted residential space to non-residential space. Net non-residential space counts toward the 350,000 square foot limit E: Project included covered parking that counts as floor area but not counted 350,000 square foot limit F: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared parking facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space. G. In addition, project paid in-lieu fee for loss of 2 on-site parking spaces H: In addition, projects paid in-lieu fee for loss of 4 on-site spaces I: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP J: Transfer of Development Right (TDR) agreement with 230 and 232 Homer Avenue. 5000 total sq ft of TDR but only 4,500 sq. ft used for Non Residential Floor Area. Page 1 ATTACHMENT F CD PARKING DEFICIT 9/1/86 to 8/31/2011 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 1986 deficit 1,601 520 Ramona StreetA CDCGFP +400 2 0 0 +2 1,603 220 University Avenue CDCGFP +65 0 0 0 0 1,603 151 Homer Avenue CDSP -9,750 0 11 0 -50 1,553 314 Lytton Avenue CDCP -713 0 0 0 -3 1,550 247-275 Alma Street CDNP +1,150 5 5 0 0 1,550 700 Emerson Street CDSP +4,000 16 16 0 0 1,550 431 Florence St CDCP +2,500 10 0 10 +10 1,560 Page 2 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 156 University Avenue CDCGFP +4,958 20 0 20 +20 1,580 401 Florence Street CDCP +2,407 10 0 10 +10 1,590 619 Cowper Street CDCP +2,208 9 9 0 0 1,590 250 University Avenue PC-3872 +20,300 103 131B 0 -28 1,562 550 University Avenue CDCP -371 0 0 0 -1 1,561 529 Bryant Street PC-3974 +2,491 10 0 10 +10 1,571 520 Webster StreetC PC-3499 0 0 163 0 -163 1,408 305 Lytton Ave CDCP +200 1 0 1 +1 1,409 550 Lytton Avenue CDCP +4,845 19 19 0 0 1,409 Page 3 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT Downtown Extensive restriping by Transportation Division of on and off/street parking -96 1,313 531 Cowper Street PC-4052 +9,475 38 0 2 +38 1,351 540 Bryant Street CDCGFP +404 2 0 2 +2 1,353 530/534 Bryant Street CDCGFP +432 2 0 2 +2 1,355 555 Waverley Street/425 Hamilton AvenueD CDCP +2,064 8 0 0 +8 1,363 201 University Avenue CDCGFP +2,450 10 0 10 +10 1,373 518 Bryant Street CDCGFP +180 1 0 1 +1 1,374 245 Lytton Ave CDCP -21,320 90 149 0 -59 1,315 400 Emerson Street PC-4238 +4,715 18 5 1 +14 1,329 Page 4 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 443 Emerson Street CDCGFP +26 0 0 0 0 1,329 420 Emerson Street CDCP +125 1 0 1 +1 1,336 340 University Avenue CDCGFP -402 0 0 0 -2 1,334 281 University Avenue CDCGFP -2,500 0 0 0 -10 1,324 456 University Avenue CDCGFP +7,486 30 0 30 +30 1,354 536 Ramona Street CDCGFP +134 1 0 1 +1 1,355 725-753 Alma Street PC-4283 -1,038 7 7 0 -11 1,344 552 Emerson Street CDCGFP +177 1 0 1 +1 1,345 483 University Avenue PC-4296 +7,289 29 -2E 11 +31 1,376 Page 5 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 424 University Avenue CDCGFP +2,803 11 0 11 +11 1,387 901/909 Alma StreetD PC-4389 +4,425 18 18 0 0 1,387 171 University Avenue CDCGFP +1,853 7 0 7 +7 1,394 401 High Street CDCP +350 1 0 1 +1 1,395 430 Kipling Street CDCP +1,412 5 -4E 1 +10 1,405 460/476 University Avenue CDCGFP +1,775 7 0 7 +7 1,412 400 Emerson Street PC-4238 +2,227 9 0 0 +9 1,421 275 Alma StreetF CDNP +3,207 0 0 1 +1 1,422 390 Lytton Avenue PC-4436 +17,815 74 50 3 +27 1,449 Page 6 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 411 High Street CDCP +2,771 0 -4E 11 +15 1,464 530 Ramona CDCGFP 2852 11 0 11 +11 1475 705 Alma St CDSP 2814 11 0 11 +11 1486 200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10,913 44 3E 35 +41 1527 550 Lytton Ave CDCP 93 0 0 0 0 1527 528 High St PF 0 0 211 G 0 -211 1316 445 Bryant PF 0 0 688G 0 -688 628 437 Kipling St CDCGFP 945 4 0E 2 +4 632 701 Emerson St CDSP 434 2 1 1 +1 633 723 Emerson St CDSP 400 2 2 0 0 633 Page 7 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 880 / 884 Emerson St CDSP 312 2 5 0 -3 630 539 Alma St CDCGFP 2,500 10 0 10 +10 640 270 University Ave CDCGFP 2,642 11 0E 11 +11 651 SUBTOTAL 86-02 106,930 672 1483 236 -578 651 901 High St. CDSP 12,063 59D 60 0 -1 650 800 High St. H PC-4779 -15,700 0 63 0 -63 587 164 Hamilton Ave CDCP -2499 0 0 0 0 587 335 University AveI CDCGFP 5,249 0 0 0 0 587 Page 8 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 382 University Ave CDCGFP 194 0 0 1 +1 588 102 University Ave CDCGFP 8 0 0 0 0 588 310 University Ave CDCGFP 7,481 30 0 30 +30 618 317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 3,290 0 0 0 0 618 564 University Ave CDCP 4,475 10 0 10 +10 628 325 Lytton Ave CDCP 17,515 110 6 0 -6 622 265 Lytton CDCP 21,151 106 52 0 +54 676 278 University CDCGFP +137 1 0 1 +1 677 340 University CDCP -1,360 0 0 0 0 677 524 Hamilton CDCP +9,345 31 8 23 +23 700 Page 9 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 630 Ramona CDCP +437 2 0 2 +2 702 668 Ramona CDCP +4,940 20 0 20 +20 722 661 Bryant CDCP 0 0 0 0 0 722 TOTAL 173,356 911 1672 323 649 722 A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86, but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.”) As a result, the project is counted among the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986 B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit C: Addition of 2 levels of parking to Cowper/Webster garage D: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared parking facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space. E. Project removed existing on-site spaces or met required parking by paying in-lieu fee F: Site had existing parking sufficient to allow expansion G: Construction of 2 city parking lots. 528 High completed on Aug. 2003 and 445 Bryant completed on Nov. 2003 H: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP I: As per PAMC 18.87.055, the TDR area transferred to the site does not increase the number of automobile parking spaces required for the additional floor area. Page 10 ATTACHMENT G Commercial Downtown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category (Rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet) * The above table is rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet and was based on a table originally prepared in 1986. Over the years, because of the rounding to 25,000 square foot increments, the table has had a greater margin of error. Staff attempted to update the table from the beginning in 1998; therefore the numbers may not compare directly to tables prepared prior to the 1998 report. Use Category Area (October 1986) Area (October 2011) Area Change, percentage 1. Offices 1,100,000 1,350,000 23% 2. Retail 500,000 625,000 25.00% 3. Eating & Drinking 150,000 275,000 83.33% 4. Financial Services 200,000 200,000 0.00% 5. Business Services 150,000 175,000 16.67% 6. Basement Storage 175,000 100,000 -42.86% 7. Hotels 100,000 150,000 50.00% 8. Personal Services 75,000 125,000 66.67% 9. Utility Facility 150,000 100,000 -33.33% 10. Public Facilities 50,000 75,000 50.00% 11. Automotive Services 150,000 50,000 -66.67%12. Recreation/Private Club 25,000 50,000 100.00% 13. Theaters 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 14. Warehousing & Distribution 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 15. Manufacturing 50,000 0 -100.00% 16. Religious Institutions 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 17. Multi-Family Residential 250,000 400,000 50.00% 18. Single Family Residential 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 19. Vacant & Under Construction 150,000 50,000 -66.66% 20. Vacant & For Sale 0 0 21. Vacant & Available 150,000 100,000 -33.33% Total 3,625,000 3,875,000 5.52% ADJUSTED TOTAL: (Deduct residential uses, religious institutions, vacant & for sale and vacant & under construction.) 3,125,000 3,350,000 MINUTES Page 19 of 28 City Council Meeting Minutes: 10/15/12 departments with higher turnover and how the age of the City’s workforce compared to other Bay Area communities. She also asked of the cost of living in Palo Alto and housing in particular was a barrier to younger employees. She understood that some larger cities were not in CalPERS and were self-funded and wondered if Palo Alto could remove itself from CalPERS. Ms. Shen said they would look at employee tenure and provide the information. The City did not have a retention issue. The turnover rate was between one and two percent depending on the employee group. Staff was also compiling a report that compared the City to neighboring communities. Council Member Klein said the larger cities had not opted out of CalPERS, they had always had their own systems. With few exceptions they had been less successful than CalPERS. He said San Diego’s system was scandal ridden and he did not see the larger cities as a better model than CalPERS. Every pension system struggled with increased costs and stagnant income. Mayor Yeh asked Staff for final comments. Ms. Shen pointed out that Council was provided binders because Staff intended to provide additional supplemental information. She asked that any requests for specific references be directed to her attention. Mr. Keene said Staff was returning in November with the pension and December with healthcare and he wanted to set the expectations. Staff understood the framework of the colleague’s memorandum and its questions. They also had to consider Council’s suggestions over the coming three weeks. Palo Alto was considered a leader in the State with what it had done and its knowledge of the situation. Staff’s inability to answer questions was a matter of the capacity to do research. He needed Council to know that Staff was working on the information but could not provide everything by the November meeting. However, he said Staff could ensure the community had a better understanding of what the City could or could not do and what was necessary to pursue other options. NO ACTION REQUIRED 10. Interim Urgency Ordinance 5167 to Place Temporary Moratorium on use of "Exempt Floor Area Ratio" Parking Exemption Contained in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance in the Downtown and California Avenue Assessment Districts. MINUTES Page 20 of 28 City Council Meeting Minutes: 10/15/12 Curtis Williams, Planning and Community Environment Director recommended City Council adopt an interim urgency ordinance that established a moratorium on the use of an exempt floor area provision in the zoning code related to parking exemptions. The Council previously considered on multiple occasions issues surrounding downtown parking and directed Staff to look at measures that evaluated parking supply, parking demand, Zoning Ordinance provisions, and Downtown Development Cap Study. The exemption provision, Section 18.52.060(c), of the zoning ordinance had the potential to further exacerbate downtown parking problems if it continued to be applied to projects. Section 18.52.060(c) allowed exemption from parking for any property within the downtown or California Avenue districts that had up to a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The language was adopted in the 1980’s when the Downtown Plan was adopted and shortly after the assessment district was in place. Staff believed it was done to encourage downtown development. Staff suggested the moratorium because the provision outlasted the economic circumstances of downtown development and existing and potential parking deficiencies continued to occur. Staff intended to study the issues and return to Council. He explained the measure was an interim urgency ordinance. State law allowed a Council to adopt such an ordinance without the review of the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and full public hearing notice, but only if there was a four fifths vote, or 8 of the 9 Council Members approval. It also required Staff to return to Council within 45 days with details on a comprehensive parking ordinance. Mr. Rodriguez and Staff planned to provide that report by November 5, 2012. With respect to the pending projects in the development review process, the ordinance did not provide for specific exceptions. It was the Council’s option to include exemptions. In the past the Council generally exempted projects in process from Ordinance changes. The only exception he remembered was the Green Building Ordinance, which only exempted projects currently in the building permit process. There were two projects currently in the review process that utilized the 1.0 FAR exemption. The first was 135 Hamilton Avenue, which had been in process for over a year and went to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) six weeks prior. The Applicant was currently reviewing design changes and would return to the ARB. He noted that the site had a project approved but not built in 2009 for a one story building that utilized the 1.0 FAR parking exemption. The second project was 636 Waverley Street, which was submitted in September 2012 and was scheduled to go to the ARB in November for the architectural review application. Staff suggested that if Council chose to exempt either or both of the projects that they contain a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program requirement that the assessment district funds be placed in the in lieu parking fund instead. He said that the Applicant for 135 Hamilton Avenue submitted a request that the application be amended to include review and MINUTES Page 21 of 28 City Council Meeting Minutes: 10/15/12 approval of the single story project that was submitted and approved in 2009 but had since expired. That did not qualify as an amendment, but the Council could consider it if it made a determination that there was a distinguishing characteristic from that project as opposed to new applications. Molly Stump, City Attorney added that many people asked if there was an expectation or right of downtown property owners to continue with the current zoning rules in place. Legally the answer was clearly no. She said the Council could choose to allow projects to continue utilizing the rule and to change it in the future, but legally it was clear. Property owners acquired a vested legal right to continue on with the status quo rules only once a final building permit had been issued and substantial work took place that relied on the building permit. Once a building permit was issue and work began, the vested right was limited by the building permit. Once a permit expired so did the legal right. She said it was important that the Council treat similarly situated individuals in a similar way. When distinctions were made they needed a rational basis for the different rule. That was a standard that required careful thinking and articulation. Chop Keenan of Emerson Street said he was a long time parking zealot in Palo Alto. He was Chair of the Downtown Parking Committee in the 1990’s. They met monthly and discussed a variety of parking issues. He said parking equaled prosperity. 90 days ago he proposed a public/private collaboration on Lot P to build 190 additional spaces. He acknowledged that was separate from the evening’s conversation but stated he mentioned it to show his commitment for parking in Professorville. On 135 Hamilton Avenue in 2007 he has a 7,700 foot building approved on a 10,000 foot lot with a 1:1 FAR exemption. The ARB stated it was an important corner and wanted it built to the maximum FAR with residential units. Consequently he returned in December 2011 with a 20,000 square foot building that met the criteria with the 1:1 FAR exemption. There was over a half a million dollars invested in the project. In January 2012 they received a notice of incompletion, which was promptly answered and turned around. On August 29, 2012, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was published. The ARB meeting was held on September 30, 2012, and they were currently working on the ARB’s comments. He asked that the project be exempted from the moratorium. Jim Baer said with the exception of the project at 135 Hamilton Avenue he fully supported the urgency Ordinance eliminating the 1:1 FAR exemption both downtown and on California Avenue. He stated he was involved in 75 projects between those two areas. The 135 Hamilton Avenue project needed an exemption because of process, fairness, and equity. The 40 MINUTES Page 22 of 28 City Council Meeting Minutes: 10/15/12 spaces which were relieved under the exemption represented less than one percent of the parking deficit identified in Mr. Alsman’s handout. The project was initially approved in 2007 by the ARB, with the ARB Chair demanding a larger project. Until 2007 he and Mr. Keenan were unaware of the 1:1 FAR exemption and were astonished it existed. The 1980’s zoning ordinance update included no lobbying by downtown owners. The 2007 approval would have lasted until the submittal of a building permit was required by January 2010. The new project was submitted in December 2011. Prior to that he met with Mr. Williams and Staff had had dialogue about 101 Lytton, which looked at the 1:1 FAR exemption. Planning Staff issued a notice of incompletion in January 2012 but nothing was included about parking or the 1:1 FAR exemption. 135 Hamilton Avenue was an actively pursued project that included rental units and used TDR as allowed and was fully parked other than the 1:1 FAR exemption. David Kleiman spoke regarding 636 Waverley Street, which was a smaller project about 10,000 square feet in total. They were only weeks away from the first ARB hearing. He requested clarity as soon as possible on the parking issue. Passing the moratorium without granting an exception for his project was unfair because there was a reasonable expectation based on past history of Council’s action for already started projects. They spent substantial money and time readying the project. The parking was to code; the project did not ask for exceptions to any zoning. He felt it was unreasonable for the City to ask them to pay an in lieu fee or to purchase TDR’s when the existing code clearly exempted the project. Ken Alsman was concerned about all the issues surrounding parking in downtown. He urged Council to accept Staff’s recommendation on the moratorium with no exceptions. He thought 135 Hamilton Avenue would generate at least 70 unparked cars upon completion. He completed an analysis of the 18 projects Palo Alto had approved, under consideration and construction but not occupied and estimated they would generate in excess of 700 additional unparked cars. Richard Brand stated he was a member of the University South Neighborhood Group Board. Following the residential parking permit meeting in July he thought the process was broken, but there was a proposal and he applauded Staff’s efforts to correct the root problem. He thought the 1980’s ordinance was created to revitalize the downtown and it was extremely successful. He respected the developer’s points regarding their investments, but the City had worked on the downtown parking problem for over a year. He thought if there were exemptions granted they needed to have financial conditions that required parking near the MINUTES Page 23 of 28 City Council Meeting Minutes: 10/15/12 development. Parking needed to be located where the development occurred and not five blocks away. Robert Moss urged the Council to adopt the urgency Ordinance recommended by Staff without any exceptions. He said when Staff returned to Council in 45 days the conditions for exemptions could be discussed at that time. He said people in Downtown North and Professorville had complained of spillover parking for many years. Most garages in downtown had been built in the last 15 years as a result of the parking impacts. If the proposal at 27 University Avenue was built, he thought it created a huge parking overflow. He recommended the Council adopt the urgency Ordinance and consider the exemptions carefully. Council Member Schmid left the meeting at 10:21 P.M. John R. Shenk, Thoits Family Board of Directors, stated that he wanted to make sure there was clarity around if this moratorium were to go forward that projects or properties that have paid into the assessment district are not somehow harmed. He believed 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street should be looked at with a deferential eye and given an exemption. Mr. Williams said the ordinance change did not affect any other provisions of the parking and downtown regulations. Projects that had paid into the assessment district were allowed to build to their assessments or rebuild to the level they existed at currently. Council Member Klein said his questions were related to whether 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street were subject to any amount of assessment. He heard different things from the Applicants than what was stated in the report. Page four of the report indicated that people who paid into the assessment district were able to obtain the benefit of the 1:1 exclusion, but there was a sentence which read, “there’s also some ambiguity to whether applicants who have never paid into the assessment district can qualify for the exemption by paying into the district retroactively and if so how to calculate the payment.” He asked if there was no moratorium and the projects moved forward under the exemption if they would have been required to make any payment. If so, he wanted to know how the payment was to have been calculated. Mr. Williams said the concept of buying into the assessment district was confusing. The projects would have had to do so and that was a condition of the approval at 135 Hamilton Avenue in 2009. No method had been determined at that time, but Staff suggested one way to do it. He did not know if Staff spoke to Mr. Kleiman about it, but they had talked to Mr. MINUTES Page 24 of 28 City Council Meeting Minutes: 10/15/12 Keenan and Mr. Baer previously about the condition. It was also attached to the most recent conditions for approval for 135 Hamilton Avenue when it went to the ARB. Council Member Klein said Mr. Kleiman stated he did not believe he should have to pay any amount. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Kleiman said he raised the question during a meeting with Amy French and Mr. Williams. He was not sure there was a mechanism in the Municipal Code or by practice to allow a later assessment of a property like his that had not been assessed in the parking district. He was open for discussion, but the code stated that properties that had not been assessed were exempt. Based on that there was no rationale for an exempt property to pay into the district. He asked what the rationale was for a property to be assessed aside from the City’s standpoint of revenue. Mr. Williams said Staff’s interpretation was that it only allowed a project to take advantage of the 1:1 if it was assessed. Council Member Klein recalled that in 1987 there was a different system for assessments on the parking district. There were no bonds at that time. Staff recalculated annually on the basis of who was in business. Mr. Williams agreed. There was a mechanism at the time it was adopted for changing the assessments annually. Council Member Klein said the bonds came later. He asked how much that would be compared to what was charged at the Lytton/Alma project. Mr. Williams said the calculation under the assessment district was much less. For 136 Hamilton Avenue depending on the methodology used $150,000 to $350,000. That was six spaces under the in lieu fee. If the in lieu fee was applied for all 40 spaces it was $2.5 million. Council Member Klein said he needed to think about that. Vice Mayor Scharff thought the ordinance needed to be passed, but he had questions related to the potential exemptions. He did not believe the projects should be completely grandfathered in, especially the one story building. He thought they should apply the TDM to the four story building and that some parking was necessary. He agreed that parking equaled prosperity. MINUTES Page 25 of 28 City Council Meeting Minutes: 10/15/12 MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to adopt the Interim Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in Section 18.52.06 (c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit, entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and California Avenue parking issues. Return to Council within 45 days regarding the potential exemptions. Vice Mayor Scharff believed the City owed Professorville, Downtown North, and other areas a commitment to resolve the parking issues and solve the problem. The difficult parking issues that required serious thought related to the exemptions. Council Member Shepherd was conflicted about the projects in process. She was prepared to go forward with the urgency ordinance but not with the exemption. The TDR exemption was easy; it was the 40 parking exempted at 135 Hamilton Avenue that concerned her. Council Member Espinosa noted that if the item returned in 60 days he would probably no longer be on the Council. He believed in fairness and equity and thought the Council often forgot the time and money spent on moving projects through the City’s system. The Council avoided changing rules during the process in the past for good reasons. He believed it was inappropriate for the Council to change the rules related to projects in process. Council Member Holman was unclear about the 60 days mentioned in the Motion because the ordinance lasted for 45 days. Vice Mayor Scharff said they were not exempted until they returned to Council for discussion. Ms. Stump said the urgency ordinance provided that the use of the 1:1 was under a moratorium effective on the Council’s vote that evening. That applied to all projects, including the projects in process unless the Council specifically exemption them. The Motion as stated applied to all projects and considered an exemption in 60 days. Vice Mayor Scharff agreed to 45 days if Staff believed that to be appropriate. He had wanted to give Staff time and had not been sure 45 days was enough. Mr. Williams believes they were required by State law to have a public hearing in 45 days. MINUTES Page 26 of 28 City Council Meeting Minutes: 10/15/12 Council Member Holman said the projects were included according to Staff so her only concern was the 45 days. Vice Mayor Scharff called a point of order that the Motion was seconded by Council Member Shepherd. Council Member Price supported the Motion and concurred with Council Member Espinosa regarding the issues of fairness and the process laid out. Council Member Klein confirmed that the two in process projects could not move forward for 45 days. Mr. Williams said it was not unusual to have a preliminary design review without all of the compliance details worked out. Council Member Klein asked if the 45 days would delay the final approval of the projects. Mr. Williams thought it would delay them, but indicated the projects could move forward in the interim at their own risk in terms of ARB review. He said that either project could solve the issue by paying in lieu fees, but was not sure that either developer was interested in moving forward until the parking issue was resolved. Council Member Klein stated he reluctantly supported the ordinance because he wanted to exempt the projects in process. He also agreed with Council Member Espinosa’s comments because the Council’s job was to be fair and equitable. He generally supported the Motion because the City needed a definition of “in process” for future ordinance changes. Secondly Staff had to return to Council with a recommendation of what the projects in process needed to pay. He believed that the Council made it clear in 1987 that they should pay some amount, and urged Staff to use a formula other than the bond formula, which did not exist in 1987. James Keene, City Manager said Staff would review that, but indicated the opposite could be argued. In 1987 the thinking was to redress the situation as it was then and currently they attempted to redress the current situation which was more complex. Council Member Klein was open to suggestions, but stated the bonds did not make sense because it was a static amount. 2012 Inflation or property values needed to be taken into consideration. MINUTES Page 27 of 28 City Council Meeting Minutes: 10/15/12 Mr. Keene said that was why Staff needed the 45 days. Vice Mayor Scharff agreed with Council Members Burt and Espinosa that it was necessary to treat people fairly, but the question was how much of an in lieu fee the projects in process needed to pay and how to calculate that figure. He did not believe the projects needed to be delayed through the process. Council Member Burt asked if Staff needed the full 45 days. Mr. Williams said yes. Council Member Shepherd was opposed to moratoriums because they ended up with bad projects. She cited Alma Plaza as an example. However, she noticed that there was a consideration that there was an exemption from any in lieu or parking assessment for the buildings. Mr. Williams thought there was an understanding that a fee was to be paid to the assessment district. An in lieu parking fee was a separate thing in the process. Staff suggested that it was more purposeful to provide money to the in lieu fund. The question was how much was reasonable and under what standards. Staff planned to return with a recommendation. Council Member Shepherd confirmed they were not looking at a complete redesign on the projects. Council Member Holman said the possibility of providing additional onsite parking had not been discussed. She suggested they look at that as well. Mayor Yeh supported the Motion because Staff needed additional time for analysis and discussion with the project applicants. He was unclear about the projects in process eligibility for the 1:1 and wanted clarity. Council Member Burt requested TDM be included in the Motion. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the staff report in 45 days will contain a proposal for the exemptions to include the preparation of a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for the projects. Mr. Keene said the way the Motion was crafted allowed Staff to return within 45 days with more information. Because Council Member Schmid was no longer in the meeting, the Council needed a unanimous vote to pass the Motion. MINUTES Page 28 of 28 City Council Meeting Minutes: 10/15/12 MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Price reported on attending a fundraiser for Outlet, which is a member of Project Safety Net. The Mental Health Board held a meeting regarding Veterans services. She also attended a crisis intervention training program conducted at Stanford University. Council Member Holman asked about a letter from a citizen regarding a construction project. She asked Staff to provide information to Council regarding the letter. Council Member Shepherd reminded everyone that the League of California Cities is recruiting for several of their policy setting committees. Mayor Yeh noted that three members of the public had commented on Elizabeth Seton School item and asked when it would come back to Council. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning & Community Environment stated that that item will be on Council’s agenda on November 5, 2012. Mayor Yeh asked if it was standard timing to come before Council. Mr. Williams answered yes and stated that Council could set a Public Hearing for a later date. Mayor Yeh asked about the DAS process and an individual appeal process. Mr. Williams stated that was also coming to Council on November 5, 2012 and would be the same process as the Elizabeth Seton School item. Mayor Yeh appointed Council Member Burt to the new Caltrain Policy Maker Committee. Each January the new Mayor will appoint to this committee. He thanked the Council and public for their participation in Bike Palo Alto. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 3344) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 12/10/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Parking Exemption Moratorium Extension Title: Public Hearing: Consider Extending up to December 28, 2013 a Moratorium on the Use of Certain Parking Exemptions contained in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance Related to the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Areas; and Adopt a Resolution Providing Exceptions to the Moratorium for "Pipeline Projects" at 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt the extension of the Interim Urgency Ordinance (Attachment A) establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit, entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and California Avenue parking issues (Attachment A), for a period of one year through December 28, 2013, and allowing for exceptions for certain projects by separate Resolution; and 2. Approve a Resolution (Attachment B) providing exceptions from the moratorium, with conditions as specified, for properties at 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street. Background On October 15, 2012, the Council adopted an interim “urgency” ordinance that provides for a moratorium on the use of a parking exemption for Exempt Floor Area (up to a 1.0 FAR) on a site. As further detailed in the October 15 staff report, this zoning provision has been used very infrequently in the past and its rationale no longer applies. In accordance with State law, the City of Palo Alto Page 2 moratorium was adopted on an “urgency” basis by Council with a 4/5 vote, 8-0 (Councilmember Schmid was absent). Council also directed that staff return with recommendations for criteria to identify appropriate exceptions for projects in the development review “pipeline.” The ordinance became effective immediately. State law requires that staff report back within 45 days on a procedure for review of the ordinance, at which time a public hearing would be held and the moratorium may be extended for an additional 10 months and 15 days. State law permits a second extension of the ordinance for a maximum duration of one year beyond the first extension. The ordinance was extended on November 19, 2012 for an additional 30 days, but the consideration of exceptions for “pipeline projects” was deferred until this review on December 10. A 4/5 vote was again required, and an 8-0 vote was recorded (Vice Mayor Scharff absent). The November 19 Council staff report (including the October 15 report) is included as Attachment E, and provides more detailed background about the code and the basis for the moratorium. Discussion Attachment A provides for a further extension of the ordinance for up to a one year period (December 29, 2013), which is permitted by State law for a second extension. A noticed public hearing is required, and approval by a 4/5 vote of the Council (8 members) is again needed. The proposed Interim Ordinance (Attachment A) would continue to suspend use of the “Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption” pending further study and changes to existing parking and zoning requirements, including re-evaluation of the Downtown “development cap.” Floor area will remain exempt from parking to the extent parking assessments have been paid for a site. The ordinance also includes a provision that would allow the Council to consider exceptions from the moratorium for “pipeline projects” by separate resolution. A draft Resolution is included as Attachment B. The Resolution may be acted upon with a majority vote of the Council. Interim Ordinance Process and Evaluation State law allows for a city to extend the interim ordinance on an “urgency” basis, subject to an interim report that outlines steps that have been and are expected to be taken to alleviate the parking problems associated with the continued use of the Exempt Floor Area Exemption. Staff attached the Parking Study Report presented to Council on November 13 as part of the November 19 staff report (Attachment E) as the background report detailing the proposed evaluation process. The outcome of the Parking Study, particularly related to the Downtown Development Cap, will include recommendations for zoning changes, following public hearing and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission, to either revise the City of Palo Alto Page 3 ordinance as necessary or consider permanent elimination of the exemption, prior to the expiration of the moratorium. Applicability to Pending Projects As outlined in prior reports, cities may revise zoning requirements at any time and new development must comply with those updated requirements. The major exception to this rule is where a property owner has acquired a “vested right” to build a particular structure by obtaining a permit and performing substantial work in reliance on that permit. A vested right is not created by the existence of particular zoning, or by preparatory work performed in advance of obtaining a permit. Staff does not believe there are any pending projects that have acquired a vested right to develop under the prior requirements. Council has discretion, however, to exempt projects from complying with new zoning requirements if there is a rational and equitable basis for the exemption. Staff has noted that there are two development projects currently under review that would be affected by the moratorium: a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, including 19,960 square feet of office space with two residential units above, which has been under discussion and review for more than a year, has been reviewed twice by the Architectural Review Board, and is scheduled for likely final review in January; and b) 636 Waverley Street, including 4,900 square feet of office space with two residential units above, which was submitted on September 10, 2012, and received Preliminary Architectural Review on November 15. Attachment C outlines the parking requirements for each of these projects, and exemptions that were permitted by the code upon submittal of these applications. The 135 Hamilton Avenue project would result in exemption of 40 parking spaces through the use of the 1:1 FAR exemption (plus another 21 spaces with other exemptions) of a total of 84 spaces required. The 636 Waverley Street project would result in exemption of 15 parking spaces through the use of the 1:1 FAR exemption (plus 1 other space with a second exemption) of a total of 25 spaces required. Options for Exempting Pending Projects Staff has identified a few options for potential exceptions for Council consideration: 1. Allow no Exceptions. Each project would need to provide all spaces on site (which may not be practical for either project as currently planned), pay in-lieu parking fees (e.g., approximately $2.4 million for 135 Hamilton and $900,000 for 636 Waverley), or be modified substantially to comply. 2. Allow an Exception for each project, with a requirement to pay the Parking District assessment “equivalent,” but payable to the Downtown Parking “In-Lieu” Fund, to be City of Palo Alto Page 4 used for future construction of parking spaces. The assessment “equivalent” would represent the cost of principal and interest of the project’s share of the overall Assessment District bond, from inception to its terminus (estimated $326,531 for 135 Hamilton and $122,784 for 636 Waverley). Note: Staff evaluated other options for this calculation, using prior assessments, but those were based on year-to-year changes in assessments, which is impractical to recreate now. Note also this calculation does not include interest or inflation. 3. Allow an Exception for each project with a requirement to pay the assessment “equivalent” as outlined in #2, but also including a funding contribution to the proposed Downtown “Cap” planning study, estimated at about $150,000 (approximately $109,005 for 135 Hamilton and $40,995 for 636 Waverley); 4. Allow an Exception for each project, but with a requirement to pay into the Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fund equal to half the spaces for each project that would be exempt due to the 1:1 FAR provision (e.g., about $1.2 million for 135 Hamilton and $450,000 for 636 Waverley). 5. Allow an Exception for 135 Hamilton Avenue, given its length of time in the review process, but deny an Exception for 636 Waverley, or provide some combination of the above differentiating between the projects. Any of the options allowing for an Exception would also include a requirement for an aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, including provision of transit passes, Zip Cars (or similar), bicycle facilities, etc., with specified targets for mode-splits and penalties for not meeting objectives. The condition of such language is summarized in the section below and included in the proposed Exemption Resolution (Attachment B). Staff Recommended Exceptions Staff believes that, while there are important reasons to impose this moratorium, and while no “vested rights” exist, it is also important to recognize that such a moratorium works a financial hardship on applicants who have submitted development plans to the City and that the moratorium may project an undesired image to the business community that rules may be changed mid-stream. Staff therefore recommends that Council provide exemptions for the two projects consistent with option #3 above, more specifically: 1. Exemptions would be allowed for “Pipeline Projects,” defined as those discretionary development review applications that were submitted prior to October 15, 2012 (the date of the moratorium) and that have not yet received approval by the Director of Planning or the City Council. The two projects identified are the only ones that meet these qualifications. 2. The Exemption shall only apply to the development project set forth in, or in substantial compliance with, the application pending as of October 14, 2012. 3. An Exemption would expire if approval by the Director of Planning (subsequent to City of Palo Alto Page 5 review by the Architectural Review Board) is not obtained by June 30, 2013, or if building permits are not issued by December 31, 2013. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant for an Exempted Project must pay an assessment “equivalent,” to be deposited in the City’s Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fund, with the amount calculated as the pro-rata share of the exempt spaces relative to the total Parking Assessment District spaces spread across the principal and interest schedule from the inception through the life of the current parking district bonds (see Attachment D). 5. Not later than 30 days following approval of the Exemption Resolution, the applicant for an Exempted Project must pay a pro-rata share (based on the ratio of the total exempt spaces between the two projects) of the estimated $150,000 cost of the City’s proposed Downtown Parking “Cap” Study. 6. A condition of approval for any Exempted Project will require a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to be approved by the Director of Planning prior to issuance of building permits and to be implemented immediately upon occupancy, setting forth measures to achieve a minimum 20% mode-split for other than single- occupancy vehicles, with annual monitoring and financial penalties established for failure to attain the diversion objectives. The proposed Resolution (Attachment B) provides for these exceptions and would require a majority Council vote for passage. Alternative proposals could be written into the Resolution or Council could provide direction to staff and the revised Resolution could return on Consent at the Council’s first meeting in January. If no Exceptions are granted, the Resolution would not be approved. Policy Implications Staff believes that the interim ordinance extension is necessary to assure parking availability for businesses and to protect nearby neighborhoods from further parking intrusion. The ordinance is also consistent with Council’s recent direction to study parking improvements and requirements for Downtown. The approval of the exceptions would be consistent with the intent of the moratorium by limiting the number of exceptions and by attaching conditions expected to further the provision of parking and studies necessary to fully address these concerns. Environmental Review Environmental review is not required for the urgency ordinance, as it simply maintains the status quo, and is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent ordinance changes will, however, require further environmental review prior to consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council. The two projects granted exceptions both require City of Palo Alto Page 6 environmental review concurrent with their Architectural Review Board process. Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance Extending Moratorium Through December 28, 2013 (DOCX) Attachment B: Resolution Exempting Projects at 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street from Parking Exemption Moratorium (DOCX) Attachment C: Parking Requirements for 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street (DOCX) Attachment D: Tables Outlining Parking Assessment "Equivalents" for 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street (PDF) Attachment E: November 19, 2012 Council Staff Report and Attachments (PDF) Not Yet Approved 1 121210 jb 0131022 Ordinance No. ______ Interim Urgency Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Extending Ordinance No. 5172 a Temporary Moratorium on the Use of the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for New Development in Assessment Districts for a Period of One Year Through December 28, 2013 R E C I T A L S A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in development and has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown monitoring reports produced in the past 5 years; and B. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for their employees; and C. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also resulted in complaints from residents in downtown areas about congested parking in their neighborhoods; and D. Program L-8 of the Comprehensive Plan limits new nonresidential development in the Downtown Area to 350,000 square feet (10 percent above the amount of development existing or approved in 1986), and requires that this limit be re-evaluated when nonresidential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area; and E. Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development moratorium on downtown nonresidential development upon an increase of 350,000 square feet of net new nonresidential development (since 1986); and F. The 235,000 square foot study limit will be reached upon approval of projects now pending before the Architectural Review Board; and G. On July 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to initiate the preparation of the re-evaluation of the downtown development cap; and H. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial Districts) and Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the Downtown area and specifically within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area that result in less parking being provided than the calculated demand for parking for new projects; and I. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.060 (c) allows for floor area up to a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 to be “exempt” from parking requirements within the Not Yet Approved 2 121210 jb 0131022 Downtown Parking Assessment Area and floor are up to 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the California Downtown Parkin Assessment Area (“Exempt Floor Area”); and J. The Exempt Floor Area parking exemption was enacted in the mid 1980’s and appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown development and provide equity to parking assessment district members; and K. The Exempt Floor Area parking exception no longer appears necessary to achieve such purposes, given the vitality of downtown and the need for additional parking; and L. Continued application of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption will further exacerbate downtown and California Avenue parking deficiencies; and M. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City as such use may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and N. The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5167 on October 15, 2012, by a four-fifths vote after a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. Ordinance 5167 expired on November 29, 2012; and O. On November 13, 2012, the Council reviewed, filed and heard comment on a Report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 regarding the current status of parking issues in the Downtown area; and P. On November 19, 2012, the Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5172 which extended the use of Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City to December 29, 2012; and Q. The Council desires to extend Interim Ordinance 5172 in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270 and is based on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare as set forth in the above findings and a 4/5 vote is required for passage; and R. The Interim Urgency Ordinance would continue to suspend the use of “Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption” pending further study and changes to existing parking and zoning requirements, including re-evaluation of the downtown “development cap”; and S. There are two development projects currently under review that could be affected by the moratorium: a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, , including 19,960 square feet of office space with two residential units above, which has been under discussion and review Not Yet Approved 3 121210 jb 0131022 for more than a year, has been reviewed twice by the Architectural Review Board, and is scheduled for likely final review in January; and b) 636 Waverley, including 4,900 square feet of office space with two residential units above, which was submitted on September 10, 2012, and received Preliminary Architectural Review on November 15; and T. While the Interim Ordinance would apply to all projects, including the two pending pipeline projects, the Council has the authority to address equity exceptions to the moratorium by separate resolution; and U. The Interim Ordinance extension is necessary to assure parking availability for businesses and to protect nearby neighborhoods from further parking intrusion; and V. The Interim Ordinance is consistent with Council’s recent direction to study parking improvements and requirements for Downtown. The approval of the exceptions would be consistent with the intent of the moratorium by limiting the number of exceptions and by attaching conditions expected to further the provision of parking and studies necessary to fully address these concerns. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The findings listed above are hereby incorporated. SECTION 2. Written Report. The Report referenced in Recital O is hereby deemed by the City Council to be the written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5167 and the subsequent extension. SECTION 3. Moratorium. The City Council hereby extends Interim Urgency Ordinance Nos. 5167 and 5173 establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption as set forth in Section 18.52.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any development or issuance of any permit or other land use entitlement for any project located in the Downtown or California Avenue Assessment Districts. SECTION 4. Study. The City Council directs the Planning Department to consider and study possible amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning ordinance to eliminate use of the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 5. Written Report. At least ten (10) days before this Urgency Ordinance or any extension expires, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the Not Yet Approved 4 121210 jb 0131022 measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of this Interim Urgency Ordinance. SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 7. Effective Period. This extension ordinance shall take full force and effect immediately upon expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5172. In accordance with Government Code Section 65856, this ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of one year following expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5172. Thus the moratorium shall expire on December 28, 2013. SECTION 8. Exemptions to Moratorium. The Council may adopt by separate resolution specifying equitable considerations for exempting pending development projects for which an application was submitted to the City prior to October 15, 2012. SECTION 9. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is designed to preserve the status quo. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Not Yet Approved 121210 jb 0131023 1 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Providing Exceptions for Limited “Pipeline” Projects from Temporary Moratorium on the Use of the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for New Development in Assessment Districts R E C I T A L S A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in development and has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown monitoring reports produced in the past 5 years; and B. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for their employees; and C. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also resulted in complaints from residents in downtown areas about congested parking in their neighborhoods; and D. Program L-8 of the Comprehensive Plan limits new nonresidential development in the Downtown Area to 350,000 square feet (10 percent above the amount of development existing or approved in 1986), and requires that this limit be re-evaluated when nonresidential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area; and E. Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development moratorium on downtown nonresidential development upon an increase of 350,000 square feet of net new nonresidential development (since 1986); and F. The 235,000 square foot study limit will be reached upon approval of projects now pending before the Architectural Review Board; and G. On July 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to initiate the preparation of the re-evaluation of the downtown development cap; and H. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial Districts) and Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirement) provide for a variety of exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the Downtown area and specifically within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area that result in less parking being provided than the calculated demand for parking for new projects; and I. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.060 (c) allows for floor area up to a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 to be “exempt” from parking requirements within the Downtown Not Yet Approved 121210 jb 0131023 2 Parking Assessment Area and floor are up to 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the California Downtown Parking Assessment Area (“Exempt Floor Area”); and J. The Exempt Floor Area parking exemption was enacted in the mid 1980’s and appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown development and provide equity to parking assessment district members; and K. The Exempt Floor Area parking exception no longer appears necessary to achieve such purposes, given the vitality of downtown and the need for additional parking; and L. Continued application of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption will further exacerbate downtown and California Avenue parking deficiencies; and M. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City as such use may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and N. The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5167 on October 15, 2012, by a four-fifths vote after a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. Ordinance 5167 expired on November 29, 2012; and O. On November 13, 2012, the Council reviewed, filed and heard comment on a Report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 regarding the current status of parking issues in the Downtown area; and P. On November 19, 2012, the Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5172 which extended the use of Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City to December 29, 2012; and Q. On December 10, 2012, the Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. XX which extended the use of Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City to December 28, 2013 in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270 and based on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare. R. There are two pending development projects currently under review that could be affected by the moratorium: a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, , including 19,960 square feet of office space with two residential units above, which has been under discussion and review for more than a year, has been reviewed twice by the Architectural Review Board, and is scheduled for likely final review in January; and Not Yet Approved 121210 jb 0131023 3 b) 636 Waverley, including 4,900 square feet of office space with two residential units above, which was submitted on September 10, 2012, and received Preliminary Architectural Review on November 15; and S. Application of the Interim Ordinance to these projects could create an appearance of inequity because the City’s past practice in most instances when enacting major land use changes has been to exempt pipeline projects from such changes, regardless of whether legally required to do so. T. While the City recognizes it is not bound by past practice and while applicants do not have a “vested right” to develop in conformance with existing zoning, the Council finds it important to recognize that such a moratorium could work a financial hardship on applicants who have submitted development plans to the City before the moratorium was enacted and that the moratorium may project an undesired image to the business community that rules may be changed mid-stream. U. The Council desires in this instance to exempt pipeline projects in order to preserve certainty for such pending developments, especially since downtown development has been impacted by the national recession. The approval of exceptions would be consistent with the intent of the moratorium by limiting the number of exceptions and by attaching conditions expected to further the provision of parking and studies necessary to fully address these concerns; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Interim Ordinance XX, extending Interim Ordinance 5162, shall not apply to any pending Development Projects meeting all of the following criteria (“Exempt Project”) and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant has submitted a discretionary development review application to the City prior to October 15, 2012 (the date of the moratorium) and has not yet received approval by the Director of Planning or the City Council. 2. The Exemption shall only apply to the development project set forth in, or in substantial compliance with, the application pending as of October 14, 2012. 3. An Exemption shall expire if applicant fails (a) to receive approval by the Director of Planning (subsequent to review by the Architectural Review Board) by June 30, 2013, or (b) to receive building permits from the City by December 31, 2013. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant for an Exempt Project must pay an “equivalent” assessment, to be deposited in the City’s Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fund, in the amount calculated as the pro-rata share of the exempt parking spaces relative to the total Parking Assessment District spaces spread Not Yet Approved 121210 jb 0131023 4 across the principal and interest schedule from the inception through the life of the current parking district bonds (see Exhibit A). 5. Not later than 30 days following approval of this Resolution, the applicant for an Exempt Project must pay to the City a pro-rata share (based on the ratio of the total exempt spaces between the two projects) of the estimated $150,000 cost of the City’s proposed Downtown Parking “Cap” Study. This payment is not refundable. 6. A condition of approval for any Exempt Project will require a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to be approved by the Director of Planning prior to issuance of building permits and to be implemented immediately upon occupancy, setting forth measures to achieve a minimum 20% mode-split for other than single-occupancy vehicles, with annual monitoring and financial penalties established for failure to attain the diversion objectives. SECTION 2. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this resolution, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the provisions of the Interim Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of the Interim Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable from this Resolution. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Not Yet Approved 121210 jb 0131023 5 SECTION 3. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds that this project qualified for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under CEQA guidelines (Section 15301 – Existing Facilities) and procedures adopted by the City of Palo Alto, and therefore no further environmental assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ______________________________ Sr. Assistant City Attorney City Manager ______________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment ______________________________ Director of Administrative Services Not Yet Approved 121210 jb 0131023 6 Exhibit A Exemptions from Parking Exemption Moratorium Equivalent Assessment Requirements 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street 1. 135 Hamilton Avenue: $326,531 2. 636 Waverley Street: $122,784 Proposed Parking for 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street 135 Hamilton (4 stories) 636 Waverley (4 stories) Parcel Size 9,910 sf 5,275 sf Proposed Total FAR 28,146 sf (2.8) 10,550 sf (2:1) Commercial FAR 19,960 sf 4,903 sf Residential FAR 8,186 (2 units) 5,846 (2 units) Parking Existing 0* 5 Proposed 23 9 Required 84 25 Exemptions 1:1 Exemption (18.52.060(a)(2)&(c)) 40 15 TDR Exemption (18.18.080(g)) 20 N/A 200 SF Bonus (18.18.070(a)(1)) 1 1 *approximately 20-25 spaces exist on the vacant parcel and are leased for use by private businesses; they are not supporting existing business on the site, however. Spreadsheet for 135 Hamilton 135 Hamilton Pro‐Rated Share of Assessment District Principal and Interest 40 space share from original bond issue 326,531$ Data for Calculations: District Spaces Spaces in District (1)9,122 135 Hamilton spaces 40 Total District spaces 9,162 135 Hamilton Share 0.004366 Principal and interest payments for original issue and for refunding (in thousands) Original Issue Original Issue Refunded Issues Sept. 2002 Mar. 2012 Sept. 2012‐2030 2001 2002 2012 Total Principal paid (cols. B+C) & outstanding (E)1,675 5,460 31,300 38,435 Interest 4,441 16,701 15,215 36,357 Total 6,116 22,161 46,515 74,792 Original Par Issues in 2001 and 2002 Assess. Dist. 2001 Series 9,135 Assess. Dist. 2002 Series 35,460 Total Par 44,595 Refunding in 2012 Refunded 2012 Par 31,300 Notes: (1) From original Engineer's Report (2) Principal cited on line 17 will obviously not match original issue. Between what has been paid and the use of some reserves used to pay down principal in refunding, these numbers will not balance but can be reconciled. Spreadsheet for 636 Waverly 15 space share from original bond issue 122,784$ Data for Calculations: District Spaces Spaces in District (1)9,122 135 Hamilton spaces 15 Total District spaces 9,137 135 Hamilton Share 0.001642 Principal and interest payments for original issue and for refunding (in thousands) Original Issue Original Issue Refunded Issues Sept. 2002 Mar. 2012 Sept. 2012‐2030 2001 2002 2012 Total Principal paid (cols. B+C) & outstanding (E)1,675 5,460 31,300 38,435 Interest 4,441 16,701 15,215 36,357 Total 6,116 22,161 46,515 74,792 Original Par Issues in 2001 and 2002 Assess. Dist. 2001 Series 9,135 Assess. Dist. 2002 Series 35,460 Total Par 44,595 Refunding in 2012 Refunded 2012 Par 31,300 Notes: (1) From original Engineer's Report (2) Principal cited on line 17 will obviously not match original issue. Between what has been paid and the use of some reserves used to pay down principal in refunding, these numbers will not balance but can be reconciled. City of Palo Alto (ID # 3291) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 11/19/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Parking Moratorium Extension and Exceptions Title: Public Hearing: Consider Extending through December 29, 2013 a Moratorium on the Use of Certain Parking Exemptions contained in Section 18.52.060(c) of of the Zoning Ordinance Related to the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Areas; and Considerations for Making Exceptions from the Moratorium for Proposed Projects at 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Adopt the extension of the Interim Urgency Ordinance (Interim Ordinance) establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit, entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and California Avenue parking issues (Attachment A), for a period of thirty (30) days through December 29, 2012; and 2. Direct staff to return prior to further extension of the ordinance with proposed language related to potential exceptions for properties at 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street. Background On October 15, 2012, the Council adopted an interim “urgency” ordinance that provides for a moratorium on the use of a parking exemption for Exempt Floor Area (up to a 1.0 FAR) on a site. As further detailed in the October 15 staff report, this zoning provision has been used very City of Palo Alto Page 2 infrequently in the past and its rationale no longer applies. Further, its application to properties that have not paid into the assessment district is of some question. In accordance with State law, the moratorium was adopted on an “urgency” basis by Council with a 4/5 vote, 8-0 (Councilmember Schmid was absent). Council also directed that staff return with recommendations for criteria to identify appropriate exceptions for projects in the development review “pipeline.” The ordinance became effective immediately. State law requires that staff report back within 45 days on a procedure for review of the ordinance, at which time a public hearing would be held and the moratorium may be extended for an additional 10 months and 15 days. State law permits a second extension of the ordinance for a maximum duration of two years. The October 15 Council staff report is included as Attachment B, and provides substantially more detailed background about the code and the basis for the moratorium. Discussion Attachment A provides for a further extension of the ordinance for another 30 days, rather than the 10 months, 15 days allowed by State law. A noticed public hearing is required, and approval by a 4/5 vote of the Council (8 members) is needed. Staff has not prepared an “exception” proposal for “pipeline” projects for this meeting, since we are aware that a full Council would not be in attendance. By coming back within 30 days (December 10 is proposed), staff will then propose an exception provision that Council may consider and extension for an additional one year period. The proposed Interim Ordinance (Attachment A) would continue to suspend use of the “Exempt Floor Area Exemption” pending further study and changes to existing parking and zoning requirements, including re-evaluation of the Downtown development cap. Floor area will remain exempt from parking to the extent parking assessments have been paid for a site. Interim Ordinance Process and Evaluation State law allows for a city to extend the interim ordinance on an “urgency” basis, subject to an interim report that outlines steps that have been and are expected to be taken to alleviate the parking problems associated with the continued use of the Exempt Floor Area Exemption. Staff has attached the Parking Study Report presented to Council on November 13 (Attachment C) as the background report detailing the proposed evaluation process. The outcome of the Parking Study, particularly related to the Downtown Development Cap, will include recommendation of zoning changes, following public hearing and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission, to either revise the ordinance as necessary or consider permanent elimination of the exemption, prior to the expiration of the moratorium. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Applicability to Pending Projects As outlined in the October 15 report, cities may revise zoning requirements at any time and new development must comply with those updated requirements. The major exception to this rule is where a property owner has acquired a “vested right” to build a particular structure by obtaining a permit and performing substantial work in reliance on that permit. A vested right is not created by the existence of particular zoning, or by preparatory work performed in advance of obtaining a permit. Staff does not believe there are any pending projects that have acquired a vested right to develop under the old requirements. That being said, Council has discretion to exempt projects form complying with new zoning requirements if there is a rational and equitable basis for the exemption. Staff noted that there are two development projects currently under review: a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, which has been under discussion and review for more than a year and has been reviewed once by the Architectural Review Board; and b) 636 Waverley, which was submitted as a Preliminary Architectural Review application on September 10, 2012. Staff has engaged to some extent in discussions with the property owners for these projects, and will continue to meet and then will return on December 10 with a proposal related to exceptions for these “pipeline” projects, in conjunction with the second ordinance extension. Given the need for 8 votes for any exception, staff believes it is important to have a full Council present to discuss the scope of the exception. Policy Implications Staff believes that the interim ordinance extension is necessary to assure parking availability for businesses and to protect nearby neighborhoods from further parking intrusion. The ordinance is also consistent with Council’s recent direction to study parking improvements and requirements for Downtown. Environmental Review Environmental review is not required for the urgency ordinance, as it simply maintains the status quo, and is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent ordinance changes will, however, require further environmental review prior to consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council. Attachments: A: Ordinance Extending Interim Urgency Ordinance (PDF) B: October 15, 2012 City Council Staff Report re: Interim Urgency Ordinance (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 4 C: November 13, 2012 Council Staff Report re: Update of Parking Program (continued from 11/5/12) (PDF) Not Yet Approved 1 121113 jb 0131016 Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance Extending Ordinance No. 5167 of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Temporary Moratorium on the Use of the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) [Parking Assessment Districts and Areas ‐ General] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for New Development in Assessment Districts R E C I T A L S A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in development and has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown monitoring reports produced in the past 5 years; and B. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for their employees; and C. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also resulted in complaints from residents in downtown areas about congested parking in their neighborhoods; and D. Program L‐8 of the Comprehensive Plan limits new nonresidential development in the Downtown Area to 350,000 square feet (10 percent above the amount of development existing or approved in 1986), and requires that this limit be re‐evaluated when nonresidential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area; and E. Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development moratorium on downtown nonresidential development upon an increase of 350,000 square feet of net new nonresidential development (since 1986); and F. The 235,000 square foot study limit will be reached upon approval of projects now pending before the Architectural Review Board; and G. On July 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to initiate the preparation of the re‐evaluation of the downtown development cap; and H. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial Districts) and Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the Downtown area and specifically within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area that result in less parking being provided than the calculated demand for parking for new projects; and Not Yet Approved 2 121113 jb 0131016 I. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.060 (c) allows for floor area up to a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 to be “exempt” from parking requirements within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area and floor are up to 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the California Downtown Parkin Assessment Area (“Exempt Floor Area”); and J. The Exempt Floor Area parking exemption was enacted in the mid 1980’s and appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown development and provide equity to parking assessment district members; and K. The Exempt Floor Area parking exception no longer appears necessary to achieve such purposes, given the vitality of downtown and the need for additional parking; and L. Continued application of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption will further exacerbate downtown and California Avenue parking deficiencies; and M. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City as such use may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and N. The City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5167 on October 15, 2012, by a four‐fifths vote after a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 and Ordinance 5167 will expire on November 29, 2012. O. On November 13, 2012, the Council reviewed, filed and heard comment on a Report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 regarding the current status of parking issues in the Downtown area. P. The Council desires to extend Interim Ordinance 5167 in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270 and is based on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare as set forth in the above findings and a 4/5 vote is required for passage; and The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The findings listed above are hereby incorporated. SECTION 2. Written Report. The Report referenced in Recital O is hereby deemed by the City Council to be the written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5167. SECTION 3. Moratorium. The City Council hereby extends Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5167 establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking Not Yet Approved 3 121113 jb 0131016 exemption as set forth in Section 18.52.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any development or issuance of any permit or other land use entitlement for any project located in the Downtown or California Avenue Assessment Districts. SECTION 4. Study. The City Council directs the Planning Department to consider and study possible amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning ordinance to eliminate use of the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 5. Written Report. At least ten (10) days before this Urgency Ordinance or any extension expires, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of this Interim Urgency Ordinance. SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 7. Effective Period. This extension ordinance shall take full force and effect immediately upon expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5167. In accordance with Government Code Section 65856, this ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of thirty (30) days following expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5167. Thus the moratorium shall expire on December 29, 2012, unless this period is extended by the City Council as provided in Government Code Section 65858. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Not Yet Approved 4 121113 jb 0131016 SECTION 8. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is designed to preserve the status quo. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto (ID # 3174) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 10/15/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Downtown Parking Exemption Title: Adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance to Place Temporary Moratorium on use of "Exempt Floor Area Ratio" Parking Exemption Contained in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance in the Downtown and California Avenue Assessment Districts From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the Interim Urgency Ordinance (Interim Ordinance) establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit, entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and California Avenue parking issues (Attachment A). Executive Summary On July 16, 2012, the City Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts for Downtown and directed staff to look at a variety of approaches to address concerns of businesses and neighbors. Some of the issues to be addressed, particularly in light of the downtown development cap, will include evaluation of zoning measures that might more accurately depict realistic parking ratios and assess the desirability and viability of parking exemptions. Staff has identified, however, that one particular parking exemption, applicable to both the Downtown and the California Avenue areas, is likely to immediately exacerbate parking problems without seeming to provide for any public purpose. This provision (Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance) appears to allow exemption from parking for any property within the relevant assessment district, up to a 1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in the Downtown area and up to 0.5:1 in the California Avenue area (see Attachment B.) This clause was included in language adopted in the 1980s to encourage downtown development and as a compromise for then-recently enacted downzoning and establishment of parking assessments. While the basis for those amendments is now outdated and downtown development is thriving, City of Palo Alto Page 2 the provision remains in place and applicants are now invoking it to further exempt parking. This is generally in addition to exemptions due to transfer of development rights (TDR) or other allowances pursuant to the code. Staff recommends that the “Exempt Floor Area exemption” be suspended, at least for the duration of staff’s study of downtown parking, to enable a more complete analysis of its effect in combination with other parking measures. An interim “urgency” ordinance is attached that would allow for such a moratorium on the use of this exemption. According to State law, the moratorium may be adopted on an “urgency” basis by Council with a 4/5 vote, meaning at least eight (8) Council members would need to agree to impose the change for a maximum of 45 days. The ordinance would become effectively immediately. State law requires that staff report back within 45 days on a procedure for review of the ordinance, at which time a public hearing would be held and the moratorium may be extended for an additional 10 months and 15 days. State law permits a second extension of the ordinance for a maximum duration of two years. Background The City of Palo Alto has studied parking limitations, particularly in Downtown, multiple times since the 1980s, when the original assessments for the Downtown and California Avenue areas were established, and Downtown was rezoned (downzoned) to more restrictive building standards. Downtown parking was re-evaluated in the 1990s, leading up to the construction of two new parking garages. Zoning requirements that limit downtown commercial development also mandated that the staff prepare an annual report to monitor downtown development, the use of transferable development rights (TDRs) and parking changes (the most recent report is included as Attachment C). Over the past year, staff has developed considerable data and initiated programs to evaluate the status of parking in Downtown and in the California Avenue area, as well as to assess the impact of overflow parking on nearby residential neighborhoods. On July 16, 2012, the City Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts and directed staff to look at a variety of approaches to address concerns of businesses and neighbors. Staff is initiating studies of the potential for adding parking facilities Downtown and in the California Avenue area, means to more efficiently use available parking garages and lots, technology to enhance customer service and the customer experience, and evaluation of the downtown development cap and related zoning provisions. Some of the issues to be addressed, particularly in light of the downtown development cap, will include evaluation of zoning measures that might more accurately depict realistic parking ratios and assess the desirability and viability of parking exemptions. Staff has identified, however, that one particular parking exemption, applicable to both Downtown and the California Avenue area, is likely to immediately exacerbate parking problems without seeming to provide for any City of Palo Alto Page 3 public purpose. This provision (Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance) appears to allow exemption from off-street parking requirements for any property within the relevant assessment district, associated with floor area up to a 1.0:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in Downtown and up to 0.5:1-1.0:1 FAR in the California Avenue area. This clause appears to have been added to the Zoning Code in the 1980s to encourage Downtown development and as a compromise for then-recently enacted downzoning and the establishment of parking assessments. The language is quite convoluted, resulting in varying interpretations by staff and applicants. The City has not been able to locate complete documentation of the history of the exemption. Property owners who never paid into the assessment district have argued that the Exempt Floor Area exemption allows them to retroactively “buy into” the assessment district in order to take advantage of the provision. The exemption has not, to staff’s knowledge, been requested or implemented until recently, specifically: In 2007, a one-story project at 135 Hamilton Avenue was exempted for approximately 7,700 square feet on a 10,000 square foot lot (approximately 31 parking spaces), providing no parking spaces on a site that had not ever paid into the assessment district (note: the project was approved, but was not built and the permit has expired). The applicant, however, was required and had agreed to pay into the assessment district to qualify for the exemption. In 2011, a subsequent application for the same site was submitted for a four-story building, with 10,000 square feet (40 parking spaces) to be exempted from providing on- site parking spaces or paying in-lieu fees, and another 5,000 square feet (20 parking spaces) exempted through the use of TDRs. This project has received review by the Architectural Review Board and is now under redesign. The applicant is again offering to pay into the assessment district to qualify for this exemption. (Note: the applicant has also recently provided a letter stating his intent to revise the application to accommodate the prior one-story proposal). In 2011, the applicants for the four-story Lytton Gateway project at 335 Alma Street requested the 1:1 FAR exemption for the portion of the floor area that was located within the Downtown assessment district, approximately 14,400 square feet (58 spaces). The project was considered as a Planned Community rezoning, however, and the Council did not accept the exemption as a given, instead requiring additional parking and contributions to the City’s In-Lieu Parking Fund. In September 2012, a Preliminary Architectural Review application was filed for a 4,903 square foot office development (with two residences above) at 636 Waverley Street, requesting exemption for the 1:1 FAR equivalent, amounting to 14 spaces of the total 20 required for the office on-site, in addition to other exemptions allowing existing parking deficiencies to be carried over to the new development. Staff has spoken with owners of at least two other sites, for which the 1:1 FAR exemption is being considered, but applications have not yet been submitted. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Given the current parking deficits in the City’s two assessment districts (downtown and California Avenue) and the outdated rationale for applying this exemption, staff has been discouraging recent applications since the 135 Hamilton Avenue and 335 Alma (Lytton Gateway) projects from using this parking exemption. To staff’s knowledge, no project applicant has requested use of the exemption for the California Avenue area. Discussion Staff believes that the basis for the “Exempt Floor Area Exemption”, i.e., encourage development Downtown and compromise for the downzoning and parking assessment requirements, is now outdated, as downtown does not require encouragement to develop, and any equity issues have long been addressed. Nevertheless, the provision remains in place and applicants are now invoking it to further exempt parking. There is also some ambiguity as to whether applicants who have never paid into the assessment district can qualify for the exemption by paying into the district retroactively, and if so, how to calculate the payment. Further, applicants are sometimes coupling this exemption with other parking exemptions due to transfer of development rights (TDR) or other allowances pursuant to the code. The result of the continued use of this exemption would be to exacerbate parking deficiencies in the Downtown and California Avenue assessment district areas. Proposed Ordinance The proposed Interim Ordinance (Attachment A) would suspend use of the “Exempt Floor Area Exemption” pending further study and changes to existing parking and zoning requirements, including re-evaluation of the Downtown development cap. Floor area will of course remain exempt from parking to the extent assessments have been paid for the site. Staff believes it is appropriate to apply the moratorium to both the Downtown and California Avenue areas, as it will in both areas exacerbate parking deficiencies documented previously by staff. Staff distinguishes this provision from others for review, particularly the transferable development rights (TDRs) section, as in those cases other public purposes are readily identified (seismic and historic rehabilitation), and significant investments (either rehabilitation or purchase of TDRs) have been made pursuant to the zoning ordinance. Those provisions will, however, be evaluated as part of the more comprehensive parking studies. Interim Ordinance Process State law allows for a city to enact an interim ordinance on an “urgency” basis, upon a vote of 4/5 of the members of the Council, to protect the health, safety or welfare of the community (the draft ordinance includes the relevant findings). No public hearing and no input from the Planning and Transportation Commission is required prior to the enactment of the urgency ordinance. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this provision of State law takes effect City of Palo Alto Page 5 immediately and does not require second reading. The next steps, pursuant to State law, would be to: 1. Return to Council not later than 45 days later for a public hearing with an interim report with steps taken to alleviate the parking problems associated with the continued use of the Exempt Floor Area Exemption. At that time the Council will also be asked to extend the Interim Ordinance for up to an additional 10 months and 15 days (as allowed under Government Code Section 65858) to allow staff to propose zoning changes; and 2. Recommendation of zoning changes, following public hearing and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission, to either revise the ordinance as necessary or consider permanent elimination of the exemption, prior to the expiration of the 10-month, 15-day extension. Applicability to Pending Projects Cities may revise zoning requirements at any time, except where a property owner has acquired a “vested right” to build a particular structure by obtaining a permit and performing substantial work in reliance on that permit. A vested right is not created by the existence of particular zoning, or by preparatory work performed in advance of obtaining a permit. While the Interim Ordinance as written does not make exceptions for projects that have begun the planning process but not completed it by securing final permits (“pipeline projects”), in the past the City generally has excepted pipeline projects from new ordinance requirements. The City is not legally required to make such exceptions, but the Council may make a policy decision to do so. Two projects are currently under review: a) 135 Hamilton Avenue, which has been under discussion and review for more than a year and has been reviewed once by the Architectural Review Board; and b) 636 Waverley, which was submitted as a Preliminary Architectural Review application on September 10, 2012. Staff has discussed the application of the Exempt Floor Area Exemption for a couple of other projects, but owners have not yet submitted applications for those projects. Council may choose to either include or exempt one or both of the “pipeline” projects from application of the moratorium. If the Council chooses to exclude one or both projects from the moratorium, staff suggests that exclusion be conditional upon: a) preparation of a robust transportation demand management (TDM) program for the project, and b) payment of the equivalent “assessment” amount or increment to the In-Lieu Parking Fund (rather than to pay down the bonds) to contribute to construction of additional parking spaces in the future (note: the amount of the “assessment” should be the present value of a stream of assessments as would originally have been applied over the life of the parking bonds). Staff will be prepared to suggest language to implement these requirements should Council desire. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Policy Implications Staff believes that the interim ordinance is necessary to assure parking availability for businesses and to protect nearby neighborhoods from further parking intrusion. The ordinance is also consistent with Council’s recent direction to study parking improvements and requirements for Downtown. Environmental Review Environmental review is not required for the urgency ordinance, as it simply maintains the status quo, and is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Subsequent ordinance changes will, however, require further environmental review prior to consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council. Attachments: Attachment A: Downtown Parking Exemption Urgency Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment B: Section 18.52.060 of Zoning Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment C: December, 2011 Downtown Monitoring Report to Council (PDF) Not Yet Approved 1 121010 jb 0131000 Ordinance No. _______ Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Temporary Moratorium on the Use of the “Exempt Floor Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) [Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for New Development in Assessment Districts R E C I T A L S A. The City of Palo Alto downtown area has seen an increase in development and has experienced increases in parking demand, as documented in downtown monitoring reports produced in the past 5 years; and B. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has resulted in complaints from both merchants and other businesses about the lack of parking for their employees; and C. The lack of available daytime downtown parking for employees has also resulted in complaints from residents in downtown areas about congested parking in their neighborhoods; and D. Program L-8 of the Comprehensive Plan limits new nonresidential development in the Downtown Area to 350,000 square feet (10 percent above the amount of development existing or approved in 1986), and requires that this limit be re-evaluated when nonresidential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area; and E. Section 18.18.040 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development moratorium on downtown nonresidential development upon an increase of 350,000 square feet of net new nonresidential development (since 1986); and F. The 235,000 square foot study limit will be reached upon approval of projects now pending before the Architectural Review Board; and G. On July 23, 2012, the City Council directed staff to initiate the preparation of the re-evaluation of the downtown development cap; and H. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.18 (Downtown Commercial Districts) and Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) provide for a variety of exemptions and reductions to parking requirements within the Downtown area and specifically within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area that result in less parking being provided than the calculated demand for parking for new projects; and I. The City’s Zoning Ordinance Section 18.52.060 (c) allows for floor area up to a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0 to be “exempt” from parking requirements within the Attachment A Not Yet Approved 2 121010 jb 0131000 Downtown Parking Assessment Area and floor area up to 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the California Downtown Parking Assessment Area (“Exempt Floor Area”); and J. The Exempt Floor Area parking exemption was enacted in the mid 1980’s and appears to have been intended to stimulate downtown development and provide equity to parking assessment district members; and K. The Exempt Floor Area parking exception no longer appears necessary to achieve such purposes, given the vitality of downtown and the need for additional parking; and L. Continued application of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption will further exacerbate Downtown and California Avenue parking deficiencies; and M. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption in the City as such use may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and N. This interim ordinance is adopted in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270 and is based on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare as set forth in the above findings and a 4/5 vote is required for passage. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The findings listed above are hereby incorporated. SECTION 2. Moratorium. The City Council hereby enacts this Interim Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption as set forth in Section 18.52.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any development or issuance of any permit or other land use entitlement for any project located in the Downtown or California Avenue Assessment Districts. SECTION 3. Study. The City Council directs the Planning Department to consider and study possible amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning ordinance to eliminate use of the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemption contained in Section 18.52.060 (c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 4. Written Report. At least ten (10) days before this Urgency Ordinance or any extension expires, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of this Interim Urgency Ordinance. Not Yet Approved 3 121010 jb 0131000 SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 6. Effective Period. This urgency ordinance shall take full force and effect immediately upon adoption. In accordance with Government Code Section 65856, this ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of forty-five (45) days from adoption. Thus the moratorium shall expire on November 29, 2012, unless this period is extended by the City Council as provided in Government Code Section 65858. SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds that this ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is designed to preserve the status quo. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Assistant City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENT B 18.52.060 Parking Assessment Districts and Areas - General (a) Definitions (1) "Parking Assessment Areas" "Parking assessment areas" means either: The "downtown parking assessment area," which is that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the University Avenue parking assessment district entitled Proposed Boundaries of University Avenue Off-Street Parking Project No. 75-63 Assessment District, City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, dated October 30, 1978, and on file with the city clerk; or The "California Avenue area parking assessment district," which is that certain area of the city delineated on the map of the California Avenue area parking assessment district entitled Proposed Boundaries, California Avenue Area Parking Maintenance District, dated December 16, 1976, and on file with the city clerk; (2) "Exempt Floor Area" Within the downtown parking assessment area, "exempt floor area" means all or a portion of that floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which does not exceed a floor area ratio of 1.0 to 1.0; Within the California Avenue area parking assessment district, "exempt floor area" means either: (A) All or a portion of that floor area of a building which is located at or nearest grade and which does not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.5 to 1.0 or (B) The amount of floor area shown on the 1983-84 California Avenue area assessment district rolls in the engineer's report for bonds issued pursuant to Title 13 of the municipal code, whichever is greater. (b) In-lieu fees Except as provided in subsection (c) below, within any parking assessment district established by the city for the purpose of providing off-street parking facilities, all or a portion of the off-street parking requirement for a use may be satisfied by payment of assessments or fees levied by such district on the basis of parking spaces required but not provided. (c) Exempt Floor Area (1) Unless a project for the construction of floor area has received design approval prior to December 19, 1983, or has undergone preliminary review pursuant to Sections 18.76.020 and 18.77.070 on December 1st or 15th, 1983, the only portion of off-street parking required for construction of floor area in a parking assessment area which may be satisfied by payment of assessments or levies made within such area on the basis of parking spaces required but not provided, is that portion of the parking requirements associated with the uses proposed to be conducted in that area of the floor equal to the exempt floor area for the site. Where only a portion of floor area constitutes exempt floor area, and uses with more than one parking standard as required by this chapter are proposed for said floor, the use on that portion of the floor which generates the highest parking requirement will be designated as the exempt floor area. (2) All other required off-street parking that is not satisfied by such payment of assessments shall be provided in accordance with this chapter. (3) This subsection shall be interpreted to allow changes in the use of all exempt floor area and nonexempt floor area existing as of February 16, 1984 without requiring additional parking; provided, that the change in use does not consist of a change from residential to nonresidential, or an increase in actual floor area which does not constitute exempt floor area. (4) No project which has received design approval prior to December 19, 1983, or which has undergone preliminary review on December 1st or 15th, 1983, shall increase the amount of floor area approved or reviewed or decrease the area designed or intended for parking without meeting the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 4964 § 3 (part), 2007) City of Palo Alto (ID # 2424) City Council Informational Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 3/5/2012 March 05, 2012 Page 1 of 7 (ID # 2424) Title: Downtown Monitoring Report 2010-2011 Subject: Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report for 2010-2011 From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This is an informational report and no Council action is required. Executive Summary The annual Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report tracks total non-residential growth in the commercial downtown area (CD-C zones) and office and retail vacancy rates in CD-C and CD-C (GF)(P) zones. Through mid-January of 2012, there was a 4.8 percent vacancy rate within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 2.0 percent overall vacancy rate in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. In this monitoring cycle, approximately 13,500 square feet of space was approved or added to the total downtown non-residential square footage. An additional 61,650 square feet of new non-residential development can be accommodated before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached. Background Annual monitoring of available space in Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area was established in 1998 by Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9. These programs require reporting of non-residential development activity and trends within the CD zone district. Staff regularly tracks vacancy rates, changes in floor area and parking in the CD district resulting from approved development to comply with Comprehensive Plan programs and to determine the ground floor vacancy rate in the CD zone district. The zoning code, until 2009, included an exception process to allow office development on the first floor if the ground floor vacancy rate exceeds 5%. In 2009, the City Council adopted zoning ordinance amendments to enhance protection of retail uses in downtown commercial districts to ensure that retail uses are retained and viability enhanced during the economic downturn and beyond. A map of the districts subject to the amendments was included in the 2009 City Council report (CMR 20:09), available on the City’s website. The ordinance amendment eliminated the provision for an exception process if the GF vacancy rate is found to be greater than 5% during the annual monitoring period. March 05, 2012 Page 2 of 7 (ID # 2424) Staff completed field visits for this 2010/2011 monitoring period in early January 2012. Telephone interviews and email exchanges with local real estate leasing agents were also compiled at the same time to determine current vacancy rates and prevailing rents. This report also includes cumulative data on developments in the Commercial Downtown (CD)zone from January 1987 through August 31, 2011 and specific data on vacancy information and rental rates through January 2012. Discussion Economic conditions in Palo Alto downtown area are improving gradually. There is currently a 4.8 percent vacancy rate within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 2.0 percent overall vacancy rate in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. This is a noticeable drop of 2.1 percent vacancy in the Ground Floor Overlay District from last year. This number is close to the 2007-2008 period vacancy rate, just before the start of the economic downturn. In the 2010- 2011 monitoring period, the rental rates for retail varied from $2.75 to $4.00 per square foot based on the location, and the average office rental rate was between $4.50 and $7.00 per square foot. Office rental rates have increased in the last year and a half and retail rental rates have remained steady throughout the 2010-2011 monitoring period. The following table shows the approximate total vacant area and percentage of vacancy, beginning in the 2006-2007 monitoring period. TABLE 1: Total Vacancy in CD-C & CD-C (GF) (P) Zones in Downtown Palo Alto Year Total CD-C Vacant (SQFT) % of CD-C Vacancy Total CD-C (GF) (P) Vacant (SQFT) % of CD-C (GF) (P) Vacancy 2006-2007 88,368 2.63 18,330 2.94 2007-2008 120,004 3.60 26,294 4.21 2008-2009 212,189 6.39 56,109 8.99 2009-2010 85,271 2.56 37,888 6.91 2010-2011 66,226 2.0 26, 290 4.8 Non-Residential Development Activity The Downtown Study, approved in 1986, incorporated a growth limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area above the total floor area existing in 1986, and provided for a re- evaluation of the CD regulations when net new development reaches 235,000 square feet. Since 1986, a total of 173,356 square feet of non-residential uses has been added (or approved) in the Downtown CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2008-2010, March 05, 2012 Page 3 of 7 (ID # 2424) approximately 46,500 square feet of net new commercial floor area was added with a few major contributing projects such as: 317-323 University Avenue, 325 Lytton Avenue, 564 University Avenue, 310 University Avenue, 278 University Avenue, and 265 Lytton Avenue. In this current cycle (2010-2011) approximately 13,499 square feet of net new commercial floor area has been added. Though significant construction activities continue in the downtown CD-C zone area, most of the construction includes redevelopment of existing sites since the existing downtown is close to being built-out. In the current cycle there were approximately five sites that were redeveloped but only one project, at 524 Hamilton Avenue, added significant square footage. Based on this recent monitoring, an additional 61,650 square feet of new non-residential development remains available for development before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached. Demonstrating Special Public Benefits The Downtown Study reserved 100,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot growth limit to be used for projects demonstrating special public benefits. Since 1986, ten projects in the Downtown area have been developed under the Planned Community zoning that requires a finding of public benefit. Five of the projects exceeded the non-residential floor area that would otherwise be allowed under zoning by a total of 34,378 square feet. The total changes in square footage of these projects are shown in the fourth column of Attachment E. The remaining five projects were mixed-use projects that did not exceed allowable non-residential floor areas. All of the projects either provided parking or paid a fee in lieu of providing parking. Projects Qualifying for Seismic, Historic or Minor Expansion Exemptions The Downtown Study designated 75,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot cap for projects that qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions in order to encourage these upgrades. Since 1986, 93,931 square feet have been added in this category. Two projects, 524 Hamilton Avenue and 668 Ramona Street, have used close to 5,000 square feet of Transfer Development Rights (TDR) square footage in this evaluation period. These projects are shown in the fifth column of Attachment E. Parking Inventory At the time of the Downtown Study, performance measures were established that specify that new development in the Downtown should not increase the total parking deficit beyond that expected from development that was existing or approved through May 1986, or 1,601 spaces. In 2003, the City opened two new parking structures: one located on 528 High Street and the other at 445 Bryant Street, adding a total of 899 parking spaces. These parking structure projects, in addition to other projects that provide a parking component, decreased the original 1986 deficit to approximately 628 spaces. At the end of the 2003 monitoring period, the City determined that a re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations would be undertaken when the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions (transfer of development rights and FAR bonuses) reaches a cumulative 450 spaces. Currently, the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions is 323 parking spaces. Through various projects, the total cumulative parking deficit has been significantly reduced from 1,601 in 1986 to 722 in 2011. The main March 05, 2012 Page 4 of 7 (ID # 2424) reasons for the reduction are: 1) the two-floor addition to the Cowper/Webster Garage; 2) significant restriping of on-street parking spaces by the City’s Transportation Division, resulting in 96 additional spaces; and 3) the construction of the two previously mentioned parking structures located on 528 High Street and 445 Bryant Street. Attachment F is a chart of the CD (Commercial Downtown) parking deficit. Staff notes, however, that the effects of the parking deficit, particularly on adjacent neighborhoods, appear to have been exacerbated by the increased employee density of office uses in the downtown. Vacancy Rate for Ground Floor (GF) Combining District The Ground Floor Combining District (GF) was created to encourage active pedestrian uses in the Downtown area such as retail, eating and drinking and personal services. In October 2011, there was approximately 548,675 square feet of total Ground Floor area in the CD-C(GF)(P) zoning district following the adoption of the amended ordinance in December 2009 to enhance protection of retail uses in the heart (University Avenue and side streets) of the downtown commercial district. Attachment C provides the list of parcels affected by adoption of the ordinance. A map showing the location of these parcels is provided as Attachment D. The result was an approximate net 75,660 square feet reduction in the total square footage of GF district. During the staff survey of Downtown vacancies in first week of January 2012, there were seven properties, totaling 26,290 square feet, which met the requirements for vacant and available ground floor area. TABLE 2: Vacant Property Listings for Only Ground Floor (GF) Spaces in CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District. (As of January 4, 2012) Address Vacant Square Feet 541 Bryant 2,556 248 Hamilton 3,000 174 University 2,300* 180 University 12,459 435 University 1,450 429-447 University 1,800 522 Waverley 2,725 Total (GF) Vacancy 26,290 March 05, 2012 Page 5 of 7 (ID # 2424) *Vacant since last year This results in a GF vacancy rate of approximately 4.8 percent, a reduction of 2.1 percent from the vacancy rate of last year. Vacancy Rate for Entire CD District The entire Downtown Commercial (CD) area includes approximately 3,850,000 gross square feet of floor area, including approximately 330,000 square feet within the SOFA CAP Phase 2 area. About 525,000 square feet is used for religious or residential purposes or is vacant and not available for occupancy. Thus, the net square footage of available commercial space is approximately 3,325,000 square feet. Staff conducted a field survey in early January 2012 and communicated with local real estate agents during same time to assess overall vacancies in the downtown area. In this monitoring cycle there was a total vacancy of 66,226 square feet. This vacancy equals a rate of 2.0 percent, somewhat less than the 2.6 percent vacancy noted in last year’s monitoring report. The overall CD-C vacancy rate has reduced considerably since the 2008-2009 period, close to a drop of 4 percent. Table 3 was compiled based on staff conducted fieldwork, research of real estate websites and responses received from local downtown real estate agents. TABLE 3: Vacant Property Listings for Remainder of Commercial Downtown (CD) (As of January 4, 2012) Includes Upper Floor Office Space in CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District and all floors of CD-C (P) District Address Zoning District Vacant Square Feet 635 Bryant CD-C (P)545 644 Emerson CD-C (P)2,238 418 Florence CD-C (P)2,515 155 Forest CD-S (P); CD-C (P)550 120-122 Hamilton CD-C (P)2,260 209 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P)9,000 261 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P)783 400 Hamilton CD-C (P)3,320 245 Lytton CD-C (P)13,433 March 05, 2012 Page 6 of 7 (ID # 2424) 550 Lytton CD-C (P)2,892 552 Waverley CD-C (GF)(P)2,400 Total Rest of CD Vacancy 39,936 CD –Commercial Downtown, (C) –Commercial, (S) –Service, GF –Ground Floor Combining District, P -Pedestrian Overlay Trends in Use Composition The primary observation of change in the use composition of Downtown was, in this cycle, a reduction of approximately 12,860 square feet of religious/institutional use that was converted to office use at the 661 Bryant Street project. Since the enactment of new CD zoning regulations in 1986, the total floor area devoted to higher-intensity commercial uses such as office, retail, eating/drinking and housing has increased, while the total floor area in lower- intensity commercial uses like manufacturing and warehousing has decreased (see Attachment G). Retail Rents Retail rental rates have marginally increased since last year’s monitoring report. According to the data gathered from the January 2011 staff survey of commercial real estate agents offering properties for lease in Downtown, rents for retail space generally range from $2.75 to $4.00 per square foot triple net (i.e. rent plus tenant assumption of insurance, janitorial services and taxes). The lower end of this range is generally for spaces in older buildings and away from University Avenue. Retail rental rates in the core downtown University Avenue sometimes increase to highs of $5.00 to $6.00 per square foot. For some vacant properties outside the downtown core, rental rates have been listed as negotiable. Office Rents Based on the information gathered from the commercial real estate agents listing properties for lease in Downtown, rents for Class A Downtown office space (i.e. newer and/or larger buildings on University Avenue and Lytton Avenues) and Class B office space (i.e. older and/or smaller buildings further from University Avenue) range from $4.50 to $7.00 per square foot triple net, compared to $3.50 to $5.50 per square foot triple net in last year’s monitoring report. Timeline This is an annual report. Resource Impact This report has no impact on resources, though the implications of reduced vacancy rates have positive impacts on the City’s potential source of property and sales taxes. Policy Implications This report on the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area is mandated by Comprehensive March 05, 2012 Page 7 of 7 (ID # 2424) Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 and by the Downtown Study approved by the City Council on July 14, 1986. Environmental Review This is an informational report only and is exempted from CEQA review. Courtesy Copies Planning and Transportation Commission Architectural Review Board Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Downtown Palo Alto Palo Alto Board of Realtors Downtown North Neighborhood Association Professorville Neighborhood University Park Neighborhood Association Attachments: ·Attachment A: 1986 Downtown Study Results Summary (PDF) ·Attachment B: Commercial Downtown (CD) Zone District Map (PDF) ·Attachment C: List of Parcels Added and Removed From CD-C(GF) P District (PDF) ·Attachment D: Downtown Map Showing the Zone Changes (PDF) ·Attachment E: CD Non-Residential Change in SQFT 09/01/86 to 08/31/11 (PDF) ·Attachment F: CD Parking Deficit(PDF) ·Attachment G: CommercialDowntown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category (PDF) Prepared By:Chitra Moitra, Planner Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager ATTACHMENT A DOWNTOWN STUDY RESULTS SUMMARY (July 1986) The following are the primary measures adopted as a result of the study: 1. A new Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district, including three sub districts (CD-C, CD-S and CD-N), was created and applied to most of the Downtown area previously zoned Community Commercial (CC) or Service Commercial (CS). The basic provisions of the CD district include floor area ratios (FARs) that are more restrictive than in the previous CC and CS zones, limits to project size and to the overall amount of future development, and special development regulations for sites adjacent to residential zones. 2. Growth limits were applied to the CD district restricting future development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was existing or approved in May 1986 and providing for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development reaches 235,000 square feet. In addition, 100,000 square feet of the total new floor area was reserved for projects demonstrating special public benefits and 75,000 square feet for projects which qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions. 3. Exemptions to the floor area ratio restrictions of the CD zone were established for certain building expansions involving historic structures, seismic rehabilitation, provision of required handicapped access, or one-time additions of 200 square feet or less. 4. New parking regulations were established for the University Avenue Parking Assessment District that requires new non- residential development to provide parking at a rate of one space per 250 square feet of floor area. Exemptions to this requirement are provided for certain increases in floor area related to provision of handicapped access, seismic or historic rehabilitation, one-time minor additions (200 square feet or less) and development of vacant land previously assessed for parking. The regulations also permit, in certain instances, off-site parking and parking fees in lieu of on-site parking. 5. Performance measures were established that specify that new development in the Downtown should not increase the total parking deficit beyond that expected from development that was existing or approved through May, 1986 (1600 spaces) and that call for re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations when the unmet parking demand, resulting from exemptions, reaches one half (225 parking spaces) of the minimum 450 parking spaces deemed necessary for construction of a new public parking structure. Staff was directed to monitor the parking deficit. 6. A new Ground Floor (GF) Combining District was created and applied to the area along University Avenue and portions of the major side streets between Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, in order to restrict the amount of ground floor area devoted to uses other than retail, eating and drinking or personal service. 7. Staff was directed to monitor the Downtown area in terms of development activity, vacancy rates, sales tax revenues, and commercial lease rates to facilitate evaluation of the effectiveness of the new regulations. 8. Staff was directed to undertake a site and feasibility study to evaluate an additional public parking structure elsewhere in the Downtown, to consider development of a parking facility on public lots S, L and F, and to explore the possibility of leasing or purchasing privately-owned vacant lots suitable as parking structure sites. 9. Policies and regulations were adopted which encourage Planned Community (PC) zoning for parking structures and limit underground parking to two levels below grade, unless there is proof that regular pumping of subsurface water will not be necessary. 10. A Twelve-Point Parking Program was adopted to increase the efficiency of existing parking. 11. Traffic policies were adopted which prohibit new traffic signals on portions of Alma Street and Middlefield Road, and prohibit a direct connection from Sand Hill Road to Palo Alto/Alma Street. In addition, new signs were approved directing through traffic off of University Avenue and onto Hamilton and Lytton Avenues. 12. Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) were directed to consider the possibility of an Urban Design Plan for Downtown and to develop design guidelines for commercial structures in neighborhood transition areas and for driveways which cross pedestrian walkways. 13. A temporary Design and Amenities Committee was created and charged with developing an incentive program (including FAR increases of up to 1.5) to encourage private development to provide a variety of public amenities in the Downtown area. 14. Staff was directed to study possible restrictions on the splitting and merging of parcels as well as the establishment of minimum lot sizes in the new CD district. COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN (CD) ZONE DISTRICT MAP ATTACHMENT B o • , • , ATTACHMENT C LIST OF PARCELS ADDED AND REMOVED FROM CD-C (GF) P DISTRICT The following properties were added to the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District: 200-228 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-008 230-238 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-009 240-248 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-27-010 412 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-106 420 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-025 430 Emerson Street---APN 120-26-026 The following properties were removed from the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District: 115-119 University Avenue---APN 120-26-108 102-116 University Avenue---APN 120-26-039 124 University Avenue---APN 120-26-043 125 University Avenue---APN 120-26-138 525 Alma Street---APN 120-26-093 529 Alma Street---APN 120-26-110 535-539 Alma Street, 115 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-26-091 135 Hamilton Avenue---APN 120-26-111 440 Cowper Street---APN 120-15-014 437 Kipling Street---APN 120-15-020 443 Kipling Street---APN 120-15-019 DOWNTOWN MAP SHOWING THE ZONE CHANGES ATTACHMENT D o :~ o .~ , 1 ATTACHMENT E CD NON-RESIDENTIAL CHANGE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE 09/01/86 TO 08/31/11 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non- Residential Floor Area 520 Ramona Street A CDCGFP 11/20/84 - 400 +400 220 University Avenue CDCGFP 2/5/87 - 65 +65 151 Homer Avenue CDSP 3/17/88 - - -9,750 314 Lytton Avenue CDCP 5/5/88 - - -713 247-275 Alma Street CDNP 8/4/88 - - +1,150 700 Emerson Street CDSP 9/15/88 - - +4,000 431 Florence Street CDCP 9/15/88 - 2,500 +2,500 156 University Avenue CDCGFP 12/15/88 - 4,958 +4,958 401 Florence Street CDCP 3/2/89 - 2,407 +2,407 619 Cowper Street CDCP 5/6/89 - - +2,208 250 University Avenue PC-3872 5/15/89 11,000B 300 +20,300 2 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non- Residential Floor Area 550 University Avenue CDCP 6/1/89 - - -371 529 Bryant Street PC-3974 5/3/90 2,491C 2,491 +2,491 305 Lytton Avenue CDCP 9/28/90 - 200 +200 550 Lytton AvenueDE CDCP 10/22/90 - - +4,845 531 Cowper Street PC-4052 5/21/91 9,000 475 +9,475 540 Bryant Street CDCGFP 3/24/92 - 404 +404 530/534 Bryant Street CDCGFP 4/15/93 - 432 +432 555 Waverley Street/425 Hamilton AvenueE CDCP 9/21/93 - - +2,064 3 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non/Residential Floor Area 201 University Avenue CDCGFP 11/18/93 - 2,450 +2,450 518 Bryant Street CDCGFP 3/3/94 - 180 +180 245 Lytton Avenue CDCP 7/21/94 - - -21,320 400 Emerson StreetEF PC-4238 9/19/94 - 200 +4,715 443 Emerson Street CDCGFP 1/5/95 - 26 +26 420 Emerson Street CDCP 3/16/95 - 125 +125 340 University Avenue CDCGFP 4/6/95 - - -402 281 University Avenue CDCGFP 4/20/95 - - -2,500 456 University Avenue CDCGFP 5/18/95 - 7,486 +7,486 536 Ramona Street CDCGFP 7/11/95 - 134 +134 725/753 Alma Street PC-4283 7/17/95 - - -1,038 4 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non/Residential Floor Area 552 Emerson Street CDCGFP 7/18/95 - 177 +177 483 University Avenue G PC-4296 10/2/95 3,467C 2,789 +7,289 424 University Avenue CDCGFP 9/21/95 - 2,803 +2,803 901/909 Alma Street E,F PC-4389 8/1/96 - - +4,425 171 University Avenue CD-C(GF)(P) 9/19/96 - 1,853 +1,853 401 High Street CD-C(P) 10/3/96 - 350 +350 430 Kipling Street D,H CD-C(P) 10/22/96 - 200 +1,412 460-476 University Avenue CD-C(GF)(P) 3/20/97 - 1,775 +1,775 400 Emerson Street D PC-4238 3/21/97 - - +2,227 275 Alma Street CD-N(P) 7/8/97 - 200 +3,207 390 Lytton Avenue PC-4436 7/14/97 8,420C 689 +17,815 411 High Street H CDCP 12/18/97 - 2,771 +2,771 5 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in Non Residential Floor Area 530 Ramona CDCGFP 05/20/99 - 2852 +2852 705 Alma St CDSP 09/21/99 - 2814 +2814 200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10/21/99 - 10913 +10913 550 Lytton Ave CDCP 08/11/00 - - +93 437 Kipling St CDCGFP 02/01/01 - - +945 701 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +434 723 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +400 880 - 884 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +312 539 Alma St CDCGFP 10/23/01 - 2,500 +2,500 270 University Ave CDCGFP 11/01/01 - 2,642 +2,642 901 High St. E, F CDSP 12/12/02 - - +12,063 800 High St. I PC-4779 02/03/03 - - -15,700 6 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in Non Residential Floor Area 164 Hamilton Ave CDCP 01/13/05 - - -2,799 335 University Ave CDCGFP 08/10/05 - 4,500J +5,249 382 University Ave CDCGFP 07/27/06 - 194 +194 102 University Ave CDCGFP 10/10/2006 - - +8 325 Lytton Ave CDCP 5/2006 - - +17,515 310 University Ave CDCGFP 07/31/2008 - 7,481 +7,481 317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 01/2008 - 2,500 +3,290 564 University Ave CDCP 7/2008 - 2,500 +4,475 278 University CDCGFP 11/2008 - - +137 265 Lytton CDCP 7/2010 - 3,712 +21,151 340 University CDCP 12/2010 - - -1,360 524 Hamilton CDCP 2/2011 - 5,200 +9,345 7 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in Non Residential Floor Area 630 Ramona CDCP 6/2011 - 437 +437 668 Ramona CDCP 7/2011 - 4,940 +4,940 661 Bryant CDCP 2/2011 - 1,906 0 Totals 1986-2011 34,378 93,931 173,356 A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86), but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.” As a result, the project is counted among the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986 B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit instead of required 44 private spaces C: Project exceeded square footage otherwise allowed by zoning D: Project converted residential space to non-residential space. Net non-residential space counts toward the 350,000 square foot limit E: Project included covered parking that counts as floor area but not counted 350,000 square foot limit F: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared parking facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space. G. In addition, project paid in-lieu fee for loss of 2 on-site parking spaces H: In addition, projects paid in-lieu fee for loss of 4 on-site spaces I: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP J: Transfer of Development Right (TDR) agreement with 230 and 232 Homer Avenue. 5000 total sq ft of TDR but only 4,500 sq. ft used for Non Residential Floor Area. Page 1 ATTACHMENT F CD PARKING DEFICIT 9/1/86 to 8/31/2011 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 1986 deficit 1,601 520 Ramona StreetA CDCGFP +400 2 0 0 +2 1,603 220 University Avenue CDCGFP +65 0 0 0 0 1,603 151 Homer Avenue CDSP -9,750 0 11 0 -50 1,553 314 Lytton Avenue CDCP -713 0 0 0 -3 1,550 247-275 Alma Street CDNP +1,150 5 5 0 0 1,550 700 Emerson Street CDSP +4,000 16 16 0 0 1,550 431 Florence St CDCP +2,500 10 0 10 +10 1,560 Page 2 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 156 University Avenue CDCGFP +4,958 20 0 20 +20 1,580 401 Florence Street CDCP +2,407 10 0 10 +10 1,590 619 Cowper Street CDCP +2,208 9 9 0 0 1,590 250 University Avenue PC-3872 +20,300 103 131B 0 -28 1,562 550 University Avenue CDCP -371 0 0 0 -1 1,561 529 Bryant Street PC-3974 +2,491 10 0 10 +10 1,571 520 Webster StreetC PC-3499 0 0 163 0 -163 1,408 305 Lytton Ave CDCP +200 1 0 1 +1 1,409 550 Lytton Avenue CDCP +4,845 19 19 0 0 1,409 Page 3 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT Downtown Extensive restriping by Transportation Division of on and off/street parking -96 1,313 531 Cowper Street PC-4052 +9,475 38 0 2 +38 1,351 540 Bryant Street CDCGFP +404 2 0 2 +2 1,353 530/534 Bryant Street CDCGFP +432 2 0 2 +2 1,355 555 Waverley Street/425 Hamilton AvenueD CDCP +2,064 8 0 0 +8 1,363 201 University Avenue CDCGFP +2,450 10 0 10 +10 1,373 518 Bryant Street CDCGFP +180 1 0 1 +1 1,374 245 Lytton Ave CDCP -21,320 90 149 0 -59 1,315 400 Emerson Street PC-4238 +4,715 18 5 1 +14 1,329 Page 4 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 443 Emerson Street CDCGFP +26 0 0 0 0 1,329 420 Emerson Street CDCP +125 1 0 1 +1 1,336 340 University Avenue CDCGFP -402 0 0 0 -2 1,334 281 University Avenue CDCGFP -2,500 0 0 0 -10 1,324 456 University Avenue CDCGFP +7,486 30 0 30 +30 1,354 536 Ramona Street CDCGFP +134 1 0 1 +1 1,355 725-753 Alma Street PC-4283 -1,038 7 7 0 -11 1,344 552 Emerson Street CDCGFP +177 1 0 1 +1 1,345 483 University Avenue PC-4296 +7,289 29 -2E 11 +31 1,376 Page 5 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 424 University Avenue CDCGFP +2,803 11 0 11 +11 1,387 901/909 Alma StreetD PC-4389 +4,425 18 18 0 0 1,387 171 University Avenue CDCGFP +1,853 7 0 7 +7 1,394 401 High Street CDCP +350 1 0 1 +1 1,395 430 Kipling Street CDCP +1,412 5 -4E 1 +10 1,405 460/476 University Avenue CDCGFP +1,775 7 0 7 +7 1,412 400 Emerson Street PC-4238 +2,227 9 0 0 +9 1,421 275 Alma StreetF CDNP +3,207 0 0 1 +1 1,422 390 Lytton Avenue PC-4436 +17,815 74 50 3 +27 1,449 Page 6 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 411 High Street CDCP +2,771 0 -4E 11 +15 1,464 530 Ramona CDCGFP 2852 11 0 11 +11 1475 705 Alma St CDSP 2814 11 0 11 +11 1486 200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10,913 44 3E 35 +41 1527 550 Lytton Ave CDCP 93 0 0 0 0 1527 528 High St PF 0 0 211 G 0 -211 1316 445 Bryant PF 0 0 688G 0 -688 628 437 Kipling St CDCGFP 945 4 0E 2 +4 632 701 Emerson St CDSP 434 2 1 1 +1 633 723 Emerson St CDSP 400 2 2 0 0 633 Page 7 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 880 / 884 Emerson St CDSP 312 2 5 0 -3 630 539 Alma St CDCGFP 2,500 10 0 10 +10 640 270 University Ave CDCGFP 2,642 11 0E 11 +11 651 SUBTOTAL 86-02 106,930 672 1483 236 -578 651 901 High St. CDSP 12,063 59D 60 0 -1 650 800 High St. H PC-4779 -15,700 0 63 0 -63 587 164 Hamilton Ave CDCP -2499 0 0 0 0 587 335 University AveI CDCGFP 5,249 0 0 0 0 587 Page 8 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 382 University Ave CDCGFP 194 0 0 1 +1 588 102 University Ave CDCGFP 8 0 0 0 0 588 310 University Ave CDCGFP 7,481 30 0 30 +30 618 317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 3,290 0 0 0 0 618 564 University Ave CDCP 4,475 10 0 10 +10 628 325 Lytton Ave CDCP 17,515 110 6 0 -6 622 265 Lytton CDCP 21,151 106 52 0 +54 676 278 University CDCGFP +137 1 0 1 +1 677 340 University CDCP -1,360 0 0 0 0 677 524 Hamilton CDCP +9,345 31 8 23 +23 700 Page 9 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 630 Ramona CDCP +437 2 0 2 +2 702 668 Ramona CDCP +4,940 20 0 20 +20 722 661 Bryant CDCP 0 0 0 0 0 722 TOTAL 173,356 911 1672 323 649 722 A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86, but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.”) As a result, the project is counted among the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986 B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit C: Addition of 2 levels of parking to Cowper/Webster garage D: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared parking facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space. E. Project removed existing on-site spaces or met required parking by paying in-lieu fee F: Site had existing parking sufficient to allow expansion G: Construction of 2 city parking lots. 528 High completed on Aug. 2003 and 445 Bryant completed on Nov. 2003 H: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP I: As per PAMC 18.87.055, the TDR area transferred to the site does not increase the number of automobile parking spaces required for the additional floor area. Page 10 ATTACHMENT G Commercial Downtown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category (Rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet) * The above table is rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet and was based on a table originally prepared in 1986. Over the years, because of the rounding to 25,000 square foot increments, the table has had a greater margin of error. Staff attempted to update the table from the beginning in 1998; therefore the numbers may not compare directly to tables prepared prior to the 1998 report. Use Category Area (October 1986) Area (October 2011) Area Change, percentage 1. Offices 1,100,000 1,350,000 23% 2. Retail 500,000 625,000 25.00% 3. Eating & Drinking 150,000 275,000 83.33% 4. Financial Services 200,000 200,000 0.00% 5. Business Services 150,000 175,000 16.67% 6. Basement Storage 175,000 100,000 -42.86% 7. Hotels 100,000 150,000 50.00% 8. Personal Services 75,000 125,000 66.67% 9. Utility Facility 150,000 100,000 -33.33% 10. Public Facilities 50,000 75,000 50.00% 11. Automotive Services 150,000 50,000 -66.67%12. Recreation/Private Club 25,000 50,000 100.00% 13. Theaters 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 14. Warehousing & Distribution 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 15. Manufacturing 50,000 0 -100.00% 16. Religious Institutions 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 17. Multi-Family Residential 250,000 400,000 50.00% 18. Single Family Residential 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 19. Vacant & Under Construction 150,000 50,000 -66.66% 20. Vacant & For Sale 0 0 21. Vacant & Available 150,000 100,000 -33.33% Total 3,625,000 3,875,000 5.52% ADJUSTED TOTAL: (Deduct residential uses, religious institutions, vacant & for sale and vacant & under construction.) 3,125,000 3,350,000 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3242) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 11/5/2012 Summary Title: Parking Program Update Title: Update of Parking Program and Review and Direction on Parking Policy Strategies From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council review this Parking Program Update and provide direction to staff on the Parking Policy Strategies outlined, focused on parking supply options, technology and residential improvements. Executive Summary In the spring of 2011, the City began extensively monitoring downtown parking utilization in response to resident concerns that downtown parking structures were underutilized and on- street parking was intruding into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Extensive parking data collection efforts began immediately in both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts so that parking utilization baselines and strategies could be developed for Council consideration along with input from business and residential interests. On July 16, 2012, the City Council discussed a range of proposed work efforts by staff, but focused on potential residential permit parking program (RPPP) for the Professorville neighborhood. The Council directed staff to not proceed with the RPPP at this time and instead to focus on several other parking and zoning efforts. The Council asked for more specifics and an update of the efforts prior to the end of the year. This update provides a summary of parking strategies implemented-to-date within the Background section and outlines policy strategies for enhanced parking supply, technology solutions, and residential improvements in the Discussion section for consideration of the Council. Staff will be making substantive progress on these items over the coming 3-6 months subsequent to Council direction. Background The Council directed at the July 16, 2012 meeting that staff would not move forward with the trial Residential Permit Parking program for Professorville at this time, but would proceed with additional studies and actions related to parking in downtown, including but not limited to: a. Study of potential new public parking garage sites, capacities and costs; b. Methods to increase capacity in existing garages, such as attendant parking and adjustments to the permit/public distribution of spaces; c. Technology enhancements, such as gate controls, parking space identification systems, and parking permit processing improvements, etc.; d. Zoning studies and revisions, including study of the downtown cap on nonresidential space, the use of bonuses and transfer rights, variable parking ratios for office uses, and how to treat non-conforming parking sites; and e. Evaluation of paid parking options. Amendments to the main motion further directed that staff should evaluate: a. Parking exemptions; b. A Transportation Demand Management Program for downtown; c. Underutilized private parking garages; d. Funding options for new public parking garage sites; e. Zoning disincentives to having two car garages; f. Selective parking for those homes without a driveway or garage; and g. The use of the $250,000 from the Lytton Gateway Project earmarked for neighborhood parking preservation. Council asked that Staff to return to Council in three months with check in and return with an update before the end of the year. The Council’s July 16 Action Minutes are included as Attachment D and the full minutes are included as Attachment E. The remainder of this Background section recounts efforts to date and the Discussion section outlines the programmatic effort to address parking in the next 3-6 months. Parking Assessment Districts Both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts include parking assessment districts that provide parking for the respective areas. The parking assessment districts include fees paid by property owners/merchants to help repay city bonds issued to cover the cost of parking garage construction and permit fees that are used to cover the operations and maintenance costs of the parking programs including staff costs for the distribution of permits and parking enforcement. In the downtown, fees from parking permits also help to pay for police enforcement. Table 1 provides the current fee structure program for the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts – Parking Assessment Programs. The table also provides a brief comparison of parking permit fees to those from Redwood City, San Jose, and San Francisco for Council reference. Table 1 Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts Parking Assessment Fee Program Parking Fee Palo Alto Local Agency Comparisons Downtown District California Ave District Redwood City San Jose San Francisco Assessment Fee $1.11/SQ FT * - - - Permit (Monthly) $45.00 $14.33 $30 to $60 $100 $215 to $395 Permit (Annual) $420.00 $123.00 $330 to $660 $1,200 $2,580 to $4,740 Day Permit $16.00 $7.00 None None None * Cal Av Assessment Fee varies by Parcel. Local employees working within the Districts are allowed to purchase parking permits to park in garages or on surface lots pending permit availability. Employees working outside of the assessment districts, however, are not allowed to purchase parking permits, but can purchase Day Passes to park within the facilities. When the two assessment districts were formed, the assessment districts allowed the City to issue bonds for the construction of parking structures and provided a guaranteed revenue mechanism through the assessment fee to pay the bonds back. Assessment districts are not common for jurisdictions, as many more typically opt to fund parking garage construction on their own and then recover the cost of construction strictly through monthly permit sales. Parking Permits In 2011 the City began evaluating changes in the parking permit distribution process in order to better allocate permits to employees within the districts, to fill up underutilized parking garage space, and to reduce parking intrusion to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The following parking permit program changes were implemented: Establish Monthly Parking Permits Distribution Thresholds Permits were previously distributed on a quarterly basis based on parking occupancy counts counted by the City’s parking enforcement unit. The amount of permits available at each lot varied per quarter depending on the results of the parking occupancy counts. Using historical data, the City established a maximum number of permits that should be released at any given time and the City continues to monitor parking occupancy to determine whether the threshold should be increased or decreased. The maximum number of permits released at any given time and the percentage of permits over supply by parking facility is provided in Table 2. Permit sales in the Downtown were up 9% in 2011 compared to 2010 and up 13% in 2012-to-date compared to 2010. In the California Avenue Business District permit sales have remained consistent with prior years. Permit Wait List Management Previously, anyone wishing to obtain a permit within a district could sign up for as many sites as they wanted in efforts to obtain a permit as quickly as possible. This resulted in unusually high wait list numbers at each facility or district in the case of the California Avenue Business District where a parking permit allows a permit holder to park at any parking garage or surface lot. The City now only allows a person getting on the wait list for a parking permit to do so once, and for only one site. In addition, the City charges a $10.00 fee to get onto a wait list, which is credited towards the ultimate first purchase of a parking permit. The number of persons waiting for a parking permit within the two assessment districts is provided in Table 3; the changes in permit wait list management are beginning to have a positive impact with shorter wait lists now than in previous years. California Avenue District – Permit Distribution Previously, because there was no limit on the number of permits or types of permits that a person could obtain within a district, it was not uncommon for someone in the California Avenue District to be on the wait list multiple times. Signing up on the wait list multiple times was a common practice of start-up owners trying to get permits for future employees. With the policy change to only distribute one permit per person, people who are on the wait list multiple times are contacted for permit availability, but only allowed for one permit to be registered to them. For the additional permits that the person may have been waiting for, the permits are allowed to be distributed to members of the same company but the permits are registered to the other individuals directly. This practice does allow for “hopping” of the wait list but there were only a few individuals who were on the wait list multiple times and staff anticipates that this condition will be phased out over the next six months. Unlike Downtown, previously distributed permits in the California Avenue Business District did not require permit holder validation at the time of renewal. People leaving the district simply passed their permits to other people, thereby delaying permit availability for people legitimately on the wait list. This resulted in unusually long permit wait times, sometimes in excess of one year. The City now requires a person renewing a parking permit to prove that they are a valid permit holder to whom the permit was originally distributed. If the person cannot show proof that they are the original permit holder, they are only being allowed a one-time renewal warning and then are required to get on the wait list as the permit will be cancelled at the end of the permit term. Online Permit Management System In the spring of 2012 the City awarded a contract to Progressive Solutions to develop and implement an online permit management system for the City. Using the maximum permit thresholds established by the City, the City can now release permits weekly (instead of quarterly) as they become available. The system also allows for monthly permit renewal versus the traditionally available quarterly or annual renewal options; the monthly permits costs shown in Table 1 reflect the current quarterly fee divided by three. Implementation of the system was delayed through the fall while the online wait list form was being developed. The City also just finalized hosting details for the system server. The wait list module is scheduled to be completed in October and the system should be launched in November. Persons are still required to return to City Hall to obtain their first permit and to validate proof of employment within their business district; the requirement to return to Revenue Collections may eventually be phased out and permits distributed by mail as additional technology enhancements are made. Table 2 Parking Permit Distribution Thresholds Lot Name # Hourly Spaces # Permit Spaces Total # Spaces Max # Permits % Permits to Supply Downtown - Parking Garages Q Alma/High (North) - 134 134 205 153% R Alma/High (South) 77 134 211 200 149% S/L Bryant St 381 307 688 575 187% WC Cowper/Webster 201 388 589 630 162% CC City Hall 187 519 706 820 158% B Ramona/University 63 - 63 - - 800 High Street 10 53 63 85 160% Downtown – Surface Parking Lots O Emerson/High 78 - 78 - - A Emerson/Lytton 68 - 68 - - C Ramona/Lytton 50 - 50 - - F Florence/Lytton 46 - 46 - - H Cowper/Waverly 90 - 90 - - D Hamilton/Waverly 86 - 86 - E/G Gilman St - 87 87 130 149% P High/Hamilton 51 - 51 - - KT Lytton/Kipling-Waverly 40 67 107 96 143% N Emerson/Ramona 48 - 48 - - X Sheridan Hotel - 36 36 55 153% California Avenue Business District California Avenue* 915 30 945 710 75% * Parking permits valid for any garage or lot. Table 3 Parking Permit Wait List as of October 18, 2012 Lot Wait List Lot Wait List CC 99 R 93 CW 152** S 70 EG 41 X 11 KT 4 Q 27 CAL AVE 333 ** Permit distribution temporarily suspended due to active construction at lot. Day Permits The Bryant Street (Lot S/L) and Cowper/Webster (Lot C/W) garages have permit machines that allow drivers to purchase daylong parking permits. Use of the machines has been extremely successful with each unit averaging $8,000 in sales per month each. Each of the downtown parking garages offer three (3) hours of free hourly parking, but requires rigorous enforcement to identify and cite violators. Day Permits may also be purchased at Revenue Collections in City Hall at a cost of $16.00 per day for Downtown and $7.00 per day for California Avenue. The City has also switched to “scratcher” day permits in 2012 in both districts to curb violators who were photocopying the previous paper permit formats. Parking Way-Finding Signage The City deployed 49 parking banners throughout the Downtown in January 2012 to help better guide motorists to surface parking lots and garages. The banners were reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board prior to implementation. The City also fabricated signs that matched the banners. However, the signs were ineffective due to the architectural color tones used and sign implementation stopped. There are 125 existing guide signs to parking facilities throughout the Downtown and 40 around the California Avenue Business District. The same parking banners used in Downtown will be presented later this fall to the California Avenue merchants as part of the California Avenue – Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape Project for input so that deployment in that district can occur before next Spring; the City estimates 40 up to 20 banners can be deployed around the existing California Avenue area parking structures and surface lots. The City is continuing its research on effective parking guide signs as discussed further in this report. Neighborhood Parking Preservation Staff spent the first half of the year trying to develop draft policies and pilot projects for a Professorville Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program. The general community consensus on a Professorville RPP pilot program showed that such a program was not supported by the broader neighborhood and Council directed that staff should focus on identifying a range of parking solutions within the Downtown core area and to identify appropriate technologies and strategies to advance as part of a comprehensive parking program for the City. The remainder of this report focuses on proposed parking strategies and policies for Council consideration to help improve the efficiency of parking operations and conditions in residential neighborhoods as a comprehensive parking program is further developed and implemented. The recommendations in the Discussion section are priotized in a time line provided in Attachment A. Discussion The modifications to the City’s permit management program are showing a positive change in the City’s ability to more quickly distribute permits. The impact has been more profound in the Downtown Business District where permits are managed by lot, rather than the California Avenue Business District, where permits can be used at any surface lot or garage and where changes in permit distribution will have a gradual effect over the next year. Permit management has also been the focus of the City’s efforts to get vehicle users to obtain and use permits. Permit management will be ongoing for efficiency purposes but new strategies beyond permit management are now required to enhance the parking program in both districts. It should be noted that in the Downtown District, the Cowper-Webster Garage (Lot C/W) is currently undergoing facade improvements that have resulted in the temporary loss of permit parking through the construction period. Persons with permits for the Cowper-Webster Garage are being temporarily allowed to park at the Bryant Street Garage (Lot S), further slowing down permit distribution at that garage as well. Construction at the Cowper-Webster Garage should be complete before the start of the Holiday shopping season. Several other key efforts are underway to enhance parking supply, more efficiently use available supply, reduce parking demand, and address the impacts of new development. Downtown Parking Garage and Attendant Parking Study The City completed a Request for Proposals (RFP) solicitation in October and will be awarding a contract this fall to complete a feasibility study for an additional parking structure(s) in the Downtown. The study will focus on five surface parking lot sites including: Lot D Hamilton Avenue & Waverley Street Lot EG Gilman Street Lot P High Street between University Avenue & Hamilton Avenue Lot O High Street between University Avenue & Lytton Avenue Caltrain Lot Urban Lane between University Avenue and PAMF For each of the sites the feasibility study will identify potential Parking Garage Footprints, Parking Space Counts, 3D Modeling of Parking Structure Massing, Constructability Factors, and Engineer’s Estimates. Staff will also evaluate potential funding options in its report-out to Council. The Constructability Factors will include elements to determine which sites provide the best value for parking versus construction constraints, such as: parking space count; private property impacts (during and post-construction); construction staging impacts; number of driveway/pedestrian access points for convenience measure; cost; adjacent land uses to determine whether a preferred long-term land use opportunity would be lost if garage construction were pursued; and utility relocation impacts. The study will also include an Attendant Parking Study to determine whether the deployment of a parking attendant program may be a viable option to temporarily or permanently supplement the City’s parking permit program needs. The Attendant Parking Study will determine the number of additional parking spaces that can be gained at each of the existing parking garages in Downtown and provide program outlines to implement them on a trial basis including key-return stations. Two options for attendant programs are typically used: a) where a motorists parks the vehicle themselves, guided by an attendant, and the keys are then handed over to the attendant in case the vehicles needs to be moved; or b) a motorists leaves the vehicle with the attendant who then parks the vehicle. In other cases, a motorist may be issued a valet card to confirm car release later and the vehicles are typically parked behind other parked cars. The study will also focus on likely hours of operation to maximize benefit and minimize cost. The Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Business and Professional Association – Parking Committee, which is responsible for helping the City provide oversight on the Downtown Parking Assessment District, has indicated a preference towards immediately implementing an attendant pilot project, focused on permit parking. Staff believes such a trial for permit spaces should proceed, however, only after the work on the Cowper-Webster garage is complete and all spaces are then available, and probably after the Holiday season, to avoid any confusion for shoppers. Funding for the trial would come from the Downtown Permit Fee program. The study will take up to 6 months to complete and the results presented to the City Council in the spring. The study is funded substantially by a community benefit contribution from the Lytton Gateway Project, which provided $60,000 to complete the study. The study will cost $100,000 and the gap is being funded by the City through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), PL-12000 (Transportation & Parking Improvements). The results of the study will be used to determine whether the City should pursue construction of a new parking structure using its own local funding, enterprise funding to build a parking structure in conjunction with additional office facilities, or to pursue a private partnership with land developers to help build a parking facility. The City currently has approximately $2.6 million in the Downtown In-Lieu Parking Fee program (once the building permit is issued for Lytton Gateway, expected prior to the end of the year). During the July 2012 discussion on parking the Council expressed interest in also pursuing opportunities to make available private structure parking for public parking. Staff surveyed the existing private lots around downtown and found them either fully parked or inaccessible due to security procedures. Recommendation No. 1: Direct staff to implement a trial Parking Attendant Valet Parking Program for permit parking in at least one garage, beginning shortly after the first of the year in 2013. The study should monitor operations, estimate costs, and identify benefits/challenges with implementation. Downtown Cap Study Staff is currently developing a Request for Proposals to study the land use types, densities, and recent and projected development around the Downtown to determine future land use and parking needs/strategies to support land use changes. The study is a requirement of the City’s Zoning and Comprehensive Plan, which establishes a Downtown Cap of 350,000 square foot net increase since the adoption of the 1986 Downtown Plan. The Zoning Ordinance requires a re- evaluation of the cap when a 235,000 square foot “study threshold” is met. That threshold is nearly met with the approval of the Lytton Gateway project approved earlier this year and will be exceeded if the 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley projects are approved. While the 27 University project is not within the bounds of the Downtown zone prescribed in the 1986 study, staff will be reviewing ways to appropriately consider it in the Downtown study and specific impacts would be considered in that project’s Environmental Impact Report . Staff expects that the Downtown Cap Study will cost approximately $100,000-$150,000 and will take approximately 6 months to complete. The budget does not currently include funding for the study, but staff proposes that at least some of the funding come from the Lytton Gateway “Neighborhood Parking Preservation” benefit (of a total $250,000) and perhaps be supplemented by other development project contributions. Recommendation No. 2: Direct staff to pursue the RFP for the Downtown Cap study, and report back to Council in six months regarding results and recommendations. Zoning/Parking Revisions and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program Staff will, simultaneous with the Downtown Cap study, review a variety of zoning provisions related to parking, particularly in Downtown. Staff has recently proposed and Council has enacted a moratorium on one such zoning provision that exempted up to 1.0 floor-area ratio from parking requirements for certain properties. Staff expects to also evaluate: a. Other exemptions from parking requirements, including but not limited to transfer of development rights (TDR); b. Parking reductions for transit proximity, mixed use, transportation demand management (TDM) measures, and for affordable and senior housing; c. Appropriate ratios of parking, particularly for office development, more reflective of recent employee densities, and possible parking incentives for retail over office uses; d. How conversions of existing uses to more intense office uses are treated/managed in the zoning requirements; and e. The relationship between required/covered parking and floor area, particularly for homes (e.g., to avoid discouraging garages, though respective of historic issues where applicable) Planning and Transportation staff also will work with on-call transportation consultants to initiate a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for the City and its employees to demonstrate exemplary means of reducing work and non-work trips. This effort will be a precursor to facilitating a downtown-wide TDM program, coordinated with the Palo Alto Downtown and area businesses to take advantage of programs that can benefit the Downtown as a whole. Recommendation No. 3: Direct staff to develop zoning ordinance revisions to address parking impacts from development, including: a) parking ratios, b) parking exemptions, c) requirements for both TDM programs for new development; and to work with the Downtown businesses to develop a coordinated downtown area TDM effort. Technology Enhancement: Garage Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment The City’s new Permit Management System will allow the City to more easily distribute permits but when used in combination with garage parking access controls (gates) the City will also be able to track parking permit usage to further manage the permit program. For example, the City currently does not have any data that shows how regularly people use their parking permits. Later this fiscal year, the City will release its first ever transportation survey that aims to measure transportation mode use by region of the City. The high percentage of permits sold over supply (Table 2) shows that within the Downtown, people are likely regularly using another form of transportation to get to work such as Caltrain or are choosing to park elsewhere when it’s more convenient, even though they have a permit. Garage Parking Access control is another step the City can take in the long-term management of its parking infrastructure by helping to reduce operations costs for enforcement. The access controls regulate entry and exit from a garage and allow visitors to continue to enjoy the current three hours of free parking to support downtown business activities, but include Revenue Control equipment that allow visitors to stay parked beyond the free 3-hour period at a fee up to the $16.00 day permit fee. Staff has a prepared a Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) so that cost estimates can be determined and to “bring the best of the technology” to the city for review with participation from the Downtown Parking Committee. The Draft RFP proposes conversion of the Bryant Street Garage (Lot S/L) to gate control with revenue collection elements but identifies the Alma Street/High Street Garage (Lot R) as an alternative site for inclusion depending on bid results. The City estimates the cost of installing Garage Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment at each garage at approximately $250,000. The RFP proposes unique technology development through the use of QR Codes in combination with apps for processing of payments as a convenience alternative to motorists. The same technology would allow businesses to establish convenient validation alternatives for visitors, patron and employee parking needs. The RFP was shared with the Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Parking Committee during its September and October 2012 meetings. Concerns have been expressed about the controls being the first step to imposing “paid” parking on downtown, but staff believes that this technology actually provides flexibility for a wider range of parking options, with no increase in parking costs for those visitors staying less than 3 hours. Revenue realized from the metering beyond the free 3- hour period could be partially dedicated towards the Parking In-Lieu Fee program to help fund construction of future parking facilities, consistent with the setup of typical assessment district programs. Funding for a trial garage parking access and revenue control equipment project is available within the existing CIP but, if interested, funding through the current Parking Assessment or Parking In-Lieu fee program are viable alternatives. Recommendation No. 4: Direct staff to release an RFP for Garage Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment for near-term deployment, and to involve the Downtown Parking Committee in the operations and design process. Technology Enhancement: Parking Occupancy Tracking and Dynamic Way-Finding Directing motorists immediately to available parking helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhances the customer experience in the downtown, improves the economic vitality of the downtown, and improves safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. The City currently does not have any mechanism in place to monitor parking occupancy “real-time,” so deployment of dynamic way-finding with accurate information is not feasible, nor is pushing parking availability information online feasible either. The City has outreached to three vendors over the past year to help develop new technology to monitor parking occupancy and tabulate information that can be made available to the public online, through apps, and to Parking Guidance Systems that offer dynamic way-finding technology. Unfortunately, no viable option has yet been identified. The City was approached by Streetline Networks in partnership with Cisco Systems over the summer to deploy their technology to monitor and push parking occupancy information online but that was not desirable due to the high on-going annual operations cost. The Streetline Networks/Cisco System solution included one free year of service and included maintenance of field equipment, but the solution though would cost the City over $350,000 per year. Solutions such as that of Streetline Networks only make sense at locations where metering is utilized to offset the cost of the technology, as is the case in the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Staff is not recommending metering on-street parking spaces at this time, but does want to identify parking monitoring solutions that can be City-owned solutions versus leased to reduce long- term operations costs. Effective monitoring of parking occupancy also introduces the ability to consider congestion-pricing parking on-street if the Council wants to consider that type of technology in the future. Being immediately adjacent to the second largest Caltrain Station along the Peninsula supports that type of activity by making alternative modes of transportation more attractive to people over driving. The City will continue to try and outreach to technology firms to develop new market solutions for the City. The Gate Parking Access and Revenue Control Equipment would allow for dynamic way-finding to be deployed, highlighting parking availability at parking structures. Alternative solutions may include establishing detection technology only now, that may be used later by future Garage Parking Access technology, to estimate garage occupancy. In the meantime, the City will continue its seasonal parking occupancy data collection of the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts, that includes counting each vehicle parking space on-street and within each parking facility by time-of-day to track changes in parking patterns. The City collected parking occupancy data in the Spring/Fall/Winter 2011 and is scheduled to collect data gain in early November. Data collection includes monitoring parking occupancy between 12AM-2AM, 8AM-10AM, 12PM-2PM, and 7PM to 9PM on a weekday and 12PM-2PM on a Saturday. Recommendation No. 5: Direct staff to continue research of technology-based parking solutions to monitor parking occupancy. Electric Vehicle Parking The City currently has 7 electric vehicle charging stations available in the Downtown at the Civic Center Parking Garage (Lot CC – Level A, 3 chargers), Bryant Street Garage (Lot S/L – Level 2, 3 chargers), and the Alma/High North (Lot R – Level 2, 1 charger). The charging stations are extremely popular and realize regular occupancy usage throughout a typical week. There are no charging stations available in the California Avenue Business District. The City has considered the development of a Request for Proposals for the development of a privately- owned network of electric vehicle charging stations network. The Stanford Shopping Center currently has 3 charging stations including Northern California’s only Rapid Charging (Level 3) Charger. The Stanford Shopping Center chargers are privately owned and require a fee-per-use to charge. Development of a private network of chargers in Palo Alto would operate under the same model and convert the existing charging stations into the private network to avoid competition with the private network given the high cost to install the network. To meet the immediate demand for electric vehicle charging in the City, staff recommends conversion of at least five (5) parking spaces in the California Avenue Business District to electric vehicle charging spaces and an additional six (6) parking spaces in the Downtown. Staff recommends additional Level 2 Chargers similar to those currently deployed that can charge a vehicle in as fast as 2 hours. The Downtown Library, which was renovated last year, includes infrastructure for providing electric vehicle charging stations in its parking lot; this could be a location for some of the additional Downtown spaces. The City has 6 electric charging stations included as part of development conditions of approval for the 101 Lytton Gateway Project (4 chargers) and the Edgewood Plaza (2 Chargers) shopping center. These stations will not be available until next year when construction at each site is complete. Recommendation No. 6: Direct staff to pursue the installation of 6 additional electric vehicle charging stations in Downtown and up to 5 electric vehicle charging stations around California Avenue. Bicycle Parking and Bicycle Share Programs The City has approximately 150 bicycle racks (250 bicycle capacity) in the Downtown. This includes 6 recently deployed bicycle corrals deployed around Downtown which offer up to ten bicycle parking spaces in lieu of one on-street parking space. Downtown has an additional three bicycle corrals planned for installation this calendar year as part of the New Apple Store construction at University Avenue & Florence Street (2 bicycle corrals) and one at Lyfe Kitchen, which requested installation by the City this fall. The City offers free installation of bicycle corrals upon submittal of an application (Attachment B) and investigation by the City, including outreach to adjacent businesses to validate support for installation of the facility. In the California Avenue Business District, the City has 24 existing bicycle racks (77 bicycle capacity). The City has a dozen additional bicycle parking facilities identified for the California Avenue Business District for a future bicycle parking capacity of up to 130 bicycles as part of the active California Avenue Transit Hub Corridor Streetscape project including 6 bicycle corrals. Business owners may request free installation of bicycle racks within the public right-of-way following an engineering investigation by staff. Where installation of bicycle racks within the public right-of-way is not feasible for convenient, the City offers free bicycle racks to business and property owners for their installation on their private property; persons interested in free bicycle racks may simply contact the city via email at transportation@cityofpaloalto.org. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle Share Program will be providing 100 bicycle share bicycles to Palo Alto as part of its partnership program with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to deploy a program along the Peninsula. The program was delayed due to technology development but should return to the City with a deployment schedule by the end of the year. The sites reviewed by the Architectural Review Board include: University Avenue & Emerson Street (adjacent to Lytton Plaza in an on-street Parklet), King Plaza at City Hall, University Avenue & Cowper Street, the University Avenue Caltrain Station, and the California Avenue/Park Boulevard Park Plaza. Additional facilities will be provided around the Stanford Campus as part of the program. As part of the bicycle share investigation, staff identified dozens of additional potential bicycle share sites including the Stanford Research Park, libraries and community centers, senior facilities, and Midtown but during this initial deployment both MTC and the VTA request to keep the deployment focused along the Caltrian stations. As bicycle share deployment continues, staff will outreach to existing business parks to solicit and encourage participation in the program. Recommendation No. 7: Direct staff to pursue additional bicycle parking stations around both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. Residential Parking Policies During the discussion of the Professorville trial Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program in July, the Council requested that staff consider options to allow designated on-street parking spaces for historic homes within the Professorville neighborhood that do not have on-site parking (driveways and/or garages), since consideration for RPP programs is being deferred until a broader parking program is put in place. In response to the Council request, staff has developed two policy approaches focused more collectively to the entire neighborhood concerns: 1) On-Street “Disabled Accessible” Parking Spaces The City does not currently have a policy to allow for the installation of on-street parking spaces for the disabled within residential neighborhoods. Staff recommends Council consider a policy allowing for residents to apply the consideration of on-street accessible parking spaces in front of their homes for convenience and quality of life benefits. If the Council is supportive of this concept, staff will return with a draft policy and application for the Council’s review to define the criteria and investigation that staff would be required to complete to ensure consistent distribution of accessible parking spaces. The policy would address factors including costs of installation and maintenance of the accessible parking, proof of “accessibility” need, and compliance and misuse/removal procedures if abused. The accessible spaces would not be designated spaces for the applicant but by providing the space immediately in front of one’s residence increases the likelihood of having the space available for use by the resident. As an accessible space, however, the parking could be used by any motorist displaying a valid accessible placard issued by the State of California. 2) Neighborhood Short-Term and Commercial Loading Zones One of the frequent concerns from residents adjacent to business districts includes the lack of parking for service vehicles such as landscapers, plumbers, etc., who are trying to provide basic services to residents but cannot do so at times depending on parking availability. Professorville residents who do not have any on-site parking facilities feel an even greater impact. Staff recommends consideration of the deployment of Neighborhood Short-Term and Commercial Loading Zone spaces around the Professorville and Downtown North neighborhoods, at least one per block and spaced a maximum of 500-FT apart to allow for parking availability to accommodate basic service vehicles and short-term parking needs. The spaces can be either a short-term parking restriction (30-minutes) or commercial/service vehicle use (2-hours) to support residents. This solution provides an equitable solution for all residents regardless of whether the homes are historic or not. If the Council is supportive of this concept, staff will provide outreach to neighborhood groups to identify the appropriate on-street parking spaces to support these activities and then will return to the Council following input from the Planning & Transportation Commission for implementation of a demonstration project in the Spring. 3) On-Street Parking Spaces in the Professorville Area During the July 2012 parking discussion, the Council requested that staff consider options to help alleviate parking impacts to homes around the Professorville area without garages, driveways, or other on-site parking. Staff has identified eleven homes around that Professorville area without on-site parking (see Attachment C), additional sites may exist. The proposed Neighborhood Short-Term/Commercial Loading Zone spaces would offer solutions equitably to the community, but may not be enough for residents of these particular homes. If the Council is supportive of such a solution staff will initiate outreach with affected residents and return with a policy for adoption. Staff expects that any related implementation would be on a trial basis. Recommendation No. 8: Direct staff to return to the City Council for consideration of an On-Street Accessible Parking Space Policy. Recommendation No. 9: Direct staff to initiate outreach to residents in Professorville and Downtown North to develop short-term parking space strategies. Recommendation No. 10: Discuss and provide direction for On-Street Parking Permits for homes in the Professorville area without parking or driveways. Parking Permit Management Regular parking permit management and recent enhancements have proven effective to date to more quickly get permits to vehicle users and should be continued. Permit management has benefited the Downtown Business District more quickly than the California Avenue Business District due to the permits being designated to individual facilities. The California Avenue Business District has two parking garages, each of which realize high occupancy during peak noon periods on top floors, but much lesser use at other times. The availability of new parking permits in the California Avenue Business District that can be used only at top floors of each garage may be helpful in more quickly distributing permits to motorists and help to fill underutilized portions of the garages and allow for premium first floor parking to be retained for visitors until after the noon peak hour. Recommendation No. 11: Direct staff to begin discussions with California Avenue merchants focused around the development of new parking permit strategies. Timeline This report recommends several project and policy considerations for the Council focused around further developing parking strategies to develop a comprehensive Parking Program for the City. Staff will return to the Council within three months with a more defined schedule for the implementation of solutions the Council identifies as appropriate for further consideration or immediate implementation. Resource Impact Two new contracts are being pursued as part of the Parking Program, including a $100,000 contract for a Downtown Parking Garage and Attedant Valet Study and $100,000-$150,000 for the Downtown Cap/TDM Study. Each contract will be submitted separately to Council for approval, along with any necessary Budget Amendment Ordinances. This staff report includes recommendations for helping to develop a Parking Program Master Plan. After Council provides feedback on which recommendations to pursue, staff will return to the Council within 3 months with a more refined cost program. Environmental Review This report requests direction from Council on parking strategies that it would like staff to pursue, but at this time no specific projects affecting the environment ar being approved. Each project within the Parking Program may require additional environmental review for compliance with CEQA requirements and will be evaluated prior to implementation. Attachments: Attachment A: Summary of Parking Work Program (PDF) Attachment B: Bicycle Corral Application (PDF) Attachment C: Professorville Homes w/No Driveways - Oct 2012 (PDF) Attachment D: City Council Action Minutes of July 16, 2012 (PDF) Attachment E: City Council Full Minutes of July 16, 2012 (PDF) Attachment F: Public Comments (PDF) Prepared By: Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager 1 Nov ‘11 Dec Jan ‘12 Feb Mar Apr May Jun FY2014 Tasks Permit Management Garage Study - Garage Analysis - Valet Analysis Pilot Valet Study Downtown Cap Study Neighborhood Programs - ADA On-Street - Short Term Alternatives/Homes with No Off-Site Parking Technology Solutions Cal Ave Parking Program Parking Program Task Timeline Pending Council Input On‐Street Bicycle Corral Application Bicycle Corrals are enhanced bicycle parking facilities installed on‐street within a traditional vehicle parking space or appropriate on‐street location. The bicycle corral includes a green textured pavement treatment to help designate the space from adjacent vehicle parking spaces with a 10‐bike, bicycle rack. Yellow parking blocks are installed on each end of the bicycle corral to prevent vehicle parking intrusion. The City of Palo Alto installs bicycle corrals to help promote bicycling activity and to help provide visible and secured bicycle parking in high‐use bicycle areas. The bicycle corral installations are a partnership between the City of Palo Alto and the adjacent property owners/businesses through a maintenance agreement (attached). The City provides installation of the bicycle corrals while the property owners/businesses take on maintenance around the bicycle corrals. For a bicycle corral to be considered in front of your business or property, please complete the application below and return to the City of Palo Alto – Transportation Division. Business Owner Property Owner – (Optional) Company Name: Contact Person: Address: Palo Alto, CA 94301 Day Phone: Email: Signature/Date: 1. Preferred Bicycle Corral Location 2. Estimated amount of bicycle activity on weekday and weekends Note: After submission of the application, Transportation staff will contact the applicant to discuss location feasibility and determine if bicycle parking demand exists. Submit to: City of Palo Alto – Transportation Division Staff Review: 250 Hamilton Avenue Date: Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: (650) 329‐2441 F: (650) 329‐2154 Recommend Install: Yes transportation@cityofpaloalto.org No Director Approval: Professorville Historic Neighborhood Homes without accessible Off-Street Parking October 23, 2012 EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2012 ATTACHMENT D Water, Gas, Wastewater, Storm Drain and Public Works Construction Inspection Services. 10. Resolution 9274 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Plao Alto Placing an Initiative Measure on November 2012 Ballot to Permit Three Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to Operate in Palo Alto. 11. Approval of Contract for Goods (Purchase Order) for the Acquisition of Toshiba Laptops. 12. Approval of Fiscal Year 2012 Re-appropriation Requests to be Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2013. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Burt, Klein, Scharff Schmid absent AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to not hear Agenda Item No. 15. -±-5-;-CONFERENCE V/ITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City DeSignated Representatives: City ~4anager and his designees pursuant to ~4erit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Sandra Blanch, ~4arcie Scott, Darrell ~4urray) Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent ACTION ITEMS 13. Direction on Downtown Parking Strategies and Approval of Trial Residential Permit Parking Program In and Around the Professorville Neighborhood. MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to not move f6rward with the trial Residential Permit Parking Program, however to: 1. Direct Staff to proceed with additional studies and actions related to parking in downtown, including but not limited to: a. Study of potential new public parking garage sites, capacities and costs; b. Methods to increase capacity in existing garages, such as attendant EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2012 ATTACHMENT D parking and adjustments to the permit/public distribution of spaces; c. Technology enhancements, such as gate controls, parking space identification systems, and parking permit processing improvements, etc.; d. Zoning studies and revisions, including study of the downtown cap on nonresidential space, the use of bonuses and transfer rights, variable parking ratios for office uses, and how to treat non- conforming parking sites; and e. Evaluate paid parking options. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER TO INCLUDE: 1) parking exemptions, 2) TDM Program, and 3) to direct Staff to look at underutilized private parking garages. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER TO INCLUDE to direct Staff to return to Council in 3 months with check in and return with an update before the end of the year INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER. AND SECONDER to direct Staff to: 1) return with funding options for new public parking garage sites, and 2) include that the zoning studies would evaluate disincentives to having two car garages. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to evaluate the use of $250k currently budgeted in the Lytton Gateway Project. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to include "Professorville at this time" after "Residential Permit Parking Program" in the first part of the Motion. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to evaluate selective parking for those homes without a driveway or garage. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to call the question. MOTION PASSED: 5-3 Espinosa, Price, Shepherd no, Schmid absent MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Espinosa, Price no, Schmid absent EXCERPT FROM CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2012 MINUTES ATTACHMENT E ACTION ITEMS 13. Direction on Downtown Parking Strategies and Approval of Trial Residential Permit Parking Program In and Around the Professorville Neighborhood. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment, said one of the main pOints he wanted to make was that while they would probably spend most of the time that evening discussing the trial permit program in the Professorville area that it was a small but important part of a more comprehensive look at the downtown parking situation. There were a number of efforts related to parking management, supply, and demand that the City had worked on. There was an active permit management system they re~ently put into place to distribute permits. Staff was beginning a parking garage study to look at the supply issue as well as more efficient ways to use the garages and parking lots. They were looking at a number of technologies and parking enhancements to more efficiently use the spaces and publicize and provide mobile technology for information purposes. They were before Council to discuss the trial program for a portion of Professorville but would then go into a larger look at areas of downtown including Downtown North. They also had a bicycle share program parking efforts that they were undertaking to study bike parking as well as vehicular parking. In terms of the parking garage study the Staff was looking at using some of the funding provided by the Lytton Gateway project to complete a feasibility study of three or four parking lot sites in the downtown area. The study would determine the feasibility of construction of additional garages at those locations and the capacity and construction costs. Staff was also looking at a trial of attendant parking in some of the garages to see if there was away to provide more spaces and increase the use of the garage space the City had more efficiently. He said they would continue to evaluate the balance of permit and hourly spaces in those garages. They had already converted some hourly spaces to permit spaces which had helped create more parking supply for permits. On the technology side they looked at parking guidance systems which let people know how many spaces were available. They also looked at evaluating gate controls to allow for metered parking and longer stays downtown. Specifically related to the proposed residential parking permit trial program in Professorville, Staff visited with the Council in fall 2011 regarding the broad parking program efforts. Many people attended the meeting who were concerned about the parking impacts from downtown on the Professorville area. He said they convened a Staff generated group to discuss those issues further and included a handful of active residents and representatives from downtown businesses. There were also Staff members and one Council Member and one Planning and Transportation Commissioner in the group. They met monthly for Page 6 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES approximately the past six months with the aim of looking at trial parking programs and how the City monitored the effects of the other parking strategies on the neighborhood. He said they also tried to evaluate why people parked on the street as opposed to in garages and parking lots. From there they outlined potential opportunities for residential permit parking programs. Some of the concerns they heard were how parking impacted the quality of life in residential neighborhoods and the parking availability for residents. He stressed the need to balance those concerns with the needs of employee parking in the downtown area because the streets were also public resources. He recognized that they worked with a group they invited to meet with them and not the broader neighborhood of Professorville or the entire downtown residential community. He said that they were looking at a fairly small area, but it was Staff's feeling that it was extremely important to put together something that could be looked at to ascertain the balance of how much residential protection was necessary versus how much employee parking could be allowed without creating an extreme impact one way or the other. They thought a localized program allowed them to beta test the approach. Staff recognized there would be a broader effort following the three to six month trial period. Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Officer, said it was important to look at the effort Staff made over the last year with the parking issues. He showed a slide of available parking spaces within the downtown corridor. Staff used that data to educate itself about the supply and to try to find ways to maximize on-street spaces. As an example, through analysis, Staff added 32 on-street spaces, reduced red zones, and converted inefficient parking allocations. Staff also measured the occupancy of on-street throughout the greater downtown area from Palo Alto Avenue down to Embarcadero to Alma to Middlefield because they needed it for the permit parking process. on-street Staff used data in conjunction with research from the residents to determine the correct corridor to look at a potential residential permit parking (RPP) study project. The downtown core of Lytton, University, and Hamilton had about 1,100 parking spaces on-street. He said that Staff took the data and guided the discussions held by the working group. They recommended a framework of four specific items to the working group as they developed the RPP program. One was to provide a buffer of at least one block between commercial uses and residential use to allow for transition and change in use. When they considered RPP streets they focused on the streets that were local and not arterial. For example, Alma or Middlefield were not appropriate streets for a RPP. At the same time, residential arterials such as Homer and Channing also moved traffic in and out of the downtown so those were streets that were not appropriate for consideration of RPP. Staff suggested that RPP's should focus on-streets that were more single family home based versus multifamily unit based. Page 7 of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES When the land uses were majority multifamily use it automatically generated a high demand for parking. Streets with those uses did not lend themselves to programs such as the RPP. Staff also wanted to make sure that whatever program was recommended in an RPP form was cost neutral and sustained itself without impacting or drawing from existing City resources. Thinking more globally, Staff tried to pool all of the RPP districts into one fund to help maintain costs for RPP permits around the City, rather than try to manage several RPP funds. Different tiers of RPP only created inequity in the community. He showed the proposed boundary for the proposed RPP district that the working group reached consensus on. It was south of Channing, Addison, Lincoln, Ramona, and Emerson and represented approximately 190 on-street parking spaces. The working group discussed details on how the RPP would work and they came to consensus on several factors. One was that offering one permit to residents was a way to demonstrate what the long term benefit of RPP was because if the program were implemented long term those residents would want to purchase the permits long term. They also wanted to ensure that there were permits available to residents beyond the one free permit. They recommended a cost of $50.00 for each additional specific vehicle or every additional permit that could be hung from a rear view mirror for guests. They recommended random enforcement to help measure the type of compliance they received through changes in regulatory signage as well as citation revenue for future long term operation and sustainability. One of the unique elements of the program was that they wanted to make sure there was a balance between the resident uses and the existing next door commercial uses. One of the items the working group reached consensus on was making a small portion of on-street spaces available for neighboring uses through the sale of non-resident permits at the same cost of $50.00 throughout the trial period. Multi-guest or day passes were also available at the cost of $1.00 per permit. They also discussed the length of the program and decided the trial program should be a minimum of three months and should last up to six months. Because they had collected strong baseline data for the program, it was simple for Staff to measure any impact from people moving from one street onto a street that was outside the RPP area. Once the working group built a consensus on the boundaries and elements of the RPP program it surveyed the people that lived within the area. They sent out approximately 103 surveys and received back about 68 responses. Of the 68 responses, 82 percent supported the implementation of a trial project. He showed the survey that the residents were asked to respond to and noted that a follow up survey was sent, which helped them get to the 68 responses they received. There was much conversation about how to measure the success of a trial. The first and foremost way to measure the success was the parking occupancy on the street. They had the baseline data and they needed a measure to determine if the program provided a benefit or caused an impact to the Page 8 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES adjacent streets. They recommended trying to achieve a goal of a maximum of 80 percent occupancy by implementing the RPP trial. He explained that would create more yellow zones within the area. Yellow zones meant that a motorist should be able to find a parking space on the street they wanted to park on. Staff would study what happened to the adjacent streets and see if there were adverse effects. Staff also wanted to measure demand for permit sales not just for the residents but also for the non-residents. They talked about making 51 permits available, but they needed to know if there was demand by the neighboring community for those permits. With respect to measuring parking compliance he said that many times simple regulatory signage went a long way in implementing behavioral change. However, if that was not followed up by enforcement the City would not realize a long term benefit in permanent change. He said that measuring parking compliance helped them measure whether or not they saw cars adhering to the proposed two hour parking restriction which was available for anyone to park in the area, and whether or not they were forced to issue citations as a community to those who did not adhere to the rules. He said that many residents discussed quality of life. The only way to measure that was quality versus quantity based. Staff wanted to survey residents and invite them to participate in community outreach meetings as they contemplated the longer term vision of the RPP. The last thing the working group looked at was the operations cost. There were several factors related to parking compliance which fed into the measure, but the largest piece was the permit sales. If the City had an RPP area but was not selling permits it was not going to be a successful area. The objective was not to simply push people out. The RPP program's purpose was to provide parking to residents. He said that the community received a $250,000 contribution from the Lytton Gateway project for downtown parking preservation projects. Staff discussed dedicating $125,000 of the contribution for projects for the area south of Forest Avenue. Professorville was one option. Another option was to dedicate $125,000 towards projects in Downtown North. He said a pilot Professorville RPP program could cost up to $50,000. That covered the cost of signage, of Revenue Collection Staff to purchase and administer the distribution of permits, of random enforcement by the parking compliance Staff, and allowed the City to measure the long term cost of a RPP in the community. Mr. Williams said the Council was very aware that the parking zoning issues meshed with the recent permit activity, the development downtown and the discussions that went on over some of the projects. Some of the issues relative to those projects were exemptions laid out in the ordinance and parking reductions that were allowed as well as transfer development rights which were used in several projects over the past few years. He thought that had been a successful program in getting historic rehabilitation and Page 9 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES seismic upgrades in the downtown area. However, they were 2,500 or 5,000 square feet buildings that did not require the parking that went along with the square footage. He said that as Staff reported with the Lytton Gateway project there was a development cap in the zoning code downtown of 350,000 square feet of nonresidential space which was established in 1985 as part of the downtown study. That study also indicated that when the City reached a total of 235,000 square feet that it should study the appropriate total nonresidential square footage and the associated parking issues. Staff reported during the Lytton Gateway project that the City was at about 220,000 square feet and Staff knew there were one to two other projects that would soon put the City beyond the 235,000 study threshold. Staff wanted to start that analysis immediately regarding the potential and how to better match the parking with the amount of development and the exemptions that were allowed. He said that the zoning regulations in general had parking ratios for office use that deserved to be reevaluated. The City saw office occupancies that were considerably more than one person per 250 square feet. The old model had not held up and it was appropriate to reevaluate those ratios and how the City treated nonconforming parking uses. Finally, Staff thought it was appropriate to look at a downtown transportation demand management program. The City had several downtown employers that did a good job and were on the cutting edge. He thought Lytton Gateway was a building like that, but noted that there were many others including smaller businesses that could not put together their own programs. He thought it was incumbent on the City to help coordinate that effort and provide opportunities for everyone to participate in programs that would enhance transit use, bicycling, walking, and bike shares. That was part of the program Staff intended to flesh out over the next six months along with the parking garage study. Staff's recommendation to Council was to authorize Staff to proceed with the trial program for three to six months. They wanted to run the program for three months and then meet with the working group and report to the Council as to how things were going and see if another three months would be worthwhile or if there was a reason to immediately shift gears. Staff also wanted input and direction related to the studies. If Council was ok with Staff looking at the zoning issues then they wanted approval for that in order to get started on that work. Ray Dempsey spoke on behalf of residents that participated in the study group. He said that the RPP was not the solution but a test case for a broader solution. There were four issues that were brought up by the residents with respect to the RPP: 1) private parking on a public street; 2) size and length of time of the RPP; 3) forcing parking into adjacent areas; and 4) cost and accessibility of permits. With regard to the private parking on a public street the United States Supreme Court ruled in Arlington vs. Page 10 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Richards that the character and safety of neighborhoods trumped intrusive parking. There was a right there and numerous lower courts upheld that ruling. He said that as far as the size and length of the time of the RPP it was determined by the City and not by the business people or residents. It was based on available assets, including financial assets. The City would monitor results and could modify the pilot program. He said that forcing parkers into other areas was another major problem. As mentioned the pilot was not a solution, it was a test for a solution. Many residents noted that there were packed streets and wondered where the relocated cars would park. He said it would obviously move the parked cars out somewhat, but it was temporary and the six months was better than the six years the residents had experienced with the problem. After the RPP, the next step was to apply what was learned to the larger region. The cost and accessibility of permits after the first free permit, the $50.00 charge per permit, was a charge only to users. He said that if a person did not need the permit, they did not have to pay for it. Many people had driveways and garages, some did not. He said that at least the cost was borne by the users and not by all residents of the City as would be the case if the City absorbed the cost. The nonresident permits were negotiated to help bridge long term solutions. He said that if residents wanted an RPP program it would not happen without the pilot program as it was presented. Barbara Gross said that she and Chop Keenan were representing the Palo Alto Downtown Business Association. Chop Keenan, Russ Cohen, and herself were seated on the City sponsored Parking Committee that discussed the public/private parking interests of the downtown commercial district and the neighborhood of Professorville. She said parking was a complicated issue that had a direct influence on the success of the business district and had overflow impacts on surrounding residential areas. She said that there was always a parking deficit in the downtown and there was always a mixed use of space which spilled over into the residential area. There was also always a parking deficit in Professorville as garages were converted to other uses, driveways were eliminated to expand gardens, and garages in the back alleys were too small for modern vehicles or had been converted to other uses. She said that office space changed over the past years to accommodate more Staff. She said that families had increased the number of cars per household and most could no longer self-park on their own property. Representatives of the Professorville neighborhood communicated multiple messages. They said the streets were filled with nonresidential parked cars that remained there throughout the business day. That created a crowding· on the streets which did not allow residents the ability to park near their homes or re-park their cars during the day. She said that created a safety issue with drivers behaving poorly while looking for parking spaces and parking too close together causing vehicle damage and blocking Page 11 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES driveways. Equally as important it had changed the feeling of the neighborhood, making it look and feel less residential and negatively impacting housing values. Representatives of the business community began conversation with the fact that three public parking garages had been built to accommodate more customers and downtown employees in the last 10 years. Parking permits for emj)loyees were oversold by a minimum of 25 percent for all garages at a cost of $420.00 annually. Employee spillover to the surrounding neighborhoods had always been a reality and there were ongoing parking improvements in the downtown district. She said that the City was investigating electronic signage to direct cars to available spaces. The parking assessment district suggested stacking cars in select areas of the garages to further increase the number of permit spaces in each garage. That required the use of a valet attendant. She Said that all day parking ticket machines were being added to all garages to offer more options. She said that there was not a way to make things perfect for everyone and there was not going to be one single solution. Professorville was nota walled community situated in a rural setting; it was and always had been adjacent to the downtown. She said they were talking about public streets and who had the rights to access them. The business community could not force everyone working in the downtown to purchase a permit if that was their means of transportation. The negative impacts to the viability of the business district could change the attractive nature of the downtown as a place to do business which could have financial ramifications. It was said that if everyone walked away from a mediation not getting everything they asked for the settlement was successful. She said that everyone was moderately happy with the proposed RPP. The RPP addressed offering residents a guarantee that not all parking spaces would be filled with parked cars and therefore opened the congested feeling of the streets. The proposed RPP also guaranteed that not all parking spaces would be filled with nonresidential cars and offered the opportunity for traffic control. Opening· the RPP door in one community was a gateway for other communities to expect the same program and that became a vast and complicated problem. Chop Keenan said he wanted to fill in data pOints regarding the self-help of the downtown parking district. The downtown parking district met once a month for the last twelve years. It was a 90 minute meeting with a packed agenda and did not work on autopilot. They successfully built two parking structures with 900 spaces over that 12 year period. There were two costs associated with the structures. One was the cost to build them, which was financed by the property owners in the assessment district. That was $0.18 per foot per month, so a 2,000 square foot store paid $360.00 per month for the capital cost of servicing the bond. He said those funds did not guarantee the store a parking space. Spaces were on a first come first served basis Page 12 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES and downtown employees paid an incremental $420.00 per year for the operation and maintenance of the district. That was for things such as sweeping and security and totaled $1.2 million per year. He said that it took approximately 90 to 270 days to clear a waiting list. All the garages had waiting lists except for Cowper/Webster. He stated that with stacked parking they might add 300 to 400 more spaces, which was more effective than the $65,000 per space cost of building another structure. He said that parking equaled prosperity and that it was a fragile parking ecosystem that could not take radical disruption. They supported the Staff report. It was a long process and they did not know how it was going to turn out but they anticipated knowing more in six months. He said they would probably return to Council to discuss course correction at that time. Ethan Atwood spoke against the RPP. He said he lived in Palo Alto for 20 years, mostly in Barron Park, but had moved to Downtown North three years ago so he could take the train to work. He loved the vibrant downtown, but paid for that with drunken students and a fair amount of noise and difficulty parking. He said that was part of the deal when he moved to the area and thought that everyone who lived in Professorville near the downtown also understood that was part of the deal. He was annoyed and unhappy about people who tried to keep others from parking in their neighborhood. When he lived in Barron Park he drove to Professorville, parked, and walked downtown. What the RPP did was take away a right from other Palo Alto residents who lived in other neighborhoods and wanted to get downtown and park. The permits went to people of wealth, people who were professionals that lived downtown, and the people who were nurses at Lytton Gardens, Webster House, and Channing House, but the stock men and women at Whole Foods would not get permits and would be hurt by the RPP. He said those people would simply walk four more blocks. He said that RPP hurt the little people and to the rest of Palo Alto. He urged the Council to vote against the RPP. Richard Brand recommended that the Council take a serious look at how the plan would be implemented as it dealt with longer term issues. He supported residential parking permits but did not believe the RPP was ready. One of the issues was that if one did the math they would see that 103 residences ended up with 101 spaces available for one permit. He asked where he would go to purchase an additional permit. People had asked Staff how they measured the success of the program. He did not understand that either and believed it needed to be well delineated in writing so that everyone understood how the RPP was judged. He supported the idea in principle, but thought the program needed further review. Page 13 of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Beth Bunnenberg said she was speaking as an individual. She said that there was a time when the Stanford Shopping Center had opened and the big stores moved out there and only the banks and a few stalwarts remained downtown. She said that there were boarded up store fronts and empty lots that stayed that way for some time. After David Packard restored the Stanford Theatre people went downtown to the movies and parked close to . the theatre because deserted streets were creepy. Little by little Palo Alto put together a mix of old and new structures and created a unique downtown. The City's transfer of development rights was probably the· strongest support for the historic restorations that had occurred. The architects came in and said that transfer of development rights made it financially possible to redo the buildings and that was how Palo Alto got its historical buildings renovated. She said that it was a balancing act and asked that they understand that in terms of the historic downtown buildings transfer of development rights was very important and Professorville was a very important district. . Rob Steinberg said he was an Urban Designer and Architect who lived on Bryant Street. He concurred with everyone that there was a parking problem in Professorville that needed to be addressed and appreciated the City's willingness to take the issue on. He was concerned that the displaced parked cars from the RPP program would gravitate to adjacent blocks and neighborhoods that were not part of the RPP program. He asked what assurances the City could offer the neighbors that were not part of the RPP program that their streets would not be the recipient of the displaced cars. He hoped there was consensus among the Council that simply moving the problem was not a satisfactory solution. Dena Massar said she had heard that Palo Alto used to be a peaceful place to live but had changed and parking permits would not stop inevitable change. She also heard that some people wanted to park in front of their homes, but permits would not provide that certainty. She heard that Palo Alto High School students were a problem, but parking permits were not a substitute for a conversation with the School District about their parking policies. She heard that the biggest parking problem that neighbors faced was that nonresidents carelessly blocked driveways. She suggested signage and enforcement to solve that problem. She heard that the proposed trial area was not large enough, but there were no stated criteria that helped her decide where the boundaries should be. She heard that it was technology employees or Sirius employees or developers, the City's own policies, or even the neighbors themselves who had caused the problem. She said that issuing parking permits did not get to the root causes. She heard that residents should have free parking permits, Staff said that the cost of permits in a permanent system would be based on cost recovery, but there Page 14 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES was no information about those costs and therefore no consensus about the worth of the parking permit. Professorville was not the only neighborhood that wanted permits. She asked if it was the appropriate time to ask if Palo Alto wanted to be a parking permitted community and if so then the community dialogue should come first to establish appropriate policies and set the-rules for implementation. She asked how they got to the place where the area south of Forest Avenue was converted to a test tube. Staff had asked Council to approve a program that had no specified goals, no problem statement, no established criteria that defined success, and would negatively affect residents that lived outside of the trial boundaries. She said the trial had negative consequences for service employees who worked for local retailers, restaurants, coffee shops, and markets. Those services enhanced the livability of Professorville. She said that if the Council decided that· parking permits were necessary she asked that they make sure to establish a process that would ensure an open public dialogue that represented the community's broad interests. Mark Alguard said he opposed the proposal. He lived on Waverley Street 50 feet from Addison. He anticipated that all of the cars displaced from the Addison and Scott blocks would find his house to be the best place to park. He was not being provided a residential parking permit so that he could park. around the corner on Addison, which would probably be the only parking that was available. He suffered the consequences and did not get any of the benefits of the trial and that had been expressed by other people as well. He was also concerned about the survey that was done because he was not surveyed. The only people that were surveyed were in the proposed area. He acknowledged there were parking problems but stated that they bought that when they bought their houses. He did not have much sympathy for people who converted their garages or turned their driveways into gardens. He felt that the City should not reward those people; it should have programs that encouraged homeowners to restore their garages and driveways and move toward off street parking. He said that Menlo Park did not allow overnight on-street parking and asked what would happen if Palo Alto had a program like that. Don Barr spoke against the proposal, not because he was against permits but because he was disappointed in the process. He said that· he spent significant time working on Palo Alto issues. The RPP program process was neither open nor representative. He said that he lived in a house on the historic registry across the street from the district and the first he heard of the RPP was a letter posted July 3, 2012, which he received on July 5, 2012. The letter indicated the program was a done deal and that it was being discussed at Council. He asked why there were not announced, publicized, noticed, open meetings. He asked why it was not a representative process. Page lSof47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES He said that the self-appointed representatives on the study group were not representative of the community. Professorville was 15 square blocks; the proposed area was two and a half square blocks, not all of which was in Professorville. He said that most of the homes in the residential parking district had garages and many of them had been converted. Parking in the -City streets was a social good that belonged to all the people of Palo Alto, residents and employees alike. In his opinion residents had no more right to a parking space than a worker. He said that there also needed to be a conversation about the difference between a $12.00 an hour worker and someone who made $120,000 per year. David Epstein said he lived on the one block of Emerson just beyond the proposed trial area toward Embarcadero. One of his problems was not just the downtown area, but the high school students that parked there during the school year. Many high school students did not want to pay for parking so they parked on his block. He said that the trial was a severe burden on his block because residents could not park a street over due to the trial and the displaced cars would park on his block. He said that it pushed both the downtown workers and the high school students to his block. He found it interesting that the RPP provided no solution. He asked where the cars would go. The RPP pushing them out of one area and all that happened was they were moving to another area. He was also disturbed by the process and did not hear about it until several people showed him the. completed survey which did not take into account those that were negatively affected by the trial. He found it unfortunately caviler to say that it was simply a trial and not to worry about it. It was dealing with people's lives over the next six months. He suggested they use computer simulations rather than experimenting on real people. He wanted a more global solution and urged Council not to pass the proposal. Steven Cohen lived on Addison and was between the pilot area and the downtown. He would not receive any benefits from the pilot program or any permanent program. He was against permit parking and was happy living in a vibrant and diverse area where people from downtown could park. After he found out by accident about the implementation of the program he did a casual survey with his neighbors, which looked at the available spaces for the residents. When he walked around at 1 :00 p.m. on several occasions he noticed that out of the 66 driveways with 125 spaces there were about 37 cars parked. He said that many of the garages were repurposed and that in that area there were only about 4 homes that had no garage or driveway. From his perspective the City was subsidizing the bad behavior of those with underutilized driveways and garages at the expense of the public. Page 16 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Ben Cintz said· he lived on Kipling Street with his family. Before that for about 15 years he lived on Alma Street in the affected area. He owned residential property in that area as well as some commercial property What . made Palo Alto and the downtown vibrant was that it was a changing area with many uses for that area. There were many changes over the years. He wasn't sure a· parking permit program in the absence-of additional parking was going to create a solution that could be addressed in six months. He said that 66 percent of the people surveyed responded and of that 80 percent approved. For part of the time he lived on Alma he commuted to San Francisco and took his bike to the train station, and then rode to San Francisco and back. He saw people doing that in the reverse direction now and was concerned that unless the City had solutions the pilot program was not going to give them many answers. Alan Petersen lived in on High Street where there were 12 cars parked on the street at 9:00 a.m. on Sunday morning and 27 parked on .the street at 9:00 a.m. Monday morning, which was basically total capacity. On his block the lifetime of an empty parking space was best measured in seconds. He said that he was sure many people were familiar with that problem. He found it surprising that his block was specifically excluded from not only the pilot program but the entire test region. It was perhaps because there were several duplexes on the block and therefore they were second class citizens in a single family discussion. Nevertheless, parking was clearly a persistent and difficult problem. He was personally ambivalent about parking permits. He enjoyed the vibrant downtown and realized he did not own the City streets. However, he endured aggravation daily. What bothered him most about the RPP program was expressed very well by previous speakers and that was the lack of transparency, fairness, and measurable objectives in the process. He urged the Council to defer the implementation of the RPP until there was a better plan. Justin Birnbaum said that it was striking to him that so many people were present so late in the game expressing concerns about the RPP. It was painfully apparent to him that the process was flawed. People were there to speak to Council because they had not been part of the discussion. The group surveyed was not representative of the broader spectrum of views in Professorville. He was not surprised that the people surveyed lived in the pilot area. He said that the folks who were the loudest about the problem, placed cones in front of their homes, and did not use their garages for parking got what they wanted in part because of some bad behavior. He looked at the data with Mr. Rodriguez and at the very worst time of day people. only had to park a block and a half from their home. He did not feel that was so bad. Page 17of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Michelle Arden lived on Lincoln Avenue in Professorville. Unusually her home was newly built. She said that many people who chose to live in the area did so because of the proximity to downtown and downtown services. It was because of the urban amenities, which were a huge benefit to the neighborhoods that surrounded the core of Palo Alto. The benefit had consequences, which were that the streets were more urban because they needed to support the workers that provided those urban services. She thought that the City could reward people for using their garages and their Floor Area Ratio (FAR) space to build two car garages, as she had. She suggested Planning could think about that while also considering some of the other initiatives that offered a great deal of promise. Michael Havern lived about six blocks down the street on Ramona and had for 26 years. He had a garage that was not converted with a driveway and used both every day because he could not use the spaces in front of his .' house. He did not suffer as much as the people in his neighborhood that did not have those things. The historic character of the neighborhood that he bought into 26 years earlier was substantially marred and that only alluded to the visual pollution, not to the day to day hassles of the out of control parking situation. He did not think there was a pilot required for the permit program; he thought it was something that should be instituted immediately. He said the City was trying to encourage heavier development near transit hubs, but continued to provide free all day parking. He thought that they should go to no all-day parking anywhere close to the areas where they were trying to encourage transit heavy development and do away with the pilot, which causing several problems by itself. Paul Goldstein lived on Emerson Street in the trial area. He said that the plan before Council was developed by a few self-appointed residents and had not been discussed with the community. He had seen more public outreach around moving a stop sign then there was on the RPP. He was not aware of a single community meeting about the RPP. The Staff report stated there was a downtown community issue in March, but he did not remember receiving a mailing and he looked back at the archives on the Palo Alto Weekly and did not see notification there either. Most of his neighbors had no knowledge of the meeting. In June 2012 letters announcing the trial were sent to the trial residents only. Adjacent residents were notified first through the July 2, 2012 mailing. Some details of the plan were first disclosed in the Staff report. Additionally, he thought the summer was a poor time to survey the neighborhood as many community members were away. He understood that the City was in a difficult position because some vocal residents demanded immediate relief and there was pressure to do something fast, however the only solution to the problem was a comprehensive program developed through an open and inclusive public Page 18of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES process. Given sufficient time and community meetings the impacted groups including businesses and employees could likely come up with a workable solution. He recognized that would take time and City resources, but the people of the neighborhood had lived with the issues for years and they had the time. He urged the Council to reject the trial and if they wished to proceed with it to they create a legitimate, inclusive process moving forward. Irvin Dawid said a residential parking permit was an effective tool used to manage parking, reduce driving and car ownership, promote affordable housing, and to reduce a city's carbon footprint. His apartment building was a great example. They had 107 units and the parking ratio was.5, so there were approximately 53 parking spaces for 107 people. He did not know much about what happened when his building went in in 1993, but the neighbors could have complained and asked what was to prevent the residents from parking in the adjacent neighborhood. That became a reason why one used an RPP. A previous speaker asked where the cars would go. The way he saw it the RPP was not being presented as an effective tool to manage parking. Another speaker used the term parking deficit, which was a term that made no sense anymore. There was no parking deficit; the City had mismanaged parking and parking in garages that went unused as well as a segregated system of permitted parking and free parking. The City needed to use the parking it had effectively, which meant pricing it. They needed to eliminate the permit and have long and short term parking using meters like other cities. The City had people currently buying parking permits and not using them so the spaces went empty. He asked that they use permit parking as a tool and not as a solution. Sandra Martignetti said she lived on Cowper Street and everyone had garages and driveways. Most people used those spaces to park. She said that in the last nine months they were invaded by people who parked and walked downtown. Her neighborhood was different. She said that if they were wondering if cars would be displaced to adjacent streets, it had already happened. She was ambivalent about parking permits. It was a strange concept to her that she would have to pay to park her extra car. What she wanted to have the City do was move forward with innovative ideas such as the ones discussed by Mr. Keenan. She would rather see· money spent on stacked parking, additional garages, and innovation downtown. Adia Levin said she worked in downtown Palo Alto for six years and utilized the permits and was painfully familiar with the permit parking garage system that induced employees to park on the street. She currently lived in Menlo Park and visited Palo Alto often, almost always on her bicycle. She was glad that the Professorville residents raised the parking issue but did not Page 19 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES believe that the proposed RPP would solve the problem. She was happy that Staff was working on a set of comprehensive solutions for optimizing downtown parking including allowing businesses to purchase and subsidize permits, using permits for multiple workers, enabling online and kiosk purchases of permits, day passes, digital signs, open data, but she thought there was still a parking management problem. Several people said that the reason they did not pay for parking was that on-street parking was free. She suggested they set the prices so that there was an incentive for people that wanted to park to park at a garage and a disincentive to park on the street. Doria Summa said she lived on Yale Street in College Terrace. She thanked the Council for approving their permit parking program which had been a huge success. She served on the committee that worked with Staff to design that program and continued to serve on another group that worked with Staff to keep the program running smoothly. She supported a similar residential parking program for Downtown North and South. The program allowed anyone to park for two hours during business days. What she did not support about what the City proposed was a program that discriminated against residents that lived in multiunit dwellings and their neighbors. For example Attachment H of the Staff report had the program guidelines for the general RPP going forward. She said that if the City attempted to apply that in College Terrace it would literally exempt all of the parts of College Terrace that had been formerly the most impacted by parking problems from being in any RPP. Additionally, the experience in College Terrace showed that a comprehensive RPP supported the needs of both businesses and residents. Living on Yale Street at the edge of the mixed use zone she could tell the Council that in addition to employee parking businesses needed short term parking. When employees parked everything up, businesses did not have the short term parking either. Residents needed parking spots sufficiently close for themselves and their visitors to their houses. She thought that a RPP in Downtown North and South would support the long term transportation goals of the City, which were to get people to come to the City through alternate modes of transportation. Herb Borock said the main reason there was a parking problem was that the Council kept supporting more intensified development for proposals that exceeded the zoning. The second problem was the intensification of existing development. He stated that for those who were concerned about how to get residents to use their driveways and garages the way to do it was to prohibit parking in residential zones between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. He said that was how the system used to work and that back then you could get a hardship permit, but someone would have come out to check to see how long your driveway was and what it accommodated. He stated that the Page 20 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES particular proposal was not Professorville; it included the 1000 block of Emerson Street, and the other side of Addison which were not in Professorville. He said that Ken Alsman was the main advocate of intensive development. For example when 800 High Street was on the ballot Mr. Alsman said it would provide enough parking to eliminate business and customers from four or five blocks. Mr. Alsman had also supported 355 Alma. He said that Mr. Alsman thought he was going to get a permit for a spot in front of his house. The Staff report did not say if the permit was for individual spaces or for the whole neighborhood. He hoped they were for the whole neighborhood. The program should not be done for the reasons mentioned by quite a few speakers. John Woodfill said he was a resident of Downtown North where they had a parking issue as well. He was not as worried about the parking issue as he was about the frantic drivers going around looking for spaces in the neighborhood. He felt that the Professorville trial was treating a symptom, not the overall problem. He agreed with those who proposed trying to simultaneously control parking outside of downtown and manage the parking structures that existed better. He understood that the Bryant Street garage was often half full during the day, so if the garages were managed better there would be more reason for people to park elsewhere and if they had a RPP or meters in the outside neighborhoods then the parking might move inward and reduce the traffic. Martin Bernstein said he was the Chair of the Palo Alto Historic Resources Board (HRB). He said that Ms. Gross mentioned a parking deficit in downtown Palo Alto. They had one in 1924 and that was why the underground parking underneath University was built when the Cardinal Hotel was constructed. Mr. Williams mentioned historic preservation and a very successful program of transfer development rights. He suggested that program remain intact and unchanged as it had been very successful. The HRB had seen many applications that benefited from that program. In addition to historic preservation itself as a benefit, two other direct benefits of that program were the seismic retrofitting which aided public safety, and contributing to the economic vitality of downtown Palo Alto. The most specific example was the historic Ramona district where there had been several successful projects and the economics of downtown Palo Alto and Ramona Street in particular had been very important for the vitality of the City. Vice Mayor Scharff thanked the people who served on the committee. He said it was important to note that it was a very contentious committee and there was a lot of tension and difficulty at times between the two groups and certain members of the groups. It was one of those processes where the Page 21 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES groups wanted to come together and finally agreed on what they wanted. He thought the agreement was driven significantly by what each group wanted. Downtown parking interests wanted to have parking spaces and permits, whereas the residential group wanted not to have cars in front of their houses. That was something for Council to keep in mind as it reviewed the proposal. Staff had a different proposal at the time, which was to make one side of the street RPP and the other side of the street 4 hour parking. There were concerns amongst the residential group that the 4 hour parking would be in front of their house. He thought that was why Staff's proposal was defeated. He was not sure that was what should drive the discussion. He thought the Council needed a more comprehensive view so he thought it was important for his colleagues to get a sense of what the meetings were like. Council Member Burt said they were calling it a trial, but it was not clear to him if it was· being tried whether or not they would have a permitted program, the form of a permitted program if they were to have one, or the area covered by a permitted program if they were to have one. Mr. Williams said they were looking at a broader area than the trial but from a management standpoint the pilot area was manageable and did not have many cost issues. They were trying to determine what the balance was between the residential component of the use of the streets and the nonresidential component. In other words, assuming there was a restriction on the nonresidential component, they needed to determine if residential component was such that it would take up most of the parking spaces on the street by itself, or would there be empty streets that could accommodate a better balance of resident and nonresident type of parking. That was the number one thing tested. Secondly they were testing if there was an impact on the neighboring areas and to what dfrection it went and again, keeping the area fairly focused they thought would minimize the impacts rather than doing it on a larger scale. After the trial was completed Staff would return with a program that better addressed the overall impacts. Council Member Burt said that it sounded like the intention had some elements of a trial and some of a pilot. The pilot being a reduced scale of something that was anticipated would most likely ultimately be a larger geographic area than what was piloted. The trial was both about the formula that was used and also of spillover impacts, which intersected with the pilot. He thought that laid out for Council what they were talking about even if it did not provide solutions. He saw that Staff recommendation number one in the third line said that within six months Staff would return to Council with the recommendations for a permanent program. He asked if Page 22 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES that was really the intention of what Council would be directing that evening based on Staff recommendations. Mr. Williams thought that was a better way to word it because Staff might return with a completely different direction. Council Member Burt said Vice Mayor Scharff mentioned that initially Staff had a different concept of where one side of the street was permitted and the other was not and then there was an agreement between the neighborhood representative subgroup and the downtown business interest to go to the formula proposed. He was interested in what would happen if the City's trial included both forms. He thought there were enough blocks to try separate formulas and asked if there was any reason why they could not do a hybrid trial. Mr. Williams said there was nothing prohibiting a hybrid trial but it might not be advisable because the pilot was a pretty small area and they would only get one or two streets one way and one or two the other which could be confusing for people. What he thought would work better was for the pilot area to take one approach and a second small area take another approach so that they were physically distinctive from each other. Council Member Burt said he saw the downside to having two options tried at once and that those were tradeoffs that needed to be considered. He said there were a number of comments about the representation of the group. He knew the neighborhood well, and when they had the initial South of Forrest Avenue project they had very extensive public participation and it was very open. There were committees and subcommittees and meetings that were neighborhood based meetings, some of which were City sponsored and others were neighborhood sponsored in a very open, inclusive process. He said that for a variety of reasons that did not happen in this scenario. He asked what the thought process was for having the representation solely by those who were in the trial area and advocating a RPP rather than a mixture of options. It seemed from the survey that most people in the trial area favored the trial. He noted that the people outside the trial area who would potentially be in the spillover group were not surveyed. Those people maybe had a moderate parking problem which could become an acute problem as a result of the trial. He explained that those people may not favor a permit program at all because the status quo was better for them than the cure. Mr. Williams said Staff had started with a much larger study area and focused it down. He did not know that he realized as they focused it down that everyone in the group still was within the focused area, but it did go Page 23 of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES there and Staff relied on them to get the word out to the much larger group. There were discussions along the way about getting broader input and even including Downtown North. However they focused it down and Staff should have been more forceful about having broader community knowledge of what was going on even if there was not more participation on the committee. Council Member Burt asked for a rough estimate of the cost of the future program. He saw the cost for the temporary program and asked if the future program would be comparable. Mr~ Williams said the cost of the future program depended on how many participants there were and how many bought permits, what the level of enforcement was, and other factors. Assuming they did not have the funding from the Lytton Gateway project they were estimating permit costs of $200 to $300 per year per household. Council Member Burt said that begged another question because they could get one response level to the program based on pricing. One could imagine the higher pricing, but it could skew responses. If people paid $50 or $100 per year they may favor the program while if they had to pay $200 or $300 they may not. He said that it favored the neighborhood if there were fewer business permits bought because they were more expensive than in the trial. Since Staff was trying to dial the parking to 80 percent occupancy that could be skewed as well if they changed the economic forces. Mr. Williams said they were aware of that and the major goal was to get a sense of how the residential/nonresidential balance was and then assuming they could better equate that then take the next step of what the price sensitivity was. Council Member Burt said he remained concerned that they were adopting a broader policy on a de facto basis. He said it was not a certainty; they had a Downtown North street closure that was repealed after a year and a half or two years. Things were not necessarily permanent, but that was significant wasted time and effort and he did not want to see a repeat of that. He was not saying that he was convinced that the City should not consider a RPP but he was worried about making a broader policy decision and convincing themselves that they were just making a trial decision. Council Member Klein asked if Staff believed the City had a problem, and if so how if was defined. Page 24of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Mr. Williams said they had defined a problem based on occupancy maps. There were substantial areas with close to 100 percent parking occupancy during at a good portion of the day. Council Member Klein reframed his question and asked if the residents had a problem. Council heard testimony both ways. Some residents said that they did not have a problem and that they lived in the area and only had to park a block and a half away. Others described it as intolerable. He asked if there was a standard that defined a problem if he had to park more than a certain number of blocks away and it took more than a certain amount of time to find a space. Mr. Rodriguez said that they did not use that type of a measure when they went through the process. What Staff typically used when they looked at transit oriented development type of standards was that a half a mile was a comfortable radius for people to walk. Council Member Klein asked how many blocks a half mile was. Mr. Williams said they did not have that kind of criteria. He thought it was a perception issue and Staff felt there was a strong perception among a number of the residents that there was an issue. It was ultimately subjective as to whether it was a problem. There was no traffic problem or traffic hazard in the City. It was a personal convenience issue. Council Member Klein said that he was torn because he heard conflicting testimony as some people said there was a problem. James Keene, City Manager, agreed with Mr. Williams that they did not have any existing quantifiable standard that said if it was the distance, density, or experience that defined it was a problem. People had different reactions. Staff had performed counts and there were locations that were more impacted than others and it was not just a perception issue based on imagined changes. There certainly appeared to be more parking and more impact in the neighborhood. Two blocks was a real problem if someone needed to unload groceries. He said that the way the process unfolded was that a group of neighbors came together and said they had a real problem that they wanted to bring to the City's attention. The City responded to a particular complaint and had a different perspective from the business community so the Staff put those groups together. As difficult as that was he did not know how they would have expanded it to a much larger conversation which possibly involved people that had not expressed any concerns. He thought it made sense for the Staff to try to keep meeting and resolve the issue. Given the testimony that evening this was not just a Page 25 of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES neighbor to the City issue, this was a neighbor to neighbor issue, and a neighbor to the business community issue. Council Member Klein said that was why it was a difficult issue. He did not understand the reference to 500 feet. He assumed that the usual block was a tenth of a mile and therefore he was talking about a five block radius. Mr. Rodriguez said he used 500 feet as an example. Council Member Klein heard that neighbors had placed their own orange cones out to indicate that people should not take a parking space in front of their house. He asked if that was true. Mr. Rodriguez said that happened. Council Member Klein said that was a vigilante act and that the Police ought to prevent people from doing that. He asked if they had any instructions to that effect. Mr. Williams said that he was not aware that they had reports, but they certainly would send the Police out if they had. Council Member Klein said that he did not want to encourage people taking the law into their own hands. He said that there were various comments about how everyone had equal access to the streets and he agreed with that, but did not think that the question was one of Constitutional law. He accepted the idea that the US Supreme Court told cities they could restrict parking in one area of town compared to others. He said there needed to be a compelling reason for different rules form one neighborhood to another. That was why he asked the questions about if there was really a problem. He asked why residents were not charged under the pilot project. Mr. Williams said that they were charging for more than one vehicle, but were not charging for the first vehicle. Staff wanted to see if residents had unlimited access to the streets what kind of load that meant for the street. Staff kept hearing comments about the nonresidential vehicles occupying all the streets and residents not having places to park their cars. Making it easy for the residents for at least the first vehicle in the trial was something that allowed Staff to better visualize the potential balance between the residential and nonresidential use of the street. Council Member Klein said he read that, but he still did not understand. It seemed that it would be a better test if they charged for the first car because presumably that was what would happen if they adopted a Page 26of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES permanent project. For example he could see someone who had a driveway and a garage taking advantage of the permit if it was free, but if they had to pay for it they would not. He was not persuaded by the free first vehicle at all. He had not heard any mention of the experience of other communities and he knew there were many residential permit programs around the country. He asked if Staff looked at and learned from any of those programs. Mr. Rodriguez thought that the specific elements they recommended within the program took advantage of the lessons learned from other communities. That was one of the reasons they did the first two elements of the program. They wanted to define a buffer zone to allow the transition from land use that generated parking to a residential community. The buffer transition was their method of ensuring that they were following a best practice determined by other communities as well as making sure they were protecting arterial streets which served multiple uses. One of the other major successful elements of a RPP program within many communities was that they pulled funds together to help reduce the long term cost of permits for the whole city. Those were the limits or restrictions. The rest were things that they needed to consider and discuss such as single family homes versus multiuse homes. Those were things that they needed to look at when they worked with the community. The attachment that was in the Staff report that talked about the framework really was geared toward trying to define the process that the community needed to follow but was limited to a couple of factors to help define the pattern of a RPP. Council Member Klein thought it was useful to see programs from several other cities that seemed as similar as possible to the Professorville area. Mr. Williams said he did not think they needed to look at if any other cities had done that kind of residential and nonresidential permit combinations. He said it was pretty standard to focus on the residential and then have two hour parking for everyone else. They started with a discussion of that in the group and that was a major impact on the employers so they backed off. Mr. Keene said that Staff would conduct more research. He said that he was previously the City Manager of Berkeley and had lived in Rockridge for quite some time and he did not recall any neighborhood moving to secede from RPP because it was a problem. In general people felt RPP's were essential to living in their neighborhood. He thought Berkeley brought in about $7 million in metered parking revenue and probably about $7 million in parking fines at the same time. So it was a fairly comprehensive program. Page 27 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Council Member Shepherd knew there was good work on the RPP, but was very hesitant to move forward on the pilot. She asked if Council moved forward on the second half of the Staff recommendation would that get Staff closer to answering Council Member Klein's question about if there was a problem. She asked if Staff needed the information from the outcome of the pilot. Mr. Williams said the programs would get them closer to the answers, but they also would take quite a bit of time to get implementation that gave a sense of how much relief was provided. The question was if Staff should try to do something immediately to provide relief in the residential areas or should they hold off and wait to see how some of the things came along. Staff already captured 50 new spaces in downtown, changed parking garage levels from hourly to permit, and did new signage to get people to the garage. Some of those things helped to some extent, but there was still concern in the neighborhood. Council Member Shepherd confirmed the pilot took them out of anecdotal information and into real information. She asked if Staff planned to return to Council after three months to see if there needed to be any course correction in the pilot. Mr. Williams said they planned to report back to the Council in three months. Staff told the working study group that it would meet again and check in at that pOint. If there did not seem to be major problems, they might just let Council know that but otherwise they would report problems and suggest changes or whether to abandon the program~ Council Member Shepherd said she knew there were apartment complexes between the pilot area and downtown that were probably not fully parked. She asked what happened to those cars. Mr. Williams said right now those streets were not part of the program. Apartment complexes were more complicated with respect to a RPP because there was a concentration that could be from under parking or that people used the streets because it was more convenient. Council Member Shepherd said that either the apartment dwellers would park in the unpiloted area or would have to park on the other side of the piloted area. She said Staff had not checked to see if the apartments had garages, so that could be a parking option. Mr. Rodriguez said it could be a combination of all the things Council Member Shepherd mentioned, but Staff did not know. Page 28 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Council Member Shepherd was concerned about some of the comments from the public. Her concern focused on the comments relating to circumventing the permit area and parking somewhere else. She saw both sides of the argument. She asked how impacted Downtown North was because the pilot would shift employees over there. They were already fully parked and impacted so it was the other areas that were in question. She confirmed that was what Staff was trying to look at. Mr. Williams said yes. He said Downtown North was already heavily impacted. Secondly he thought the distance from the trial area to Downtown North was such that people would find spaces closer than Downtown North to park. Council Member Shepherd stated people who work in downtown have to park one way or the other. If they had to walk further they would. Mr. Williams said the trial area was just a small part of the area south of downtown. There were other blocks and that was what the neighbors were talking about that people would park in some place that did not have the RPP restriction rather than going up to the Downtown North. Council Member Shepherd said that was already impacted, so it looked like the only thing Staff would be able to find out was if people went one more block closer to Embarcadero Road. If they did that and the City released the parking permits to the residents and 20 percent of businesses, she asked if the trial area would still be parked up with the two hour parking in front of people's homes in addition to impacting the blocks further out. She questioned if the information was really useful. Dividing the neighborhood concerned her. Mr. Keene thought Staff acknowledged from the beginning preference for the other model, but both groups preferred the current model so Staff went with it. Staff understood that it was imperfect. At the same time, there was a core group of citizens that said parking was a real problem that needed alternatives. Staff found very often in other areas that there was a challenge getting behavior change. There was the challenge of behavior change for businesses and their employees as to how they would have more uptake on Transportation Demand Management (TDM) or how they would maximize use of garages. Staff would have to deal with issues of if RPP programs in a more expanded version if it was something that people wanted. He said that Council Member Klein's points were valid. If they did not price the pilot properly then they might not collect the data they needed. From the beginning Staff understood that it was going to displace parking Page 29 of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES further down the road and require neighbors to come forward and ask for something specific in their neighborhoods as well. He guessed that the situation would probably improve for the six blocks in the pilot. He said that the problem ultimately was the fact that they did not want to ruin the vibrant downtown. The timeframe to plan for new parking or TDM programs were long term issues. They had a dilemma and there-were always consequences in a dilemma that were unsatisfactory. He said the Council meeting was transparent and part of the process. Things were often elevated and people paid more attention at the Council level than the outreach that Staff could do. The Council was free to send Staff back, to put qualifications on the program, or whatever they needed to do. It was not a done deal just because Staff presented an option to the Council. Council Member Shepherd asked if the program went away when the trial ended or if Staff intended that it become an entitlement for that particular configuration of Professorville. She did not mind gathering data for a time period but she thought it was important for it to revert to see if trends went back to the way they were before. She felt that would be informative. Mr. Williams agreed. He said Staff was comfortable saying that the trial ended in six months and it was incumbent on Staff to return to Council with a recommendation to extend set parameters for how to move forward with the community on a broader program. If that did not happen then the program ended at that pOint. Council Member Shepherd asked if they would put up temporary signs. Mr. Williams said they were temporary and the sign would be removed pending a determination of what the ultimate program was if there was one. Vice Mayor Scharff said he wanted to follow up on what Council Member Klein and Council Member Burt said about pricing. One of the things that Staff continually reiterated during the meetings was that if there was a full RPP it had to be cost neutral. He had the sense that the committee did not listen to that part. He thought they could do a disservice to the neighborhood because they were surveyed based on the notion of a free permit for one car and then only $50 for a second permit. The reality of the situation was more in the $200-300 range for a permit. He thought they should survey people with a realistic version of the cost. If they said $250 and they received feedback from 40 percent saying they were interested with 60 percent saying no, that was different information. People would be angry if the cost difference was so great. He thought they should return and complete surveys with realistic numbers. He knew there was a push to get an RPP done as soon as possible and that Staff was under significant Page 30 of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES pressure, but people needed a sense of what would really happen or the whole notion of a trial did not make sense. He also agreed with Council Member Shepherd that if it was a trial then it should have a specific end date. He thought it was better if they said that it ended no matter what and that the City would use the information to design a broader program. He said Staff did a good comprehensive job on the recommendation involving additional studies and actions related to parking in downtown. He wanted Staff to return with funding options for the public parking garage sites. One of the things he realized when sitting on the committee was that there was agreement that some workers should be able to park in the neighborhoods. That was one of the worthwhile things that came from the meetings. He thought people were saying that employees should be allowed to park in the neighborhoods but at a level that did not make life uncomfortable. That was what the City should strive to achieve, making life not uncomfortable. People bought homes in that neighborhood and area knowing that there were many impacts with downtown. They just did not want to feel that the impacts were extreme and he believed some people felt it had gotten extreme. That went back to Council Member Klein's question. He thought that was what people wanted to know; how many cars could be removed from the neighborhoods and how could the City get that done. Mr. Keene heard a difference between Council Member Klein's point of having a no cost first car parking permit and if the price should be closer to what the expected the ultimate was. His understanding was that this was a pilot that would not have the full level of enforcement. If they charged the $200-300 fee than the City risked having residents demand the same level of enforcement that was concomitant with that pricing. The issue of paying for at least every car so there was truly a litmus test was different. Staff wanted to price it in some way that people felt the trial was working into what it would be like based upon the price if it was a permanent program. He thought the sense was the City was not offering a program that mirrored what it would be if it were a permanent program. Vice Mayor Scharff said he thought they should get the trial as close as possible to what it would be like for people and survey them. He thought people were more price sensitive than enforcement sensitive and that Staff would receive push back at the $200-300 mark. If the City was not going to charge $200-300 because it was not going to have that level of enforcement then they should price the program according to the appropriate level. If they did not use the right information they would not receive the right data and they would leave the wrong impression with the community. Mr. Williams said the $200-300 figure assumed a full level of enforcement. It also included all the upfront costs which the City had the potential to Page 31 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES cover with the Lytton Gateway project. The figures also depended on the level of participation. He thought that if they did a survey they ought to lay out the options and not assume the highest case. They discussed some of those issues in the group. He also pOinted out that if it was a three month program, $50 equaled $200 per year. Again, they were not charging for the first permit so that sounded like an appropriate way to go. Council Member Holman said she used to live in the neighborhood and she could support those who said the situation had gotten worse and the neighborhood was more impacted. She said that it was a quality of life issue, a neighborhood character issue, and a business vitality issue. Part of the quality of life in the neighborhood was that it was near the business district. That said there were property value impacts and basic disruption. It was not as clean; the streets were not swept as well. There were all kinds of negative impacts on the streets the way there were now. She said that the 900 block of Ramona and the 1100 block of Emerson were full during the midday peak period yet were not included in the study area and asked why that was. Mr. Rodriguez said that when they started they looked at a larger area but worked it down to a symmetrical shape. It was a boundary that was put together with both Staff and resident input. They looked at parking occupancy of the street. If they were at 85 percent there was still open parking on that street so that was another factor. Council Member Holman said that she understood that if there was some space on the street that meant there was available parking but it was tight with 85 to 100 percent occupancy. She said that the pilot used $50,000 of the $100,000 allocated from the Lytton project. She asked if the City was better off using some of the money on the objectives for the recommendation to proceed with additional studies. She was not 100 percent clear on what they were doing. Attachment H, page 301 said "parking program guidelines." The word guidelines threw her because guidelines were not really defining a program they were parameters that could be implemented. There was also not a good description of what the program would be in the document that was the draft proposed RPP. She was not sure that everyone knew what was being proposed. Mr. Rodriguez said the survey focused on the one issue of a potential RPP pilot program. There were many good comments about additional information that could have been included in the survey including the costs of an ongoing long term program. He said that they were in the infancy of developing the RPP and there was significant positive change on the permit sales side and the distribution of permits. It would take more time to try Page 32 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES things. Mr. Keene and Mr. Williams both asked if it was the right time to try a RPP and if it should be done under the process Staff defined or in some other form, or if they should accelerate the other programs first and revisit the RPP another day. -Mr. Williams thought Council Member Holman's questions went to the specifics of the RPP. He agreed that the information was dispersed. The question she had about the use of the money going toward the other programs concerned him because he thought there was a commitment at the time of the approval of the Lytton Gateway project that the money was segregated and used specifically for residential protection or parking intrusion. He was not sure it was appropriate to move the money to another type of parking program. Council Member Holman said it seemed to her that without answers to some of these questions they would not have good enough information to deploy. She shared the concerns that this was not an open process. Council could not make changes that evening based on information it just learned. The process could have been improved. There were some things that were added more appropriately or more clearly described in the presentation than were listed in the Staff report. Someone told her that Palo Alto High School was charging for parking which was causing more parking in the neighborhood. She asked if that was correct. She said that Council Member Shepherd just told her that they had always charged for parking .. She said that they might want to work with the School District and Stanford on that. She listed off modes of transportation that were added and asked how those items would be funded or if they could be funded. Mr. Rodriguez thought the concept was a Staff developed toolkit of downtown transportation management tools to be taken advantage of by existing or future development. One of the elements they thought of was a future expansion program participation into a shuttle program which would allow the City to provide new service to the area and help connect it with other residences within the community. He said that participating in a shuttle program could be a way to provide more connections through transit use that did not currently exist through the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) or other resources. Mr. Williams said Staff was not ready to tell Council how it planned to fund anything listed under that option. Council Member Holman said she would add opportunities with underutilized and over parked buildings in the downtown area. She said that other communities managed liability issues and that seemed to never get Page 33 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES addressed in Palo Alto. She wanted Staff to look at that as part of the solution. She asked why the overnight parking restriction was no longer in effect. When she moved to the City in 1975 you could not park on the street overnight. She wondered if it was imposed again if it would force people to use their driveways. Mr. Williams said he did not know the background, but he knew as far as the RPP that was not a problem. Council Member Holman said she understood, but it was a little piece because people said that others had converted their driveways as well as their garages to other uses. That was a way to perhaps make people use their driveways again for the intended purpose. She did not have any evidence that there was outreach to the business community to see what the workers behavior was as a response to a RPP if the City moved forward. That was important. She asked if Staff could return in six months with a new and improved pilot that was better informed. Mr. Williams said that if that was Council's -request Staff would accommodate. He felt the recommendation would be more informed in six months' time. Council Member Holman was interested in moving forward with something but what the Council had before them currently was ill defined and did not contain broad enough input. She thought six months was a good time frame to ask Staff to return with a plan. Mr. Keene said that Council's directive needed to be clear about wh'at additional information Council wanted so that Staff was able to respond. Council Member Price was inclined to go ahead with the trial on the RPP because she thought they needed additional information regarding the parameters that were laid out. She thought if they said after all the months of work that further study was needed she was not sure that would move the City forward in addressing the stated problem. She appreciated Staff's comments and the discourse on the additional studies and hoped that when those came back that there was some sense of the cost and the relative priority. She was not asking for an answerimmediately but based on what other communities had done she wanted to know which elements could yield information that could be used in concert with a potential RPP. She appreciated the comments regarding best practices and asked if the draft in Attachment H which had preliminary guidelines was based on an extension of what was in the Staff report, or if Staff looked at guidelines or equivalents that were used successfully in other communities. Page 34of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Mr. Rodriguez said it was the latter. Council Member Price was inclined to go along with the comments about how if they proceeded with the pilot program that it should have some fee structure associated with it. Issuing free permits was a false or inaccurate litmus test. She said that people who did not need the permit might use it simply because it was free. It made sense to charge some reasonable fee for the parking permits. She said that the price could be scaled or less than what the potential long term would be, but it needed to be recognized in further communication with residents in the trial area about what the likely range of costs were if the program was implemented. With the discussion of under zoning and planning there was a reference to TDM and other options. Within that language it said other options would be examined and she wanted to clarify if Staff was thinking about auto restricted zones or on- street metered parking. Mr. Williams had not thought about auto restricted zones but they would at least look at pricing issues to see if that was something the community and Council wanted to look at. He said that it could be brought forward as part of the menu. Council Member Price said there were many hybrid programs used in different places and every community was different. She encouraged everyone to read the book "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Donald Shoup. Mr. Shoup made the case that free parking inflated parking demand and played into issues related to parking requirements and the zoning code. She clarified that on the College Terrace program there was an opt-out scenario. Mr. Williams clarified that there were two ways. One was not buying a permit, and the second was that whole blocks could opt out if more than 50 percent wanted to opt out. If that happened they would not have the signage on the street. Mr. Rodriguez said that when the College Terrace program was initiated the blocks voted to opt in or out. Afterward they had the opportunity to vote per block and opt out again. Council Member Price said she concurred with all the comments made about the noticing of the public. She thought the City needed to be very mindful of that at every stage. If there was a trial or a post-trial or any discussion of the strategies the public should be noticed. She knew the Staff observed that as well but she thought it was extremely important. Page 35 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Mayor Yeh knew that there were many considerations and iterations of the RPP. Ultimately he did not support the pilot program or really even the development of a RPP because he thought conducting additional studies was the smartest approach. He asked Staff to define what they meant by long term. He discussed the amount of Staff who would have to work on the various options. Mr. Rodriguez said that over the next six months there were many things Staff could move forward on. Some of the initial things were studying the existing surface laws to determine where they could build more garages and if attendant parking made sense in the existing garages. There were many factors including if the structures would support the weight of additional cars. Staff could advance those studies because of a separate contribution from the Lytton Gateway project. Staff also committed to advancing within the next six months the development of some sort of RFP to help them collect data about what they could do with technology deployment within the garages. They also wanted to share more information with the Parking Committee. There was a strong interest within the business community and they had formed the assessment district to help advance many of the solutions that were already in place and the City needed to respect that process and solicit that input before they came back and made a strong recommendation to Council. Mr. Williams thought that some of the things that could be implemented in the next six months were attendant parking, or at least a trial of that somewhere, and some technology efforts. He said that building a parking garage took longer, but in six months Staff would have good study information on that. Mr. Keene had also discussed a public/private garage that would be a faster track than the City building a structure on its own. Mayor Yeh appreciated the thought that went into the pilot, but his greatest concern was that it moved the problem and did not really address or create a systemic solution. He said he favored a systemic solution. MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to not move forward with the trial Residential Permit Parking Program, however to: 1. Direct Staff to proceed with additional studies and actions related to parking in downtown, including but not limited to: a. Study of potential new public parking garage sites, capacities and costs; b. Methods to increase capacity in existing garages, such as attendant parking and adjustments to the permit/public distribution of spaces; Page 36 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES c. Technology enhancements, such as gate controls, parking space identification systems, and parking permit processing improvements, etc.; d. Zoning studies and revisions, including study of the downtown cap on nonresidential space, the use of bonuses and transfer rights, variable parking ratios for office uses, and how to treat non- conforming parking sites; and e. Evaluate paid parking options. Mayor Yeh said he met with residents that .were the strongest proponents of the RPP program and shared with them that he could not support an RPP program in isolation. He felt it was moving a problem around and his greatest concern was that the neighbors not in the trial zone would be negatively impacted for the duration of the pilot. He thought the energy could be more positively channeled to maintain the urgency that was identified in the problem and focus ona systemic and comprehensive solution and to move forward as quickly as possible. He acknowledged that there was a problem and he lived in the Evergreen neighborhood where they looked to College Terrace for having created a problem across EI Camino Real in Evergreen. That was the kind of issue that he did not like. He wanted to focus more on a great set of solutions and evaluations. Council Member Holman said that she was supportive of finding relief for the neighborhood but was not comfortable with what was brought to Council. She said that Staff's time was not a wasted effort, but the RPP was not ready for trial. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER TO INCLUDE: 1) parking exemptions, 2) a Tran~portation Demand Management Program, and 3) to direct Staff to look at underutilized private parking garages. Council Member Holman said that there were parking garages in the downtown area that were underutilized during both the daytime and in the evening. She suggested Staff speak to the property owners to see how the garages could be better utilized. Mayor Yeh agreed with Council Member Holman's additions. Council Member Holman believed that the intention was for Staff to report back in six months. She did not want the business community or residents to feel that this was something that would continue for an unlimited amount of time. She wanted a report in six months. Page 37 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Mr. Rodriguez thought that six months was feasible. Staff started many things and wanted to involve the downtown merchants and allow the community to participate in what the content of the RFP would be so that when Staff solicited cost information for projects or programs they knew they were inquiring about things that were of interest to the community. He thought that within six months Staff could develop the RFP's. Six months gave Staff the opportunity to meet Council's expectations. Mr. Keene agreed with the six month timeframe with the understanding that Staff would return before then with more of a detailed scope of what it was they were asked to do. He said that even though Mr. Rodriguez responded to some of the initial requests he did not believe it gave them a good measure of what the outcomes or percentage of the perceived problem it addressed in whatever period of time. It could be a multiyear effort that Staff would make progress on, but that progress would still be unseen. He suggested returning in the fall with· a more detailed report on what Staff thought the timeframe was on the different components and what they thought the yield was in relation to the problem. If they had to build multiple parking structures that was a different issue than installing some technology to update the existing capacity. He requested that they add something to return to Council in three months. He wanted it to say something about an assessment report. That was very different than having implemented everything. Then Staff would return in six months. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER TO INCLUDE to direct Staff to return to Council in three months with check in and return with an update before the end of the year Council Member Holman said that she hoped that within six months Staff would return with a progress update and identified a better program for a RPP. Mayor Yeh said that his Motion was to remove the consideration of an RPP. Council Member Holman confirmed that Mayor Yeh meant that none of the exercises were intended to lead to a RPP. Mayor Yeh said yes, that the Motion did not include the Staff Recommendation to evaluate an RPP. Council Member Holman said that related to Downtown North. Page 38 of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Mayor Yeh said his Motion was to not move forward with the Professorville RPP. Everything in the remaining Motion could reset the baseline for what downtown parking would look like. Council Member Holman said her hope and understanding was that gOing through this process would lead the City toward what it should do with an RPP. Mayor Yeh was not open to that and asked if she did not want to second the Motion. Mr. Keene said that there was always the possibility that the report would have an impact on how the Council looked at an RPP. The Motion began with not wanting Staff to work on an RPP and supporting any RPP process, partly because it could be in conflict with the effort invested in the alternatives. Council Member Holman asked Mr. Williams if the information Staff provided in three to six months would include what advancements had been made and what Staff anticipated to see in terms of relief for Professorville so at that pOint in time Council could look at if they wanted to move forward with an RPP. Mr. Williams said Staff would provide Council with an assessment of which components of the work they were doing that would provide or had provided relief to Professorville. At that point Council could revisit whether to try the RPP. He thought Staff would have a real concern trying to retool a whole new RPP program while they were looking at the other ~hings. Council Member Holman said she would maintain her second to the Motion but with the intention that RPP was still on the horizon. Mayor Yeh confirmed he was not open to that. Vice Mayor Scharff said he would support the Motion and suggested language additions to the Motion. He said they change the verbiage to reflect zoning studies and revisions as a concern from the public. He wanted the City to evaluate that issue. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to: 1) return with funding options for new public parking garage sites, and 2) include that the zoning studies would evaluate disincentives to having two car garages. Page 39 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Council Member Holman was hesitant because the neighborhood was built up and much of it was Professorville she did not believe it would have much of an impact. Vice Mayor Scharff said they were looking at more than Professorville. The Council was basically doing a comprehensive for Downtown North and South. He thought they were looking at it on a comprehensive basis and was not suggesting that there should be an outcome, just that it be evaluated as one of the concerns. Council Member Holman said she was comfortable as the seconder of Motion now that it included the Incorporation. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to evaluate the use of $250k currently budgeted in the Lytton Gateway Project. Vice Mayor Scharff said that the other comment that Council Member Holman made was related to the $250,000. He was not suggesting they use it immediately, but the Council never agreed to do an RPP so they could not have placed the funds aside for that. He thought the question was should that money be used and could it be used to get relief. If Staff had that money to use, he asked if they would make faster and better progress. He stressed that he simply wanted to evaluate how to use the money. He thought the Council was taking a good approach and trying to solve the problem on a comprehensive basis. Staff's efforts needed to be focused on the comprehensive basis because they did not have time to do both. It was not saying no to an RPP permanently, it was focusing on the comprehensive basis for six months. Mr. Keene said the intent of the Motion was that unless the Council redirected Staff in the six month time frame that they were taking work on and assessments of RPP as a part of the solution off the table and shifting the attention to see if Staff could identify solutions that may not require an RPP program. Staff would look at ways to solve the problem though TDM, additional parking, and other means knowing that at the end of the six month period Staff would have enough information presented to Council that Council would know what it would take to move forward on that front or if it wanted to bring back up RPP. Council Member Holman clarified the language by addihg the phrase "at this time." She felt that made Council's intentions more clearly stated. Page 40of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to include "Professorville at this time" after "Residential Permit Parking Program" in the first part of the Motion. Council Member Burt agreed with the Motion and thought that if Council -looked at an RPP in the future that it should be more comprehensive. As they looked at what prompted the problem he thought the most legitimate one was that there were 11 homes in the broader study area that had no driveways or garages. He stated that as the spillover grew the problem became more acute. He asked if the City ever looked at simply giving relief to those 11 homes through curb striping. Mr. Williams said that was not evaluated. Council Member Burt asked if Mr. Williams saw any problems if the City went in the direction of a spot program that provided relief to homes without a driveway. He said that those spots could be either the resident's permit or two hour parking. Mr. Williams said Staff had to discuss that and see if it was feasible. He thought one of the issues was that he did not know if those were the people that were complaining about not having spaces. Council Member Burt offered the language to be incorporated into the Motion. He thqught that would not be disruptive to the downtown parking district and would address the most acute problem. He thought that was the most legitimate complaint. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to evaluate selective parking for those homes without a driveway or garage. Council Member Price said she would not support the Motion although she appreciated the modifications because clearly a more aggressive comprehensive plan was important. She thought they needed to have the RPP trial as one element of a comprehensive approach. The other approaches were important, but based on comments from both sides residential parking was a concern to a sufficient number of people. She felt that if a pilot program were done that charging a fee for it made more sense. She said that if the Council really wanted to be comprehensive it would retain the RPP as part of the ambitious list. She said that the RPP was not a panacea, none of the options discussed were a panacea, but the question was if the City was looking at the whole picture comprehensively. Page 41 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Council Member Holman' said that they were doing this because there were concerns from the neighborhood about spill over parking. Council indicated that perhaps addressing some of the issues might alleviate the parking in the neighborhoods but there were many comments that evening about the lack of transparency. She asked about the process moving forward and if it was going to be an open process with public input. Mr. Williams said it depended on the item, but he thought most of them would be put together and a community meeting would be noticed before Staff returned to Council. That would probably not happen before Staff returned with the programmatic information, but it would before the end of the year session. Council Member Holman confirmed that the community meeting would include more than the pilot area. Mr. Keene said that they did not know the parameters of it at that point, but _ the emergent neighborhood complaints alerted Staff that there was a large challenge. Whatever was mitigated ten years ago when PAMF moved had reemerged and Council was asking Staff to look at the parking challenge accommodation of the 2010-2020 decade. There were many issues that would touch many stakeholders. That required engagement and outreach. Council Member Holman suggested more than one community meeting. The reason she suggested not just the area that was included in the pilot was because some of the people in that area were the most invested in the dialogue. She wanted to make sure that it was not a self-selected group again. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to call the question. MOTION PASSED: 5-3 Espinosa, Price, Shepherd no, Schmid absent MOTION PASSED: 6-2 Espinosa, Price no, Schmid absent Council Member Shepherd asked a question about the downtown cap and the boundaries of the downtown cap. She said that the Arrillaga project could be coming forward and she wanted to know how that was going to be handled. She knew it was outside the boundary of the downtown cap and asked if Staff would bring that analysis when they returned with the item. Page 42 of 47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 MINUTES Mr. Williams said they probably would, but that he thought Council would see some of the Arrillaga project before that came back. He said they would see the extent to which it was parked. Council Member Shepherd said she was concerned about traffic and parking. She said it was tangential and important for Council to review at the same time. Mr. Williams said they indicated in the Staff report that they would be embodying that but whether it was actually part of the number on the cap was to be determined. 14. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that Council Approve a Definition of Carbon Neutrality in Anticipation of Achieving a Carbon Neutral Electric Supply Portfolio by 2015. James Keene, City Manager, said the Staff was ready to answer questions and that the Chair of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) was present. James Cook, Chair UAC said the item was about the definition. They were not debating the pros and cons or items about carbon neutrality, but the definition. Staff confirmed that this was the industry standard definition, so for the UAC it was a short item and they felt the definition was good. The definition did not preclude a later discussion about how to achieve carbon neutrality or when to do it. This was the framework to start with and the UAC passed it unanimously. He urged the Council to pass the definition. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to approve the following definition as the basis for the City's pursuit of a carbon neutral supply portfolio: A carbon neutral electric supply portfolio will demonstrate annual net zero greenhouse gas (GHB) emissions, measured at the citygate, in accordance with The Climate Registry's Electric Power Sector protocol for GHG emissions measurement and reporting. Vice Mayor Scharff said that Staff represented that the definition was achievable, credible, transparent and measurable as well as consistent with current industry standards for GHB accounting and reporting protocols and taking that representation to be true he thought it was the right definition. Council Member Klein asked where the citygate was. Monica Padilla, Senior Resource Planner, said citygate was where they interconnected with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Page 43 of47 City Council Meeting Minutes: 7/16/12 Gonsalves, Ronna From: Sent: To: Subject: rademps <rademps@aol.com> Saturday, October 27, 2012 3:47 PM Council, City Message from the City Council Home Page Dear Members of the City Council: 21 12 OCT 29 Mi 10: 42 I know that you are all fully aware of the parking problems plaguing residential areas north and south of University Avenue as well as the downtown area itself, and that the Council has instructed Staff to address the issue on a broad scale. In the meantime, I want to suggest something that would quickly alleviate the parking problem for some of the residents, particularly those in and near Professorville. That area has many older homes, homes that were designed before the great automobile era, homes that have no garage and no driveway. There is a feeling among some in government and among some residents that it is wrong for residents to ask for what amounts to private parking on a public street; however, those homes that have a driveway do have the equivalent of a private parking spot on a public street since no one can park in front of their driveway. The result is, those of us with no driveway suffer from de facto discrimination since the city does not provide us with a parking spot in front of our homes. I'm sure there are a dozen reasons that will come to mind why the City cannot do it, but I am equally sure that with a simple change of polic y the city could make it legal to have a 'virtual driveway" in front of every home that has no real driveway. In our case, we do have access to parking via an alley in back of our home; however it is less safe and less convenient to use than parking a few blocks away. It is very narrow and difficult to enter the carport, more difficult to back out without damaging our back- neighbor's fence. The alley is not lit at night. Because workmen often use it to park it is not always accessible, unlike a street space, and is sometimes littered with construction materials such as nails and screws. Further, our sliding gate is exceptionally heavy (my wife cannot open it) and the two motorized openers we have had installed over the years have burned out at great cost to us. I would ask the Council members to do some creative thinking about a policy that would allow us to drive away and have the same access to return to our homes that residents with driveway do. Regards, Ray Dempsey 1036 Bryant Street Palo Alto 10 MINUTES Page 17 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 MOTION: Council Member Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to; 1) approve the Negative Declaration, with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts; and (2) approve a Record of Land Use Action approving the Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions for 827 Chimalus Drive, based on the stated findings and conditions. Council Member Espinosa said subdividing the lot was logical and fit the neighborhood. Because of the small number of non-conforming lots in the neighborhood, the Council did not need to worry about an increase in density or traffic. Council Member Klein inquired when the Council adopted the R-1 maximum size. Ms. French answered 2005. Council Member Klein felt subdividing the lot would not have a significant impact on the density of the community. Council Member Shepherd agreed with previous comments. Council Member Price supported the Motion. She was more concerned about the issue of people merging parcels, and was delighted to hear about the maximum parcel size. Mayor Yeh supported the Motion. He appreciated the applicant speaking with neighbors. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Burt, Holman not participating 17. Public Hearing: Consider Extending up to December 28, 2013 a Moratorium on the Use of Certain Parking Exemptions contained in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Zoning Ordinance Related to the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Areas; and Adopt a Resolution Providing Exceptions to the Moratorium for "Pipeline Projects" at 135 Hamilton Avenue and 636 Waverley Street. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment wished to discuss the moratorium on the parking exception previously adopted and extended once. Staff asked the Council to 1) further extend the parking moratorium for an additional year to allow for appropriate studies, responses, and actions to address the Downtown parking issues identified and presented in a previous report; and 2) consider exceptions to the MINUTES Page 18 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 moratorium for two projects currently pending in the development review process. The structure of the Ordinance provided that the Council could enact exceptions pursuant to Resolution adopted separately from the Ordinance. These were technically two separate actions. The Ordinance as an Urgency Ordinance required eight votes for adoption, and the Resolution required a majority vote for adoption. The most significant issue was the exceptions for the two projects in the development process. The 135 Hamilton Avenue project would be approximately 20,000 square feet of office development with two residential units. The applicant proposed 23 on-site parking spaces. Another 20 spaces would be exempt from parking, because of the use of Transferrable Development Rights (TAR). Forty spaces would be exempt due to the one-to-one floor area ratio (FAR) exemption, which was subject to the moratorium. Not providing an exemption would require the applicant to pay in-lieu fees for 40 spaces or provide 40 on-site parking spaces, which was not practical. The site was currently used as a parking lot and leased to nearby businesses and contained 20-23 parking spaces. The 636 Waverley Street project would be approximately 5,000 square feet of office space and two residential units. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) performed a preliminary review. The applicant was revising the plan to present to the ARB in early 2013. The one-to-one FAR exemption accounted for 15 spaces that would be exempt from parking. The number of parking spaces could change depending on the final project. The applicant would provide some on-site parking with the project. Transferrable Development Rights were not an issue for the project. The 135 Hamilton Avenue project had been to the ARB once for full review. The ARB suggested a number of revisions. The applicant submitted a revised project for an ARB study session, and the ARB suggested further changes. The project was scheduled for an ARB meeting in January 2013 for further review and possibly action. Staff outlined five options for Council consideration. The first option was not to allow exceptions. This would require the 135 Hamilton Avenue project be revised to provide 40 parking spaces or in-lieu fees for 40 parking spaces. The 636 Waverley Street project would have a similar requirement. It would be approximately $900,000 to accomplish the 15 spaces for that project. A second option was to allow exceptions, recognizing that the applicants were well into the process, but require the applicants to pay into the Assessment District. Staff suggested an equivalent assessment payment based on the amounts the projects would have had to pay with the issuance of the 2001 bonds through 2030, including interest. Those numbers would be required in any kind of exemption proceeding. Staff suggested funds be paid into the Downtown Parking In-Lieu Fee Fund, to be used for construction of a parking garage. The amount of payments to the Assessment District was estimated at $326,000 for 135 Hamilton Avenue and $122,000 for 636 Waverley Street. A third option, which Staff recommended, was to require the projects to pay MINUTES Page 19 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 the assessment equivalent and to have the two properties share the cost of the Downtown Cap Study. Staff estimated the cost to the projects at $150,000, and would apportion the $150,000 amount between the two projects in the same ratio as their parking space exemptions. A fourth option was to allow the exemptions, but to require some measure of in-lieu parking funds. Option 4 was midway between Options 1 and 3. The fifth option was to allow an exception for 135 Hamilton Avenue, given its length of time in the process, but no exception for 636 Waverley Street, given it was not as invested in the process. The Resolution was written for Option 3. Staff recommended any option include a requirement for an aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to be incorporated. Staff recommended Option 3, because the projects had proceeded in good faith through the process; however, Staff recognized that was a policy decision for the Council to determine. Council Member Burt asked Staff to compare the TDM requirement of a 20 percent mode split, as stated in Attachment B Number 6, with TDM requirements for other programs Downtown. Mr. Williams indicated the requirement was the same as the requirement for the Lytton Gateway project. Around the City, the mode split was between 15 percent and 30-35 percent. Council Member Burt inquired whether the higher percentages were achieved through firms having their own bus services. Mr. Williams believed firms offering bus service tended to be at the highest range. Firms could not achieve more than 20 percent without bus service. Council Member Burt felt development had to have minimal impact on the roadways and have mitigation of parking impacts, and asked if the Council should consider increasing the mode split percentage for future projects. Mr. Williams stated Staff considered 20 percent as a standard throughout the City. He suggested the Council consider 25-30 percent as a goal, because the project was adjacent to transit, or 20 percent for the first few years and then 25-30 percent at five years. Council Member Burt had not thought of a graduated program such as that. Vice Mayor Scharff noted the projects together created a parking deficit of approximately 98 spaces, and inquired about the overall parking deficit in Downtown. MINUTES Page 20 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 Mr. Williams reported the annual Downtown monitoring report indicated a deficit of 722 spaces. He did not know the specifics of that number, but felt it was probably understated. Vice Mayor Scharff stated these projects made the parking deficit worse by 10-15 percent. Mr. Williams agreed. Vice Mayor Scharff recalled Staff recommended the Council consider ground- floor retail if the applicant was asked for its input on how ground-floor retail would affect project plans. The projects were not Planned Communities (PC). He asked if the request on the exemption was addressed in fairness and equity. Mr. Williams responded yes. Vice Mayor Scharff stated the Council was not negotiating for public benefits, and asked why the Council would want to know the impact of ground-floor retail. Mr. Williams explained Staff's intent in that response was not to suggest that the Council require ground-floor retail. It would be informative to know if there were implications for the project relative to a retail use. It was a courtesy to hear the implications for a project. Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether the 135 Hamilton Avenue project had been through ARB review. Mr. Williams reported it had been to ARB twice. ARB had not recommended the project at the current time. Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether the project had been designed for ground-floor retail. Mr. Williams replied yes. One of the major issues with the project had been the ground-floor. Vice Mayor Scharff requested Staff suggest impacts of requiring ground-floor retail other than the economic aspect of retail versus office use. James Keene, City Manager asked if Vice Mayor Scharff meant impacts related to parking specifically. MINUTES Page 21 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 Vice Mayor Scharff answered no. He wanted to know possible other impacts. Mr. Williams felt economics was the primary impact and an alternative parking solution that might work better with retail than with office. Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether parking would work better with a retail use. Mr. Williams responded yes. Vice Mayor Scharff noted 60 parking spaces could be built for approximately $2.4 million, yet Staff recommended the parking assessment for 135 Hamilton Avenue be $326,000. He asked Staff to explain how the parking assessment was calculated. Joe Saccio, Deputy Director of Administrative Services Department explained he was asked to treat the projects as though they were buying into the original Assessment District. The method was to use the original 9,122 spaces and add the required number of spaces (40 for the Hamilton project) to determine a ratio to apply to both the principle and the interest of the 30- year bonds. He applied the ratio of 40 to 9,122 plus 40 to the principle and interest from 2001 through 2030 to derive the assessment of $326,000 for 135 Hamilton Avenue. A similar method was used for the project at 636 Waverley Street. It was one method for retroactively and prospectively charging without an inflation factor. Basically, the amount was the projects' prorated share of the annual debt service payments since the construction of the garages. Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether funds from the Assessment District were used to maintain the spaces in the garages or to build the garages. Mr. Saccio reported that money was used to build the garages. Under Proposition 218, an assessment engineer determined an equitable allocation of costs to each property owner within the defined Assessment District. At that time, the formula adopted by the Council was 1 space per 250 square feet. If a 1,000 square foot building provided only 1 space, then they were assessed for 3 spaces. The costs of principle and interest for the bond were allocated according to each property's proportional share of the overall spaces. Vice Mayor Scharff asked how many parking spaces were built. MINUTES Page 22 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 Mr. Saccio did not remember the exact number of spaces in existence at the time, because garages were built on surface lots. To the best of his recollection, more than 700 spaces were built. Vice Mayor Scharff asked why the formula related to the full 9,000 spaces rather than 800 spaces. Using 800 spaces would seem to provide a truer picture of the cost of buying into the Assessment District. Mr. Saccio explained the allocation methodology was based on need rather than the number of spaces being constructed. The number of additional spaces due to each property could not be determined. The methodology was the net need in the District based on the square footage of property not being supplied with parking spaces. Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether the methodology was calculated on the need to build "X" number of parking spaces and, therefore, the need to raise "X" amount of funds. Mr. Saccio stated the methodology was not based on the incremental number of spaces that could be built. It was based on the number of spaces that were not supplied. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Staff could calculate an assessment amount including inflation. Mr. Saccio indicated Staff could certainly calculate that, but it was not incorporated into the current assessment amount. Only the interest was charged. Vice Mayor Scharff inquired about the interest rate used for the calculation. Mr. Saccio believed the interest rate was 5 percent on the original bonds, and a lower rate when the bonds were refinanced in 2012. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if Staff used 5 percent as if it were on the bonds. Mr. Saccio reported the amount was the interest the City was paying on the bonds, and did not include inflation. Council Member Schmid believed the original Urgency Ordinance concerned the issue of parking and parking exemptions, because of the parking shortage and parking overflow into neighborhoods. The Council did not know the size of the shortage. He inquired whether the Urgency Ordinance MINUTES Page 23 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 was passed because of a perceived lack of parking spaces, and a moratorium was affected in order to prevent exacerbation of the shortage. Mr. Williams stated that was an interpretation of what happened. Staff initiated the original request for an Urgency Ordinance out of concern that a few projects were taking advantage of parking exemptions, and wanted to ensure that additional projects were not able to do that. Staff recognized that these projects would exacerbate the problem to some extent. Council Member Schmid said parking was becoming increasingly expensive and had an economic value. In granting parking exemptions, the Council passed the cost on to someone else, whether it was retailers, employers, or visitors. The Council should consider those property owners asking for exemptions and those who might bear the economic cost. One of the reasons for passing the Urgency Ordinance was to have a study to determine the shortage. He asked how the Council should balance a new exemption with who paid for it. Mr. Williams reported balancing those was the Council's policy determination. The moratorium balanced future projects against the amount of exacerbation that occurred. Public Hearing opened at 9:09 P.M. Chop Keenan would not have pursued the 135 Hamilton Avenue project if the moratorium had been in place when he first considered the project. He expended time and funds in reliance on the Council's rules and regulations. He would absorb the $326,000 parking assessment if it was imposed. Ground-floor retail would be a fatal flaw if that was the only option for him. David Kleiman proposed a small mixed-use development consisting of two office spaces and two apartments at 636 Waverley Street. When he submitted plans for ARB consideration, he rightly assumed that the Zoning Ordinance in effect at that time would apply to his building program. In the past, pipeline projects were allowed to use existing Ordinances. If this precedent was applied, he would only have to provide parking for new spaces. He was willing to pay the parking assessment and towards the Downtown Cap Study. The Staff recommendation was reasonable. He hoped the Council would consider his situation, the large dollar amounts being requested, and approve Staff's recommendation. Ken Alsman reported the Downtown area provided 1,700 employee parking spaces for more than 6,000 existing employees. With the proposed exceptions, the 135 Hamilton Avenue project would provide no new parking MINUTES Page 24 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 while replacing the existing 23 parking spaces with 23 underground stacking machines and the 636 Waverley Street project provided 4 new parking spaces and needed 16 more spaces. Granting the exceptions was contrary to the basic precepts of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, good planning practice, and common sense. If the Council was obligated to approve the exceptions, it should require the developers to pay the full in-lieu fee for parking lost and parking not provided. Neilson Buchanan related a conversation with a developer regarding parking. He supported the moratorium and the two exceptions with two provisions: 1) the City Council settle future requests for exceptions, and 2) Staff and the City Council determine where employees would park. Marion Odell indicated parking density had increased significantly despite the construction of two large parking structures. Staff did not have a saturation metric or standard for neighborhood parking. Metrics existed for business parking; however, the Council probably had not adopted them. She hoped the scope of the upcoming parking study would include definitions and standards for saturation. She expressed concern about safety issues. People avoided shopping and dining Downtown, because of traffic and the lack of parking. Karen Dreyfus disagreed with Staff's recommendation. It did not include other equitable factors the Council should consider in exercising its discretion in this decision. A parking shortfall of 100 spaces was significant. Parking analyses did not mention public safety hazards. Each homeowner would suffer a decrease in home value of at least several hundred thousand dollars. Herb Borock supported extending the moratorium and opposed any exceptions. The 135 Hamilton Avenue project had not gone through the ARB process in that the ARB had not provided a final recommendation. The 636 Waverley Street project did not satisfy Staff's draft Ordinance. The developers of 135 Hamilton Avenue previously operated under another moratorium. Although he opposed any exceptions, an exception should be adopted by Ordinance not Resolution. Robert Moss supported the moratorium. There was no justification for considering an exception for 636 Waverley Street, because it was not a project in terms of any Board or Commission review. The 135 Hamilton Avenue project was entitled to something, but not total elimination of requirements. He expressed concern that the City received funds for parking garages rather than parking spaces. If the Council allowed exceptions, it should limit the number of exemptions from parking; the MINUTES Page 25 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 owners or employers should be required to pay for parking; and there should be penalties for employees parking in neighborhoods. He suggested the Council adopt Option Number 1 and require payment for any exceptions. Sally-Ann Rudd supported extending the moratorium without exceptions. The moratorium was introduced to stop developers from putting cars into Downtown without building parking spaces. She suggested the Downtown Cap Study have a metric for measuring saturation of residential neighborhoods and propose a level at which a neighborhood was unsatisfactorily saturated with cars. Public Hearing closed at 9:35 P.M. Mayor Yeh recommended splitting the two Items. MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to adopt the extension of the Interim Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium on the use of the Exempt Floor Area parking exemption set forth in Section 18.52.060(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in connection with any permit, entitlement or development project, pending further study of Downtown and California Avenue parking issues, for a period of one year through December 28, 2013, and allowing for exceptions for certain projects by separate Council Action. Mayor Yeh stated this was an important step to ensure other actions such as the Downtown Cap Study and parking analysis. Like Mr. Borock, he questioned the need for a Resolution versus an Ordinance. Vice Mayor Scharff felt this should not have been operable for the prior ten years. There were serious parking problems in Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. Council Member Klein clarified it was not a Downtown moratorium; it was a moratorium on the applicability of the exempt floor area parking exemption, which had been rarely used. He inquired whether most other projects could proceed in accordance with other sections of the Code. Mr. Williams answered yes. A few developers had explored this exemption, but Staff informed them they could not use the exemption. Transfer development rights and in-lieu fees were other methods for projects to proceed on providing parking. Council Member Klein stated projects in the past did provide parking, and this was not an overall Downtown moratorium. MINUTES Page 26 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 Council Member Holman wished to ensure the Motion language was consistent with the Motion provided in the Packet. She inquired if the maker intended to strike all language after December 28, 2013. Mayor Yeh replied no. That language provided flexibility for the Council to discuss the second part of the recommendation. Council Member Holman inquired whether the language "allowing for exceptions for certain projects by separate Council Action" meant the Council would allow exceptions. Molly Stump, City Attorney explained that language and the Urgency Ordinance extension allowed the Council to provide for exceptions separately. It did not indicate that the Council would provide exceptions, what the exceptions would be, how exceptions would be framed, or any conditions. The first vote required 8 votes as it was an Urgency vote. The separate action would require a straight majority vote, or 5 members. Council Member Holman asked if the language "allowing for exceptions for certain projects by separate Council Action" provided latitude for the Council to do one or the other. Ms. Stump responded yes. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Council Member Schmid indicated exceptions were allowed at the discretion of the Council based on rational and equitable bases. The number of exemptions would be approximately 100 spaces. The Council had to consider the cost of exemptions and passing the burden to others. The rational steps were to determine the benefits of exemptions and who paid for them. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to allow no exceptions. Council Member Holman stated the Council's responsibility was to work in the public's best interest. She appreciated the projects in the pipeline, but it was not fair to impose impacts on others. The public's best interest would be not to allow exceptions for the two pipeline projects. Council Member Klein opposed the Motion. The Council's first obligation was to the people, but it had a higher obligation to act ethically. This was not an MINUTES Page 27 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 ethical Motion. The Council was free to set different limits that did not exceed court rulings and state law. When people relied on laws and expended significant sums of money, the Council had an obligation to allow them to proceed. Imposing an obligation to provide parking on projects would not solve the parking problem. He urged the Council to vote no, and to uphold Palo Alto's character and history of treating applicants fairly. Council Member Burt was unsure why the Council was considering an extension of the moratorium rather than repealing the Ordinance. He inquired whether the projects would have a TDM requirement under the Motion. Mr. Williams reported Staff attempted to apply some TDM measures to all projects, and suggested a requirement of not more than 20 percent. As far as penalties, Staff envisioned a condition similar to the one used in the Lytton Gateway project. Staff would require a TDM program to be developed and to identify goals which would probably be up to 20 percent. Council Member Burt reiterated that the Council could ask for a TDM program, but could not require enforcement or increase it beyond current requirements. Mr. Williams explained the Code authorized TDM programs when parking reductions were provided; therefore, a TDM program was justified in this instance. Council Member Burt inquired whether the exemption as written would apply to the 636 Waverley Street project. Mr. Williams believed it would. An application for preliminary review was submitted prior to October 15, 2012, which was a normal step in the architectural review process. Mr. Borock was correct in that a second application was associated with a formal review. A fair amount of information was required to apply for a preliminary review. The project did meet that criterion. Council Member Espinosa opposed the Motion and agreed with Council Member Klein's comments. The Council had taken steps and was studying the parking issue to determine further steps. The Palo Alto process provided transparency and understanding of what to expect when doing business with the City. Council Member Price opposed the Motion and agreed with comments of Council Members Klein and Espinosa. MINUTES Page 28 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 Vice Mayor Scharff wanted to treat people fairly, but questioned who would be treated fairly. Someone would have to pay for removing cars from neighborhoods. He preferred to continue the Item to obtain information from the Chief Transportation Official Jaime Rodriguez. Granting the exceptions would increase the pressure in neighborhoods, and that concerned him. If the Council granted the exceptions, it was compromising the quality of life in Palo Alto. The Council should consider the effect of the exemptions on the community. Council Member Shepherd reported the Council was attempting to resolve the parking issues in Downtown neighborhoods. Continuing to improve Downtown was important. She associated her comments with those of Council Members Klein and Espinosa. The in-lieu fees of approximately $4.5 million would be placed in the parking in-lieu fees fund, which totaled approximately $3 million. She asked the cost to construct a new garage. Mr. Williams believed a new garage would cost probably $7-$10 million. Council Member Shepherd indicated the fund had almost half the amount needed. Mr. Williams agreed. Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the Council could reconfigure the Downtown Parking District or create a new one. Mr. Williams reported the Parking District was a legal structure created with the Assessment District. Establishing a new structure of the District was not possible. The Council could modify color zones and parking requirements. The parking garage study would consider potential public-private partnerships. There were options that could possibly fill in some gaps. Council Member Shepherd would not support the current Motion. She would support exceptions for the two pipeline projects which would provide in-lieu fees as well as pay for the Downtown Cap Study. Granting exceptions would allow the Council to utilize an aggressive TDM program. Mayor Yeh appreciated the sensitivity of balancing interests. The Council had to utilize existing parking resources more efficiently. He inquired whether the Council could condition the Use and Occupancy Permits for these projects on certain outcomes relating to the parking process. Perhaps the developers could not be allowed to occupy the buildings until the Council could demonstrate an offset of the 100 new vehicles that would impact MINUTES Page 29 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 neighbors. The applications could move forward with the clear understanding that the applicants that could not move in until conditions were met. Mr. Keene explained the projects could move forward even if exceptions were not granted. Without exceptions, the projects could proceed with the process if they provided parking. Practically, the Council would have to limit occupancy until the project was parked or a TDM program was in place. Mr. Williams clarified that only 55 parking spaces were exempt without the moratorium. The rest of the project could be built without this moratorium in place. Ms. Stump suggested Mayor Yeh's question suggested potential actions by the applicants as well as work by the City or third parties. Staff would need to consider the idea and its complexities. Staff suggested there were other ideas worth pursuing; however, the ideas were in the early stage and the parking study would discuss them. She expressed concern about conditioning occupancy on ideas in early planning stages. Mayor Yeh proposed continuing the Item to a date after the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) had its scope study around the Downtown Cap Study. Ms. Stump believed that was one option. This particular piece of Staff's recommendation did not have to go forward at the current time. The Council could take it up at a later date. Mayor Yeh inquired whether an exception would best be codified in a Resolution or an Ordinance. If it were an Ordinance, the Council could not take action at the current time. Ms. Stump explained both Ordinances and Resolutions were legislative actions of the Council. Staff believed the language allowed the Council to proceed. If the Council did not take action, Staff would review it. The two- step process contained a fair amount of complexity, and she could review it to ensure the Council acted correctly. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Scharff to continue the discussion regarding exceptions to the Moratorium to a date uncertain, Staff to return with additional analysis of means to reduce the parking impacts of these projects, as well as clarification of Resolution versus Ordinance as it pertains to moratorium exception. MINUTES Page 30 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 Mr. Keene felt the language should be changed if the Council wanted more time to direct or request analyses related to the project and its impacts. He wanted to ensure the Substitute Motion provided direction to Staff. Council Member Burt suggested Staff return with additional analysis of means to reduce the parking impacts of these projects. Mayor Yeh agreed with Council Member Burt's suggestion with the understanding that Staff would consider comments from the current discussion. Council Member Burt would not list the examples in the Substitute Motion. Vice Mayor Scharff could not vote to add 10-15 percent more cars to the neighborhoods. He preferred finding methods to reduce that impact. Council Member Burt noted several issues as well as the City's commitment to reduce the problem. One consideration was whether projects would significantly worsen the problem. The projects could not be held in limbo forever. He asked when Staff could provide a draft of possible measures for greater utilization of parking lots. Mr. Williams answered 90 days. He wanted to have a good basic data set to discuss parking saturation for neighborhoods and the options for supplying parking. In 3-6 months, Staff could return with other changes to zoning that needed to be implemented and that would assist with future projects. Council Member Burt requested two pieces of information: 1) whether Mr. Rodriguez could identify additional parking spaces that could be generated Downtown before these projects came online; and 2) ways that these projects could reduce their parking impacts. A significant means would be a larger TDM program with enforcement measures. The future was aggressive programs, smart programs, and cost-effective programs to help achieve reduced parking and traffic demand. Council Member Holman questioned whether the Substitute Motion allowed the Council not to grant exceptions. Vice Mayor Scharff clarified that there could be no exceptions. Council Member Holman felt the Substitute Motion suggested the Council was considering methods to reduce parking impacts without addressing the possibility of not reaching an acceptable level. MINUTES Page 31 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 Ms. Stump explained the Council had enacted the moratorium on the one-to- one exemption. That exemption did not exist unless the Council took an affirmative action to create an exception. Mr. Keene stated there was no exception. The Council could direct Staff to return with additional analyses of means. Council Member Holman noted the applicants could continue the application process if the Council continued the Item, and inquired whether the applicants continued at their own risk. Mr. Williams reported continuing the applicant process was at the applicants' risk, because there was a moratorium on using that particular exemption. Unless some exception was provided, the applicants would need to comply with the current Ordinance under the moratorium. Council Member Holman noted the parking impact was 78 spaces. The Council could not ignore the context and real impact. Council Member Espinosa asked Staff to explain what work they would undertake in the 90 days prior to returning with possible methods to reduce parking impacts. Mr. Williams reported Staff could produce short-term steps to provide additional parking in Downtown. However, he was unsure whether they could find 55 spaces or more, and how that related to other projects coming online or in the process. Staff could determine some ways to either increase supply or reduce demand, and would work with the applicants to determine what they could do with regard to TDM approaches or other ideas. Council Member Espinosa understood from Mr. Rodriguez that good information about impacts would not be ready until the spring or summer 2013. Mr. Williams agreed a meaningful comprehensive picture would not be available in 90 days. The Council was directing Staff to determine short- term methods to address most of the incremental deficiency for these projects such that the projects could move forward. Council Member Espinosa inquired whether there would be additional costs for this type of analysis. Mr. Williams explained Staff would engage in the analysis and some of the front work to compile good data in any event, because that was part of the MINUTES Page 32 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 contractual process with consultants. There would be an impact on Staff in terms of spending time on short-term steps rather than on the long-term study or some other component of their work program. Mr. Keene appreciated the effort to find middle ground before making a decision. Performing this short-term work within the context of the large scale review of Downtown was not the best design for reviewing this. It would impact the larger study in time, work and consultant costs. This focused analysis could be utilized in the larger work. He preferred Staff consume as little time and effort as possible on the Substitute Motion. It would impact how Staff framed and worked on the larger analysis. Council Member Klein did not support the Substitute Motion, because it made the problem worse. He wanted to make a decision tonight. Changing the rules would harm the Council with future partnerships. The Council should find a method to replace the shortage prior to the projects opening. The answer was not to impose the solution on two people who had acted fairly and honestly. Council Member Price would not support the Substitute Motion and agreed with Council Member Klein's comments. She expressed concern about the public perception of the Council's ability to make decisions. Deferring a decision was not positive. She was unsure whether Staff would have time to provide information to address the complex problem. Staff's time would be better spent on the scope and implementation of the parking study and the Downtown Cap Study. A vigorous TDM component should be considered. She supported the original Staff recommendation as it would allow the Council and the applicants to move forward. Council Member Schmid understood Mr. Williams' preference was to obtain the development cap and traffic saturation study in order to understand the context. Everyone agreed that was an essential step. He inquired whether the maker and seconder of the Substitute Motion did not want to interfere with generating the necessary data. Vice Mayor Scharff explained the Substitute Motion would not interfere with the data being generated. Mayor Yeh wanted the Item to return for discussion after the PTC Study Session on the scope of the Downtown Cap Study. That scope had to be defined to create a context for these projects. Council Member Schmid felt Staff had articulated that. MINUTES Page 33 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 Council Member Shepherd indicated the Substitute Motion was moving this Item past the 45 days that the Council set for its resolution. She asked when the Council would have the information it needed to make a decision on allowing the pipeline projects to proceed. Mr. Williams estimated Staff would return to the Council with information in March or April 2013. The Council would have to determine whether the information was sufficient to take action at that time. Council Member Shepherd could not support the Substitute Motion. The Council needed to move forward with some certainty for the applicants. Council Member Burt was concerned that the March or April timeframe was too long. INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION to direct Staff to return within 60 days with whatever measures they are able to come up with at the time. Council Member Holman was glad to have this incorporated. She asked what would happen if one of the projects received ARB approval before Staff returned with information in 60 days. Ms. Stump explained developers under the law as approved had the option to proceed without the one-to-one exemption. The moratorium was in place. When Staff returned with additional information in 60 days, the Council could take action and provide for some exception. Council Member Holman wanted to ensure that a project was not vested through the ARB process. Ms. Stump stated a project could vest under the current law. Mr. Keene added the project would have to meet the parking requirements without the exemption. Council Member Espinosa expressed concern about the pressure placed by the 60-day timeframe on the Planning Department. Mr. Keene felt the shorter timeframe would impact the resulting information rather than the larger issue. MINUTES Page 34 of 34 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/10/12 Mayor Yeh noted the PTC Study Session on the Downtown Cap Study would occur within those 60 days. That discussion would provide the context for the Council to understand solutions related to parking. Mr. Williams agreed the Study Session would occur prior to Staff returning with additional information. Mayor Yeh did not foresee much additional work being performed. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 5-4 Shepherd, Price, Klein, Espinosa no Mayor Yeh reported Monday, December 17, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, the Youth Video Corps would present two videos for different infrastructure projects for the City. The Corps was invited to participate in the Presidential Inauguration proceedings. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:58 P.M. Transportation Element – Parking Goals, Policies and Programs GOAL T‐8: Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities T45 Policy Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long‐range needs. T49 Program Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto. T50 Program Continue working with merchants, the Chamber of Commerce, neighbors, and a parking consultant to explore options for constructing new parking facilities or using existing parking more efficiently. T51 Program Work with merchants to designate dedicated employee parking areas. T46 Policy Minimize the need for all‐day employee parking facilities in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts and encourage short‐term customer parking. T47 Policy Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. T52 Program Evaluate options to ensure maximum use of the City parking structures in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue areas. T53 Program Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. T48 Policy Encourage parking strategies in the Stanford Medical Center area that maximize the efficient use of parking and, in the long term, consider the possible use of remote parking lots with shuttle bus service. Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 September 25, 2013 2 VERBATIM EXCERPT MINUTES 3 4 5 6 Parking Exemptions Code Review: Review and recommendation to City Council to adopt: 7 A. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto amending Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading 8 Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Eliminate the “Exempt Floor 9 Area” Parking Exemption as Contained in Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) of the Palo 10 Alto Municipal Code. 11 B. Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to amend Chapters 18.18, Downtown 12 Commercial (CD) District and 18.52, Parking and Loading Requirements, to Eliminate Certain 13 Parking Exemptions within the Downtown Area. 14 15 These actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061 and 16 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. 17 18 Chair Michael: The next item on the agenda is the Parking Exemptions Code Review where the Planning 19 and Transportation Commission (PTC) will review and recommend to the City Council whether to adopt 20 two ordinances, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.52 of Title 18 to eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” 21 parking exemption and secondly to adopt an interim ordinance to amend Chapters 18.18 and 18.52 22 dealing with the Downtown Commercial (DC) district and parking and loading requirement to eliminate 23 certain parking exemptions within the downtown area. And we’ll begin with a staff report. 24 25 Aaron Aknin, Interim Director – Planning: Thank you Chair and Commission. Aaron Aknin, Interim 26 Planning Director. So I’ve been with the City for a little bit over a year now and I can tell you that the 27 zoning code and particularly how it relates to parking is very complex. There are a number of provisions 28 that were adopted over the time and a lot of those provisions were adopted in the 1980’s. And what 29 happened during the 1980’s was there was a downzoning of almost all the properties within the 30 downtown area and other areas within the City. And at that time it appears that there were different 31 concessions and compromises made within the code and some of those were exemptions for parking that 32 were really there to provide incentive to property owners to develop within the downtown area. Well as 33 the Commission knows now there doesn’t, there isn’t a need for much incentive. A lot of development is 34 going on downtown and the parking issue is in the forefront of the public conversation right now. 35 36 So last year, over a year ago the Council asked staff to take a look at various parking exemptions within 37 the code and Curtis Williams who was the Director at that time pointed to one particular parking 38 exemption, which was called the 1:1 Floor Area Exemption in the downtown area and the 0.5 Floor Area 39 Exemption in the Cal Ave. area. And what that exemption allowed a property owner to do is essentially 40 park an equivalent amount of floor, a floor area amount equivalent to the lot size without providing 41 parking. So in the downtown area if you have a 10,000 square foot lot the first 10,000 square feet of 42 building would not have to provide parking. In October of last year the Council voted on a moratorium 43 on the use of that. This is now before you tonight as the first part of the code revisions where we’re 44 recommending that that just become a permanent part of the zoning ordinance, that that go away. And 45 that would impact the downtown area as well as the Cal Ave. area. So that’s the first part of the zoning 46 code amendments that are before you. 47 48 The second part is somewhat unique as we’re proposing the second part to four provisions within the 49 code as an interim ordinance that would be good for a period of two years. So the first part of the 50 interim ordinance that’s before you, the Commission has heard of Transferrable Development Rights 51 (TDR). Currently within the code if you historically rehabilitate a building within the downtown area 52 Page 2 you’re allowed to have either a 2,500 square foot bonus onsite to construct without providing parking or 1 you could take that bonus and transfer it to another site. You could also have another 2,500 square feet 2 that allows you to if you seismically retrofit a building that’s within a certain category also to build onsite 3 or to transfer off to another site. And that’s good for both, not have to provide parking as well as a 4 bonus Floor Area Ratio (FAR) over what’s allowed and under the base zoning. What staff is proposing 5 tonight is that TDR’s and bonuses still exist, but they only exist as they relate to Floor Area Ratio; that 6 the parking component of those go away for this interim period. So that’s the first provision. 7 8 Second provision we have something called the Minor Floor Area Bonus, which allows a 200 square foot 9 addition where the first 200 square feet of a building to not be parked. This was another one of the 10 compromise codes that was created within the 1980’s so this 200 square foot one we’re proposing that 11 that incentive is no longer needed and that go away as well. 12 13 Now the third one is one that I really think that should truly be an interim ordinance and be something 14 that we think about and that we take a look at over the next two year period. And that’s grandfathered 15 buildings and the ability to rebuild grandfathered floor area. So there are a lot as the Commission knows 16 there are a lot of buildings that are older within the downtown area and currently as it goes that they are 17 grandfathered and they’re built before 1986 and let’s say they don’t provide any parking onsite, they are 18 above the Floor Area Ratio, you could tear down that older building and rebuilding it with a modern 19 building. Now from a standard practice that is a good thing. You want the ability to be able to have 20 buildings modernized and be created for modern uses. You don’t want to be in a situation where you 21 have a dilapidated building stock 10, 20 years down the line because there’s so much value captured 22 within that existing building and you just wouldn’t be able to make it penciled to tear it down if you had 23 to meet the current zoning code standards. 24 25 However, the reason that we’re proposing this as an interim ordinance is we know that there is some 26 type of, there could be some type of impact related to modernizing buildings, in particular how it relates 27 to parking. So when you take an older retail building, tear it down and maybe make it partially retail and 28 higher end office space there could be a greater impact in terms of parking. Now the property, most of 29 these property owners have paid into an assessment, the assessment district so there are still rights 30 associated with that; however, we want to be able to quantify the impact of building modernization so 31 that there could be a proportionate impact fee associated with modernizing buildings. So that’s the third 32 one. 33 34 The fourth one is an unusual code that’s found, which says most of the buildings were assessed in the 35 mid-1980’s to create parking structures. If you had a part of your building that was vacant at that time, 36 but being used for non-residential vacant space it was not assessed. However, if that space was in 37 existence you’re still allowed to tear it down and rebuild it with this grandfathered status as if it were 38 assessed. So we’re saying that that portion of the code be done away with on an interim basis for the 39 next two years as we start a Downtown Development Cap and other studies. 40 41 So those are the main points. You will see that there are a number of projects that are in the pipeline 42 that at least take advantage of a portion of these. Staff isn’t entering a recommendation about what to 43 do with those, but what we are saying is previous, the most, the previous decision from the Council as it 44 related to the 1:1 FAR moratorium is that it applied to, the moratorium applied to projects that had not 45 been approved yet for their planning entitlements. So if they were in the pipeline, had not been 46 approved, they were not allowed to take advantage of that moratorium or that exemption anymore. 47 They did have to provide the parking. 48 49 So there’s a number of people in the audience tonight and I know we received e-mails that this isn’t 50 going far enough. I would say that this is a first step. This is the first time that we’re really taking a look 51 at the code and recommending changes to the code in several decades. So and it is a big step and 52 during the Downtown Development Cap process and perhaps even before then we’ll be able to dive 53 Page 3 deeper into the parking code, into the zoning code to see what’s appropriate. So at this point I could 1 take any questions from the Commission. 2 3 Chair Michael: So thank you Director Aknin. So at this point we’ll turn to the Commission with any 4 clarifying questions of staff; up to five minutes each. Commissioner King. 5 6 Commissioner King: I’ll ask can you, I was a little bit confused or I was confused by your tables 7 particularly so can you walk me through that and just with particular care toward Table 1. I think you’re 8 saying those have parking exemptions, we’re not arguing about those. Those projects will be under the 9 old rules or rules as they stand today. And then Table 2 what that means and particularly “not 10 applicable,” I was confused by what “not applicable” means under building permits (interrupted) 11 12 Mr. Aknin: So Table 1, 135 Hamilton is really the only one that’s in the building permit process. 611 13 Cowper that did have its planning approval so if you were to use the precedent that was set during the 14 last moratorium that would still be allowed to use the existing zoning code provisions. 240 Hamilton all 15 the way down those have not received planning approval yet. 16 17 Commissioner King: And so under staff’s recommendation they would now be under new rules and would 18 lose the exemptions? 19 20 Mr. Aknin: Well we’re not actually entering it. I think this is a larger policy discussion that we have to 21 have both with the Commission and with the Council. But what we are saying is that the most recent 22 precedent that has been set by Council on the moratorium itself is that it applied to everything that had 23 not been approved from a planning standpoint. 24 25 Commissioner King: And that would be 240 Hamilton down (interrupted) 26 27 Mr. Aknin: On down. 28 29 Commissioner King: Through your tables? 30 31 Mr. Aknin: Yeah. 32 33 Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. And then the other question I had is regarding let’s see over here… 34 let’s see on number three, Page 5, grandfathered uses and facilities. So this remodel or improve I’m 35 curious as to how much gamesmanship can happen there. I know with single family residences people to 36 maintain typically setbacks or their property tax base will do a remodel and leave one wall up and I’ve 37 actually seen projects in Palo Alto where then that one wall gets taken down after a certain phase of 38 inspections so it’s basically completely new construction. And so how do we determine the details of who 39 determines whether it’s a remodel or a rebuild? 40 41 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: The standard practice for nonconforming structures in the residential 42 zones is that they need to leave 75 percent of the walls in place as exterior walls to be considered 43 retaining their nonconforming status. For commercial buildings the practice has been 50 percent, so 44 retaining 50 percent of the walls. That’s a practice of policy; it’s not a code provision. 45 46 Commissioner King: Ok so to me that sounds vague that people could again, you could basically rebuild 47 the thing and just go through a slight pain of leaving up those walls, the studs only, and then you rebuild 48 everything around it. So am I wrong, but it seems like it’s ripe with the capacity to not, to actually do a 49 rebuild while calling it a remodel. 50 51 Ms. French: I guess the definition of what a wall is, I mean for the residential policy that we have in place 52 we do say that you have to leave siding. It can’t be a see through wall; it can’t be just studs and be 53 Page 4 considered a wall. For commercial we could have a tight definition, a tight policy of what we consider to 1 be leaving a wall, how much of the wall that can be done as an administrative policy. 2 3 Commissioner King: Ok, that would be my concern and suggestion was that we are very tight on making 4 sure that those two things are clearly separate. And then the other question I had is regarding the 5 Transfer Development Rights. So is it, can you explain, so those can be sold to another party, a third 6 party or kept, retained by the owner for one of their other parcels? Is that correct? 7 8 Ms. French: Yeah. It’s called Bonus Floor Area. It can be used onsite unless and it can be transferred to 9 an eligible site. It cannot be a historic site that it’s transferred to. Those are not eligible for receiving 10 those bonus floor area transferred rights. Yeah, so it can be transferred to other sites owned by other 11 people and there’s a process in our code that lays out how we go through that process. 12 13 Commissioner King: Ok, and then my other question and that transfer of development right consists of 14 both entitlements for square footage, you could get more square footage on the parcel to which its 15 transferred as well as parking benefits or exceptions, correct? 16 17 Ms. French: Right. So you might be transferring more than 5,000 square feet of floor area, Bonus Floor 18 Area to a site, but you can only get up to 5,000 square feet of parking exemption of that floor area. 19 20 Commissioner King: Ok, and Chair may I finish on this question? So then my question is so it seems to 21 me if you’re saying that we’re going to, those are going to retain, they are going to be maintained exactly 22 the same that if you compare that to let’s say someone had a building site and they’ve owned that for 23 however long, now we’re going to say, “Oh, we’re actually now stripping from that the parking 24 exceptions.” So you’re going to lose those parking exceptions on an existing site that hasn’t been applied 25 for permits, it’s, I own a building. Let’s say I own a building and it currently has under our current code 26 there are exceptions for which I might be eligible for parking that 1:1 FAR. We’re now talking about 27 removing those from my, if I own that parcel. So I’m a little confused on if the TDR’s contain both 28 square footage and parking benefits why I would lose mine as the property, as a property owner of an 29 existing parcel and yet the TDR owner would not lose those parking exceptions as well. 30 31 Ms. French: So because we have a process to transfer that bonus floor area on both ends, right? So 32 there’s the process to send the transferred area and the process to receive the transferred area. When 33 we go through the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process it’s documented where, that there’s 34 transferable rights that are being placed upon that site. When there is a historic rehab or seismic rehab 35 or both in some cases that are documented through a legal document as far as how much floor area can 36 be transferred off the site. And then at such time as it’s placed onto the new site it’s documented 37 through the county recorders, it’s very formal and legal that way. 38 39 Commissioner King: Ok and all, oh, Aaron. 40 41 Mr. Aknin: Can you just repeat your, was she able to answer your question there or can you repeat it? 42 43 Commissioner King: Well, mine’s about the parking exception portion and it seems like we’re saying that 44 there’s a reference in here that that would be takings if we stripped the parking from somebody’s TDR, if 45 we stripped out the parking exceptions. 46 47 Mr. Aknin: So if you, so I think what I should have said in my presentation if someone’s historically 48 rehabilitated their building and earned and recorded that right to that, they still get that. That’s not 49 being taken away as part of this proposal. What we’re saying is that we suspend the ability to create the 50 bonus associated with not having to park square footage in the future whether you historically rehab your 51 building and try to add on to your building un-parked or you try to transfer that off of your site to 52 Page 5 another site. So it’s the same whether or not you’re trying to keep it onsite or trying to sell it to another 1 property owner. 2 3 Commissioner King: Ok. 4 5 Mr. Aknin: And it’s looking forward not (interrupted) 6 7 Commissioner King: It seems inconsistent. It seems that we’re penalizing, it seems inconsistent that the 8 same parking wouldn’t be stripped from an existing parcel or from a TDR, but that’s we’ll continue the 9 discussion later. Thank you. 10 11 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 12 13 Commissioner Alcheck: One of the components of the temporary interim ordinance would be to study or 14 quantify the effects of this concern about locking property owners into older buildings. How do, I’m 15 curious to know like what’s our strategy of quantifying that in the interim? Is it just a matter of how 16 many fewer remodels we get compared to a typical year or? 17 18 Mr. Aknin: No I think it’s just taking a look historically when we’ve seen older buildings turn into newer 19 buildings what has the impact of that been. So when we’ve seen older retail buildings turn into newer 20 office buildings how many more occupants are associated with this newer office building than previous 21 buildings in the parking impact associated with that. 22 23 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. I need to think about that for a minute. 24 25 Chair Michael: Commissioner Panelli did you have any questions of the… Vice-Chair Keller? 26 27 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So the first question is what is the downtown FAR that’s allowed if you 28 don’t get any bonuses or whatever? 29 30 Ms. French: So if you for a mixed-use project you can get a 2:1 FAR for a brand new building parked. 31 With transferred floor area you can get up to 3:1. If you have an existing building that’s already at 2:1 32 let’s say it’s commercial you can still transfer because it exists, you can still transfer development rights 33 to that building to get it up to 3:1. 34 35 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok, thank you. 36 37 Ms. French: Over 1:1 above what exists in the downtown, above what exists or what is allowed. 38 39 Vice-Chair Keller: Right. Thank you. So one of the things that’s interesting is that in some sense we 40 need to, I, we can think about separating the idea of what people can build from what people have to 41 pay for parking. In other words right now we’ve linked those together, but it might make sense to think 42 about possibly separating them. And towards that regard in terms of the buildings with vacant space, 43 the old buildings with vacant space, that space was never assessed. Is that right? 44 45 Mr. Aknin: Correct. In that particular provision that space was never assessed. 46 47 Vice-Chair Keller: But for a grandfathered building that was larger than zoning allowed that space was 48 assessed? 49 50 Mr. Aknin: Yes. 51 52 Page 6 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. So and the assessments are an annual assessment to pay for the bonds. Is that 1 right? 2 3 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: It’s an annual assessment unless the owners are permitted to 4 prepay. And so if they don’t elect to prepay at the beginning of the assessment then it goes to an annual 5 assessment over I think it’s a 30 year cycle, but we’re well into that cycle. 6 7 Vice-Chair Keller: So they either pay annually or they pay at the beginning, but essentially that’s an 8 ongoing payment? Ok. And this… such a payment to create a new bond for a new garage requires a 9 two-thirds vote? Is that right? 10 11 Ms. Silver: Of the assessment district property owners. Yes. 12 13 Vice-Chair Keller: And does each one get one vote or how does it work? Is it by parcel? Is it by dollar 14 amount? How do they, how do you actually calculate the votes? 15 16 Ms. Silver: You know I’m not sure. I think it is by property owner. 17 18 Vice-Chair Keller: So by parcel? 19 20 Ms. Silver: Each parcel gets one vote I believe. 21 22 Vice-Chair Keller: Each parcel? Thank you. And that’s only the commercial properties, not residential 23 properties that are voting. Is that right? 24 25 Ms. Silver: It depends on how you set up the assessment district. There are a number of different ways 26 to do that, but in downtown we only have a commercial property owner assessment district. 27 28 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. And is it possible to create a Mello-Roos district for downtown parking assessment? 29 30 Ms. Silver: Yes it is. 31 32 Vice-Chair Keller: And would that require a majority vote and a majority vote of whom? 33 34 Ms. Silver: I believe that Mello-Roos is also two-thirds now, but I would have to check on that. And again 35 it would be a two-thirds vote of whoever is in the district. The one benefit of the Mello-Roos is that you 36 don’t have to have a completely congruous district, you can have little pockets and they don’t have to be 37 congruous. 38 39 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok, thank you. So the interesting thing is the, for the grandfathered property they’ve 40 paid into the assessment district already so what are we allowing and not allowing? Explain how the 41 grandfather works in this environment. 42 43 Mr. Aknin: Currently or proposed? 44 45 Vice-Chair Keller: Proposed. Currently and proposed. Explain the difference to me what’s happening? 46 47 Mr. Aknin: So currently if you have a building and it’s above the allowed FAR it’s grandfathered in so let’s 48 say currently you’re allowed to have a 5,000 square foot building and you have a 10,000 square foot 49 building with no parking. You’re allowed to tear down that building and build the exact same amount of 50 square footage without providing parking. As we’re proposing it now during this two year period you 51 could renovate your building, you could remodel your building, you could continue to use your building as 52 is and continue to receive the same parking benefit by being paid into the assessment district, but you 53 Page 7 wouldn’t be allowed just during this two year period tear down your building and still keep your 1 grandfathered status to be, go up and beyond FAR that’s allowed right now and parking that’s allowed 2 right now. 3 4 Vice-Chair Keller: So when you say, could I finish this? 5 6 Chair Michael: Yeah. 7 8 Vice-Chair Keller: So when you’re exceeding the FAR that’s allowed could you give me an example? Are 9 you saying that the FAR is above 2.0 is that the idea? 10 11 Mr. Aknin: There’s some cases, but it’s mostly the situations where maybe you have 7,000, 8,000 square 12 feet of building without parking onsite or you have an 8,000 square foot building where 5,000 square feet 13 of FAR is allowed onsite. 14 15 Vice-Chair Keller: So for example if it’s not mixed-use if it’s all commercial (interrupted) 16 17 Mr. Aknin: Yeah. 18 19 Vice-Chair Keller: Then what’s the maximum FAR if you have all commercial? 20 21 Mr. Aknin: One. 22 23 Vice-Chair Keller: 1:1? 24 25 Mr. Aknin: Yeah. 26 27 Vice-Chair Keller: So if you have no retail, you only have, is retail and commercial considered a mixed-28 use? 29 30 Mr. Aknin: No. When we say mixed-use the housing component allows you to have 1.0 and then the 31 commercial component would be also 1.0 so that’s how you get to your 2.0. 32 33 Vice-Chair Keller: So if you have no housing then what’s the maximum? 34 35 Mr. Aknin: 1.0. 36 37 Vice-Chair Keller: So if you have no housing it’s 1.0 and if you have housing then it’s 2.0? 38 39 Mr. Aknin: Yeah and then you’re allowed to transfer up to another 1.0 using TRD’s onto your site. So 40 that’s how you get up to the 3.0 max. 41 42 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. So then what happens is that you, if you have no housing the maximum is 2.0 43 FAR, you can’t go to 3.0? Is that right? 44 45 Mr. Aknin: Correct. 46 47 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. And if you already had 2.0 and you’re grandfathered could you go to 3.0 without 48 adding housing? 49 50 Mr. Aknin: Yes with the TDR. 51 52 Vice-Chair Keller: With the TDR. Alright, thank you. 53 Page 8 1 Chair Michael: So we’re going to open the public hearing now and we have a number of speaker cards. 2 Vice-Chair Keller will announce the speakers and you will each have three minutes. 3 4 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. The first speaker is Ken Alsman to be followed by David Kleiman. 5 6 Ken Alsman: Did you guys really read this whole thing? It’s amazing. It took me quite a while to get 7 through most of it. I have questions; I think one of the things that needs to be changed is the California 8 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. It’s used in a sense as a mitigation for CEQA on this. The 9 way the CEQA is currently handled every project in town downtown has been approved with no 10 significant impact. It doesn’t make any sense to me that we got to this place with no significant impact. 11 12 A clarification on who gets excluded, these projects that are in this list can all be included in a 13 moratorium or in the code including 135. They will add another perhaps 400 or more cars parking in the 14 neighborhood. This is not an issue about the code and the commercial as much as it really is inherent in 15 the need to address serious problems with the destruction of our neighborhoods by commercial parking. 16 17 On the assessment district Mr. Keller mentioned I just want to indicate that the square foot assessment 18 on commercial is less than ten cents per square foot per month, again $7.00 a month rents and that is 19 generally paid by the tenant as a part of the triple net rents. When the assessment district was formed it 20 was formed on the basis of one parking space per every 250 square feet, but they only built, that would 21 have required 9,000 parking spaces. They only built 900. So they’re 10 percent, they built 10 percent. 22 That’s what they’re paying for with their 10 cents. 23 24 As a resident of Professorville and in light of your initial discussion for the first hour and a half about the 25 historic preservation I think that a major Environmental Impact Report (EIR) needs to be done because 26 you are in the process, you, the City Council, the downtown businesses of destroying a National Register 27 Historic District, which is referred to as Professorville. That has never been mentioned in a single CEQA 28 document related to any development downtown. Please excuse me for being so upset about this. I’ve 29 been at this for 10 years. It’s amazing. 30 31 I really think you need to stop all approvals of all projects that have not received, have not begun 32 construction. If they got a permit, good for them, they can hold it for the next three or four years until 33 they can solve the parking problem. The only way you’re going to get these developers to the table to 34 talk about real solutions is to stop giving them these subsidies. 35 36 Chair Michael: So thank you Mr. Alsman. Next speaker? 37 38 Vice-Chair Keller: Next speaker is David Kleiman to be followed by Neilson Buchanan. 39 40 David Kleiman: Good evening. I have, I agree with many of Ken’s points on the fact that we have a 41 parking issue. On the other hand I have a slightly different viewpoint being the owner of some 42 downtown office buildings that will be redeveloped. One of them is one of the buildings on the list that is 43 in progress 636 Waverly and I will be very directly and very negatively impacted by the adoption of these 44 moratoria. Specifically I was told when I lost the, there’s the first moratorium that’s in effect, which is 45 the 5,000 square foot exemption I went from a building that had five or six parking spaces to 21. I’ve 46 been able to accommodate those via engineering and design onsite. I don’t have approval for that yet 47 and I’m very concerned that there might be a permanent moratorium that will turn into or something that 48 will become permanent before I’m able to get that project finally approved. 49 50 I think that we have a parking problem, but I don’t think we should start limiting property rights, which is 51 really what people who are upset about parking are asking you to do. I think that we should solve the 52 parking problem by building more parking in the downtown area, more parking garages and I think that 53 Page 9 there should be permit parking so that people that are upset stop turning up the volume and perhaps 1 asking you and the City Council to limit property owner’s rights in the name of solving the parking issue. 2 So I’m in favor of more garages, I’m in favor of developers who are building new developments parking 3 onsite, but I don’t think that when people like me spend millions of dollars to buy property and then 4 hundreds of thousands to millions engineering developments go through that process, have certain 5 realistic I think expectations, and then lose those rates midstream I think it’s bad planning. I think you 6 want certainty. I think the reason Palo Alto’s so great is because certainty was there up until very 7 recently and I think we’ll all lose if we lose that certainty. Thank you. 8 9 Chair Michael: I believe Vice-Chair Keller has a question for you if you would like to stay up for a 10 moment. 11 12 Vice-Chair Keller: Yes, I’m just wondering if the project you’re proposing to build is fully self-parked or if 13 you’re relying at all on parking exemptions or things like that? 14 15 Mr. Kleiman: No, it’s fully self-parked. I am relying on something that hasn’t been brought up and hasn’t 16 been lost yet, which is some shared parking. It’s a mixed-use building. There is a provision in Palo Alto’s 17 code like virtually every municipality around the country where you can, there’s a shared parking benefit 18 because exactly our situation, we’re going to live in one of the two residential units. Whoever we sell or 19 rent the other unit to typically would drive outside the building to work and people that work in the 20 commercial portion can use those spaces and there’s a formula that’s widely accepted, same one used, 21 and we will take advantage of that. And that does reduce our total required parking from I don’t know, 22 24 to 21 or 25 to 23, I forget the exact numbers right now. But otherwise through the use of parking 23 lifts we will be fully parked and I think we’re one of the few projects in Palo Alto where that would have 24 ever occurred. In a lot that’s half the size of this area we have 5 parking lifts, four cars high. So it’s 25 pretty extreme. 26 27 Vice-Chair Keller: So if there were a moratorium and I’m not saying there should be or would be it 28 sounds to me like you would suggest that fully parked projects be exempted from such a moratorium. Is 29 that what you’re, that make sense to you? 30 31 Mr. Kleiman: Yes and I would say that as another example I’m in the 200 square foot bonus where we 32 are taking advantage of that. We would need to redesign our building after having spent literally almost 33 a million dollars on design fees and engineering to get it to work at the point where we’re going to apply 34 for a building permit while we’re still going through the process of approvals. Let’s say we lose that 200 35 square foot exemption. All of a sudden we’re one parking space short. It doesn’t seem like much, but 36 it’s a big deal reengineering a building when you’re midstream. So I would say if you’re going to pass 37 that at least allow some period of time that’s at least one to two years, because that’s really how long it 38 takes to plan and get a building approved in Palo Alto before it goes into effect. So the people who are 39 in the planning process now like me don’t go through the process and tell their engineers and architects 40 hey, assume we can use the 200 square feet. They’ll know hey, we can’t. They’ll design buildings, those 41 will get approved. It’s a level playing field. People go in with a reasonable set of expectations. 42 43 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you very much. 44 45 Mr. Kleiman: Thank you. 46 47 Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Neilson Buchanan followed by Jeff Levinsky. 48 49 Neilson Buchanan: I know you’re tired from hearing from some of us so frequently, but I am not against 50 development. I don’t mind if you use imminent domain and build proper parking garages 70 feet tall and 51 do it right. I don’t mind if you build a new Channing House that’s 10 stories tall. There are a number of 52 Page 10 things that are going to have to change in Palo Alto and I’m, I, it needs to be planned for my 1 grandchildren, not for me. 2 3 It seems to me that the wheels of progress are beginning to turn in terms of the Council and the 4 leadership throughout the City recognizing we’ve got some severe traffic and parking problems. And 5 we’re severely overcommitted development versus the impact of parking and traffic. I don’t need to go 6 into all that. Pat Burt waxed on quite nicely about the need to have cumulative traffic studies that just 7 project by project wasn’t working out any more than parking negative impact brought by project by 8 project has dug a great big hole. 9 10 So what are we doing about it? Fortunately I do see the wheels of progress turning. There’s a foot’s on 11 the break trying to slow things down on certain things. There’s remedies being offered to the 12 neighborhoods for permit parking, but when I look back at it and I’m the one that’s been trying to 13 quantify well what impact will this have? Just stayed up last night just thinking about what is the 14 Downtown North impact? Is that 400 workers being displaced and going to have to park somewhere 15 else? I think this is a great chance to really quit digging the hole deeper. It’s a great time to put a 16 moratorium; moratorium will bring everybody to the table, as it should. And why don’t we really 17 understand how much of the foot’s on the break, how many feet are on the accelerators? Because 18 traffic, parking is simply an imbalance and for the life of me I can’t figure out what is it going to get 19 better or worse? The things that could make it worse take a long time. The things can make parking 20 worse take a very short period of time to make things to get fixed take a long time. Thank you. 21 22 Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Jeff Levinsky. 23 24 Jeff Levinsky: Good evening Commissioners and staff. It’s great that you are reviewing this item tonight 25 because as you’ve heard the parking situation is already a crisis and it’s just getting worse month by 26 month. However, the staff report chose to focus on some of the exemptions that cause under parking, 27 but unfortunately the moment that those are cut off the developers will just switch to the many other 28 exemptions that litter the code. So I and others are concerned that any piecemeal approach is not going 29 to work. 30 31 For example, the staff declined to propose a moratorium on the in lieu fees that many developers 32 downtown can take advantage of. The in lieu fees do not turn into parking spaces. In fact the City’s 33 own analysis for building a garage on Lot P from just a few months ago shows it costs over $90,000 for 34 each new space and that’s before you factor in land costs and taxes, which are immense, yet the City 35 currently collects less than $70,000 for each in lieu space. So if the staff proposal is adopted as is expect 36 developers just to switch to paying in lieu fees and consequently we’ll have an even greater shortage of 37 parking with yet more cars clogging the neighborhoods. If the City ever decides to build the garages 38 guess who will have to pay the difference? It’s not going to be the developers, it’s going to be the 39 taxpayers. That’s right, we’re going to end up subsidizing the developers and that’s what the staff 40 proposal leaves in place. 41 42 That’s just one of the loopholes. You could sit here all night tonight and be here for years and argue 43 over how to plug every exemption in turn. Every few months the staff will come back and say “Surprise! 44 Developers just switched to a different one” and now we have to plug that one. And all the time the 45 parking problem will grow and grow and become even harder to solve. Enough. Do not lead the City 46 down that hopeless path. The only situation that, the only solution that makes sense is a moratorium on 47 all under parked projects across Palo Alto and all the exemptions, all the special rules, all the waivers, all 48 the giveaways, if you want to build it you need to park it. Thank you. 49 50 Chair Michael: So now we close the public hearing and come back to the Commission. In the first round 51 of comments Commissioners please use up to five minutes. Who would like to start? Commissioner 52 Panelli. 53 Page 11 1 Commissioner Panelli: I’d like staff to comment directly on a couple of the items that were actually in Mr. 2 Levinsky’s e-mail and assigned on by several of the other members of the community, specifically the 3 item about in lieu fees and number two the mixed-use allowance. Can you provide a little bit more color 4 about how the in lieu fee is calculated in the past and maybe how the thought is, how that’s going to be 5 in the future? 6 7 Mr. Aknin: So regarding the in lieu fee, the in lieu fee was established awhile back and it was basically 8 just an estimate through engineering of how much it would cost if you had a sizable parking garage built 9 on a per space basis. And I think it was our, I think it was based on our most recent construction of 10 garages and then escalated by a certain amount. So that’s how we came, and it’s still a pretty accurate 11 number overall. The Lot P did come in at a little higher per space; it actually came in lower per space 12 when you considered the subsidy that would be given by the private/public partnership because of the lot 13 size. When you get a bigger lot there is less space dedicated to ramps so it goes down. So that wasn’t 14 the most optimal space if it wasn’t a space where a lot of it wasn’t a public/private partnership. 15 16 Commissioner Panelli: But I want to just be clear because what I’m hearing is that there is no inclusion of 17 any amortization of land cost as part of that. It’s just the cost of construction of an average space. 18 19 Mr. Aknin: Of an average incremental space above what is already on that, above that parking lot. So if 20 you replaced a 100, if that, if you had a base of land that provided 100 spaces and you did a 600 space 21 parking lot you’d only get credit for that 500 space delta. So it doesn’t consider the land cost itself, but it 22 does consider the base amount of parking in that land. 23 24 Commissioner Panelli: But ostensibly shouldn’t it consider some land cost if we’re basically saying here’s a 25 fee you can pay to build a space somewhere else? 26 27 Mr. Aknin: I mean it could, but I mean that, I’d honestly want to come back with you since that wasn’t 28 really the subject of tonight, but that’s something we could bring back to you. There was a lot of work 29 that was done in the past even before I was here. 30 31 Commissioner Panelli: And let me give you an explanation of what’s going on in my head and this is 32 something since I’ve joined the Commission I’ve been harping on, which is one-time costs for 33 permanently entitled benefits. And I’ve got to think that we’re not capturing the full cost with these in 34 lieu fees. We’re not capturing land cost and we’re not capturing ongoing maintenance costs. So if a 35 parking garage is dilapidated in 100 years that property owner already has that fully entitled right to what 36 they got 100 years before, but somebody’s got to pay for replacing that parking garage at some point, 37 right? Or at least maintaining it, repairing it. So I think there’s a problem, there’s an inherent problem in 38 the in lieu fee process and it I think if you really want to solve the problem make the in lieu fees more 39 expensive than just providing the parking spot and voilà I think you’ll start seeing all of a sudden 40 property owners building their or parking their own buildings. So that’s on that. 41 42 The mixed-use allowance and I am sympathetic to Mr. Kleiman about you want certainty. I absolutely 43 am, and I understand there are plenty of government bodies that have adopted this mixed-use 44 allowance, but that is an old paradigm when people actually left their homes and went to work 45 somewhere. I’d venture to guess that many people on this Commission here actually work out of their 46 homes. And so I’m not sure that this concept of shared parking based on this assumption that some 47 people are going to be gone during the day and others are going to be gone during the evening I’m just 48 not sure that’s really reality anymore. I mean some of these folks at startups who occupy some of this 49 office space are working 16, 18 hour days so they’re there or they’ll stay the night because they’re doing 50 an all-nighter. So I just, I think those two items I think the e-mail from Mr. Levinsky really needs some 51 attention paid to it. But in general I’m pretty supportive of what has been proposed in the staff report 52 and I would like to see, I see it as a very good first step. 53 Page 12 1 Mr. Aknin: Through the Chair, can I just respond to one thing? I do agree we need to quantify the in lieu 2 fee and make sure that it’s the right amount so that we do pay for the maintenance cost that may not 3 be, I mean typically what you do is you charge permit fees to cover the maintenance costs within these 4 garages, so that’s how maintenance is taken care of. But in terms of capturing the value over a longer 5 period of time I do agree. 6 7 What I would say is the general planning practice widely accepted and something I personally agree with 8 too is you don’t always want all spaces provided on each site in a downtown area where there is a lot of 9 pedestrian activity. If you have 50 spaces under each commercial building you’re having a lot of cars 10 going over the sidewalk to access that in an area that you have a lot of pedestrian activity. So it does 11 make sense in some cases to be able to take in lieu fees that do capture the whole amount if you’re 12 actually able to provide that parking within an area where people could park once and walk to multiple 13 locations. So it’s a balance of both, but I do agree on capturing the costs part. 14 15 Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 16 17 Commissioner King: Thank you. So I am, it does resonate the fairness of people at some point in the 18 process and now having to incur additional fees. I’m curious and maybe the Senior Assistant City 19 Attorney can advise me if we’re getting somewhere we shouldn’t be discussing this, but if possible could 20 staff walk through sort of a timeline? It looks like, what was the date? 2012, October or 2012 was when 21 Council enacted the moratorium. So I’m curious at 636 Waverly and if you know the timing where were 22 they in the process, did we switch things up on them, and how will this vote or if this goes though how 23 will this impact that project? 24 25 Mr. Aknin: So there were two projects that were caught up in the moratorium, which was 636 Waverly 26 and 135 Hamilton had applied and drawn plan ups relying on the 1:1 floor area exemption that they were 27 no longer able to take advantage of. 28 29 Commissioner King: So at the time, just to sort of interrupt so as of October of last year they were in, 30 they were moving forward with incurring costs for planning the project? 31 32 Mr. Aknin: Yes. Yes, so in Mr. Kleiman’s he’s further along the line than a lot of people further down on 33 the list, so I mean he has gone through a lot within this last year and has worked closely with staff on 34 this and has made a ton of modifications based on he, I mean I agree with him, he’s one of the few 35 projects that’s been innovative, used lifts to try to do it. We weren’t actually aware that he was still using 36 the 200 square foot minor floor area exemption. We’ll have to double check that. What he would do in 37 that case if he wasn’t able to do that he could one of two things: reduce his building by 200 square feet 38 or pay an in lieu fee for an equivalent amount. 39 40 Commissioner King: Ok so that, so those were, if this were to go forward those would be, that would be 41 you’re saying the only impact to him would be potential loss or payment incurring an in lieu fee for that 42 200 square foot exception? 43 44 Mr. Aknin: Correct, if he is in fact still applying for that one. 45 46 Commissioner King: Ok. And can you clarify in lieu fee? So that’s an in lieu parking fee, so that will be 47 the impact? 48 49 Mr. Aknin: Correct. 50 51 Commissioner King: And do you know what that would be? 52 53 Page 13 Mr. Aknin: It’s about $60,000. 1 2 Commissioner King: So it would be one space for that 200 square feet because that’s roughly to the 250 3 square foot per space? 4 5 Mr. Aknin: You round up so it would be one space. 6 7 Commissioner King: Ok. Ok, thank you. 8 9 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 10 11 Commissioner Alcheck: I think that the fact that the staff is recommending these modifications is a good 12 sign. I would support them on that basis alone, but I want to comment on this notion a few people have 13 mentioned tonight we’ve got to get everyone to the table; we’ve got to force the developers to deal with 14 this issue. I want to suggest that this, these modifications will affect future property developers and I 15 think we really want to force all commercial parcel owners: developing, developed, not developing to the 16 table to help solve this problem whether it’s just to support the solution financially or to help participate 17 in coming up with the right solution. And I think many of us agree that the solution in some respects is 18 to build more parking downtown and we need to figure out a way to fund that or make it happen. 19 20 I still believe very strongly that restricting commercial users from using the residential neighborhood 21 streets to park is the best way to do that because that’s not just going to incentivize the people who are 22 developing right now or wishing to develop, that will make every business downtown go right to their 23 landlord and say “We’re not going to make your rent payment next month if I can’t get my employees 24 into the store, I can’t get my employees into the store unless there’s a parking solution.” If you don’t 25 become part of this solution then you’re going to kiss these seven dollar, eight dollar rents goodbye. We 26 want to create an incentive for the small number of multiple parcel owners to become the leadership of 27 this initiative and if they’ve already developed their parcels this moratorium will in fact only make their 28 parcels even more valuable because they will have benefited from Transfer of Development Rights, from 29 space that they were able to develop without proper, I don’t want to say without proper, without 30 facilitating a positive impact on parking that new developers will be struggling to meet that sort of same 31 result. And so I’m not suggesting that I don’t think we should try this out, but I want to reiterate that if 32 you stop letting somebody park in front of Mr. Buchanan’s home that person will go right up their chain 33 to the person who can make it happen. 34 35 And I would prefer, and this is going to sound funny, but I would prefer that sort of market driven 36 approach where we say, we’re not going to tell you how many spaces you have to put on your property 37 per se, how many more spaces you want to put on your property, but if you don’t participate in this 38 acquisition of property, if we don’t look at this notion of parcel owners I think Commissioner Keller in his 39 line of questions was sort of alluding to this notion that the very people that we’d like to participate in the 40 solution here need to sort of bring it on themselves to some extent if it’s going to be the best format. 41 And the only incentive they’ll have to do that is if they get pressure up the chain. 42 43 So, again I’m curious to know if we’re just going to put all existing and future applicants at a 44 disadvantage compared to the applicants of the last few years like in terms of what they’re capable of 45 doing with their land, that expectation of what current applicants or potential current applicants have and 46 their realization that they weren’t able to do what maybe their neighbor has been able to do, but really 47 what we want to do is put their neighbor and them in the same boat. And we want to put the business 48 owners in the same boat. And we want everybody to appreciate that we’ve got a parking problem and 49 we’re taking advantage of some of these residential streets to too great an extent. 50 51 So if they all get together and volunteer and lead the process for what I feel like again is this parking 52 garage solution and I just want to say for the record I completely agree with you. I’m in no way opposed 53 Page 14 to a 15 story parking garage in downtown Palo Alto if that’s what we need. And I think Mr. Buchanan’s 1 comment that we need to plan for our grandchildren’s Palo Alto is incredibly insightful. Our height limits 2 our self-imposed. If the parking garage that needs to get built needs to be bigger and taller than it 3 should be and I think we need to encourage every parcel owner, not just those who are interested in 4 developing from 2013 on to be a part of this process. So. 5 6 Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 7 8 Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So first I have a question. When a developer pays the in lieu parking fee 9 do they also pay the annual or whatever parking assessment for all that land as well? For all that square 10 footage? 11 12 Mr. Aknin: So currently they’ve paid a certain square footage so let’s say they paid 5,000 square feet of 13 assessment into it. If they were to propose a new building that was 8,000 square feet they would have 14 to pay for that in lieu fees for that additional 3,000 square feet. 15 16 Vice-Chair Keller: No what I’m saying is suppose they paid the in lieu fees. Do they also pay the annual 17 assessment on that square footage as well? 18 19 Mr. Aknin: No. 20 21 Vice-Chair Keller: So it’s one or the other? 22 23 Mr. Aknin: Yeah or both. I mean if they have an 8,000 square foot building they could be paying 5,000 24 worth of assessments from a previous building that’s carried forward into their new building and then 25 have to pay the delta amount in in lieu fees. 26 27 Vice-Chair Keller: What I meant is for any given foot, square foot of (interrupted) 28 29 Mr. Aknin: Yeah. 30 31 Vice-Chair Keller: You either pay the assessment or you pay the in lieu fee? 32 33 Mr. Aknin: Right. 34 35 Vice-Chair Keller: But not both? 36 37 Mr. Aknin: Correct. 38 39 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. Thank you. So a couple of comments; first of all there’s a concept in economics 40 called the tragedy of the commons and essentially this came about because people would graze their 41 sheep I guess in the commons. And it was beneficial for people to go and graze their sheep in the 42 commons because you didn’t care, you just put as many sheep as you could do there and to graze their 43 sheep, but unfortunately the commons became uninhabitable and you couldn’t put any more sheep there 44 so the benefit to each individual person of putting more sheep in the commons to the individual it’s a 45 benefit, but to the community it’s not a benefit. And essentially what we have here is that Downtown 46 North and Downtown South are essentially the commons in that regard. 47 48 So firstly I agree entirely with the proposals that are done here. Some of these exemptions, a lot of 49 these exemptions were put into place as far as I understand in the 1980’s. Now I moved to Palo Alto not 50 as long as maybe Mr. Alsman was or other people, but I moved here in 1977 and I remember when I 51 was a grad student here that you could roll up the sidewalks in Palo Alto in the evening because it was 52 very dead. And one of the reasons it was kind of dead is because in some sense a lot of commercial 53 Page 15 usage had gone to the Stanford Shopping Center. And so incentives were put into effect to try to 1 incentivize development in downtown Palo Alto, but the conditions for which those incentives were put 2 into place are no longer needed and haven’t been needed for some time. 3 4 So therefore what we need to do and in particular when I became Vice-Chair I talked about the potential 5 that we should look at things that are there because of older conditions when those conditions no longer 6 exist we need to change the code to remove the incentives that are no longer needed, like for example 7 housing was you couldn’t force, you couldn’t get people to build housing in the Eighties and early Nineties 8 and then suddenly economics change and now you can’t stop them from building housing. So when 9 economics change you need to change. When conditions change you need to change the rules 10 accordingly and the City is remiss in not having made these changes earlier when they were, when the 11 effects that caused these changes were no longer the case. 12 13 A couple of things, firstly the in lieu fees not only need to take into account the cost of building a space 14 now, they need to take into account the cost of building a space when. In other words if we’re not going 15 to build those parking garages for 10 years you take into account the escalated cost of building that 16 parking space 10 years from now based on construction costs and then escalate that back down based 17 on the cost, the value you can get from interest in putting that money in the bank for 10 years. And 18 that’s the cost you have to charge for parking space plus any maintenance and whatever that goes in 19 there. So in that case if $60,000 is the cost of building a parking space it’s not going to be that 10 years 20 from now when we finally get around to building the parking garages if it’s 10 years or whatever the time 21 period it is. 22 23 The issue is that for existing land I mean there’s a limited amount of land in which we can build parking 24 garages and so I am sympathetic with Commissioner Panelli’s comment about considering land costs. 25 I’m also sympathetic with the idea of thinking about what we do with under parked projects. But it 26 seems to me the extent that we, that if there were a moratorium certainly a project like one that Mr. 27 Kleiman is suggesting, which is basically virtually self-parked would make, does make sense to proceed 28 on. May I continue? Or should we go on for another round? 29 30 Chair Michael: We’ll try and wrap it up. 31 32 Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. So I like the principle of the mixed-use allowance in the large. If you have a large 33 commercial property with a large residential component to it then statistically it makes sense to have a 34 mixed-use reduction. But when you have one or two parking spaces the mixed-use reduction effectively 35 means that you don’t have any space for the residential because you don’t have a statistical, the statistics 36 helping you and you wind up essentially eliminating parking for residential, which doesn’t make sense 37 particularly for people who keep their cars in their houses and take public transit. Some people use their 38 cars only for the weekend and take public transit. That’s what we expect to happen downtown. So 39 therefore we need to think about whether the mixed-use allowance makes sense for onsies, twosies, 40 threesies in terms of housing units. I think not. 41 42 The next thing is in terms of the requirement that parking be provided one space per every 250 square 43 foot of and I think that needs to be updated. And in terms of the Transportation Element we’ve got that 44 suggestion and that’s coming forward as another thing that’s going to happen and come back to us in the 45 next meeting will be a proposal to evaluate that and figure out what it should be. And obviously we don’t 46 put a number in there because it requires an analysis to put a number in there and the Comp Plan is, 47 when you put the Comp Plan in there you say we want the, we want to change this number, you don’t 48 actually say what you’d change it to. So that’s what’s going on there. 49 50 Next is that there’s a proposal that’s being pushed forward by the City Council that I think is very 51 interesting and useful, unfortunately there was some sort of disagreement as to what the wording of the 52 Motion should be, but there’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) moving forward. And when 53 Page 16 Transportation Demand Management that is going to deal with also not only adding parking, but in terms 1 of what Commissioner Alcheck refers to as needing to deal with this with the property owners and in 2 some sense the extent that you can deal with parking by, parking shortage by adding more parking you 3 could also deal with the parking shortage by bringing in fewer cars. And companies like Google and 4 Apple and other companies have shuttles coming from San Francisco, but the small companies in 5 downtown Palo Alto and some of the other companies elsewhere in the City can’t afford their own 6 shuttles coming from different places. So TDM measures can involve bringing in shuttles from San 7 Francisco and other places like that or East Bay in order to provide reduction of the amount of cars that 8 are coming here. So I think that that’s also worthwhile part of the mix. 9 10 Finally, one important part of the problem is that we don’t have good data in terms of what the 11 businesses in Palo Alto have in terms of residents, I mean in terms of employees, where they live, how 12 they get here, things, all kinds of things like that. We don’t have any data on that. Now some cities get 13 that data through a business license tax. However, for some reason business license tax is very 14 controversial in Palo Alto, but there’s no reason why we need a business license tax in order to have a 15 business registry. We could nonetheless have a business registry that gathers all the information we 16 want in a self-serve capacity where you go up, where all the business owners in Palo Alto have to go to a 17 site, register at that site with the information they need, that the City needs about them. If they register 18 you get a free downloaded signed secure .pdf that says you’ve registered as a business registry in Palo 19 Alto free. And if you don’t register then there will be fines saying you didn’t register, you didn’t give the 20 right information and there are penalties for doing that and that there’s penalties for doing lots of things 21 like that. And that will allow us to get the data we need because after all it’s going to be hard to enforce 22 TDM measures in downtown Palo Alto or any of our businesses if you don’t have the data and a business 23 registry is one way to get that data. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Michael: So it’s very clear to the Commission and to the Council and to others that parking is a 26 major concern in the community. And it’s a big problem. I think that the effort of the code review is 27 tangible, but a small step in the right direction. I would like to align some of my comments with 28 Commissioner Alcheck in terms of trying to identify the substance of what the larger problem is and it’s 29 apparent that this targeted effort at cleaning up some archaic parking exemptions in the code isn’t 30 addressing the big picture although it is a, it’s taken very much in good faith as a step forward. 31 32 I think that the notion of the problem of the tragedy of the commons was also referred to by Vice-Mayor 33 Shepard recently and she was referring to the height limit essentially as the commons as a form of the 34 commons in Palo Alto. If we allow up zoning to go into the, above 50 feet we’re really taking something 35 which is an asset of the community. It’s part of the commons and likewise I think the use of the public 36 streets including for parking is part of the commons. And I don’t think that as a community and as a City 37 government we really have a clear sense of what are the implications of that. 38 39 I’ve been really struck by the comments from Mr. Alsman and others who in a very rational way put forth 40 requests that the City impose some sort of a moratorium on going ahead with individual projects and on 41 one hand I think that that’s not particularly feasible. It doesn’t seem to me to be, it seems coercive and 42 unlikely to achieve the desired effect of bringing people together in a rational effort to collective problem 43 solving. On the other hand as a Member of the Planning Commission I’ve been struck by the difficulty of 44 engaging and completing the long range planning efforts mainly the Comprehensive Plan, working on the 45 Downtown Development Cap, the California Avenue Area Concept Plan or even putting together the 46 Residential Neighborhood Parking Permit Program that might well be part of the long term solution. And 47 I see both the Planning Commission and the Council spending and the staff spending a significant 48 amount of time and energy working on individual projects while the long term planning languishes. 49 50 And so I feel very embarrassed by the responsibility that the Planning Commission has as being part of 51 the problem in terms of this inertia in this delay. It definitely complicates our role and certainly I feel 52 personally the problem of not being able to point to an updated Comprehensive Plan as a source of the 53 Page 17 division, the policy and the programs that guide our decisions and I can see that this would erode public 1 trust in how those decisions are made and kind of the quality of life in the community as we try to 2 evaluate what we like to do into the future and how to impact some of these planning decisions and 3 approvals. So and just as a question for the Council I wonder what it would take to increase the urgency 4 of finalizing these very, very important long term planning efforts, which are in the home stretch in many 5 respects. And also the question of how the Planning Commission might work with staff, work with, 6 provide a forum for community input, which I think happens on a continual basis, but we could possibly 7 improve in that regard and working with Council in terms of coming up with I think solutions to the what 8 are the real problems. 9 10 So I don’t for a minute think that what we’re considering tonight is going to address the urgency and 11 intensity and the magnitude and the reality of the concerns that we’re hearing from the community. I 12 think it is with some implementation questions it’s a step in the right direction and I would support it, but 13 I don’t want to leave any impression that this is going to alleviate what I think is a lack of urgency in 14 doing the heavy lifting on completing the overall planning, which is not addressing the substance of the 15 real problem. So let me go back to my colleagues on the Commission for any further comments and/or a 16 Motion. 17 18 Mr. Alsman: Mr. Chairman I recognize this is out of order and I would appreciate if I could just have 19 thirty seconds to, for a little clarification? 20 21 Chair Michael: I’ll give you two minutes. 22 23 Mr. Alsman: First of all with respect to the in lieu fees that has been on the books I believe for around 10 24 years. Up until the latest building over on Lytton and Alma the total amount in it was about $100,000. 25 That’s how much was collected. I don’t believe that there has been much collected since that except for 26 the new building that’s under construction and that was only because the neighbors started to raise a lot 27 of ruckus about how much parking was going to be there and an in lieu fee was attached to it. 28 29 With respect to the assessment district Art’s arguments about paying the full boar effectively the 30 assessment district, the assessment pays for $6,000 out of the $60,000. It pays for 10 percent of the 31 real parking need. I mean I just once you get into the numbers it gets really strange to me. With 32 respect to Mr. Alcheck’s comments I don’t disagree with you, but we’ve been fighting for residential 33 parking for 10 or more years. We need every weapon that you can employ to help get these developers 34 to understand the problems they’re creating, to get the good developers, and there are good developers 35 around, not greedy, but good developers who want the City to be successful, who want their tenants to 36 be successful, who don’t want to put all of the costs on their employees or on the residents, but want to 37 have a profitable good project in town. So you need all the weapons. You need a moratorium, you need 38 the parking permits, and you need everything you can muster because you’ve got one hell of a force to 39 fight. Thank you. 40 41 Chair Michael: So for the record that was, those comments were from Ken Alsman. Thank you very 42 much. Ok, so coming back to the Commission. Commissioner Alcheck would you like to begin? 43 44 Commissioner Alcheck: So I just want to throw out two things that we can sort of chew on, which is I 45 just reviewed in a non-formal capacity I had an opportunity to view a project that’s getting built in San 46 Jose adjacent to their City Hall where there’s 130 plus units with a mix of two, three, and four bedrooms 47 and only one parking space per bedroom, per unit. So dramatic potential for four hundred and 48 something occupants in this residential building and there’s going to be 100 parking spaces. And I 49 mention that because there are different visions for what urban areas are supposed to be. 50 51 You mentioned this notion of we can provide more parking or we can have less cars and the second 52 comment, which is going to be very farfetched is that I believe in our lifetime and there’s some degree of 53 Page 18 range there, but I believe in all of our lifetimes we will be at a place where transportation is very 1 different. We are already seeing cars that are driving themselves. I love that movie Minority Report and 2 cars latching onto… people movers latching onto each other and moving along. I mention that only 3 because the population of this City is going to continue to grow, but the number of cars may not or cars 4 as we know it or the amount of space we need for such modes of transportation is not a necessary 5 increase or riser. I’m not really sure what term to use there, but my point only is that I’d like to believe 6 that in our lifetimes we will see a very different type of transportation evolve in a way that cars have and 7 personal transportation has not evolved in the last 50 years. And other cities are choosing to create 8 situations of direct conflict where you can absolutely see that this building is going to be under parked 9 and the city is saying “Yeah, use the bus.” And that’s a standard of life question for some people and for 10 other people it’s a city, it’s an urban vision. 11 12 I would just like to suggest that there’s this third view which in time transportation solutions may improve 13 to such a great extent that the parking that we have provided may be perfectly adequate for 2050. And I 14 mention that only because in my previous comment I said we have to plan for the City of our 15 grandchildren and as I sort of thought about that some more I thought well the city for our grandchildren 16 may not need anywhere close to the number of parking spaces we have. So I know they’re farfetched. I 17 just wanted to throw that out there that this notion of providing, your comment where we could either 18 provide more parking spaces or reduce the number of cars that have to come downtown is an interesting 19 one and that’s it. 20 21 Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 22 23 MOTION 24 25 Vice-Chair Keller: So actually what I meant to say is that you could do, you could actually add more 26 parking or reduce the amount of cars that come in or some combination of the two. I didn’t mean it was 27 exclusively either or. Just to be clear. 28 29 So one of the things in terms of your futurism things one of the ideas of self-driving cars is I think it will 30 deal with traffic, but it won’t deal with parking. Because self-driving cars will allow you to pack more cars 31 on a given roadway segment because they’ll move, the turbulent flow that happens with human driven 32 cars won’t occur, but reducing the turbulent flow will allow more cars to flow and that means we’ll have 33 more cars in that regard, which is unfortunately the opposite of what we would like. 34 35 The second thing is that we should not expect the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to 36 provide more transit. The only thing we can expect is maybe the 522 bus will run more often and the 22 37 bus I’m not sure, but the issue is especially Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) that may occur, I don’t, light rail 38 doesn’t seem to work as well in Santa Clara Valley. It’s more expensive and ridership is never achieved 39 what it promised. We’ll probably have more Caltrains going on here, but essentially other than that the 40 only way we’ll get more transit in Palo Alto is providing it ourselves. And that’s either through increases 41 in the Palo Alto Shuttle or increases through Transportation Demand Management where their own 42 shuttles like Google has done for the employers here. 43 44 And essentially the way to reduce both cars and traffic is through these Transportation Demand 45 Management features on employers because we really can’t provide them on our residents because 46 there’s no mechanism for providing on residents. Obviously you could take away parking, but when you 47 do that you basically get Arbor Real which has parking imposed, separating into the neighborhood and 48 I’m not sure that that’s any better than, they have night impacted parking as opposed to day impact for 49 north and south, north of downtown and south of downtown. 50 51 So I think we have a hard problem and maybe things will be great and then there’ll be enough transit 52 and people won’t have to have as many cars in 2050, but that’s 37 years away and I’m worried about 53 Page 19 how we get from point A to point B and in terms of what we have now we have too many cars parking in 1 places around the neighborhoods where we don’t want them. And the residents don’t want them. And 2 so we have a bunch of things we need to push levers all the time, at the same time to try to squeeze the 3 worms back in the can so to speak. So I’m going to take the opportunity to move staff recommendation 4 and I think I’ve given a lot of comments already on thoughts that I had so I’m just going to simply say 5 that. 6 7 SECOND 8 9 Commissioner Alcheck: Second. 10 11 Chair Michael: Thank you. So we have a Motion by Vice-Chair Keller seconded by Commissioner Alcheck. 12 Let me just comment at this point. So I was, I had in the last few days I had the chance to do one of 13 those items on your bucket list. I hiked to the top of Half Dome and I got up at 3:00 in the morning and 14 we started hiking at 4:30 in the morning with flashlights and took, was hiking for 11 hours up and down. 15 And it was incredible. So I got back and I was in my room, had a couple of Advil, took a shower, took 16 out my tablet, logged into the Wi-Fi and there was an unusual article in the New York Times that was by 17 a philosopher professor and he was talking about the afterlife not in the traditional religious sense, but he 18 said there are a lot of things that go on that you do simply because you assume that there will be 19 generations to follow and like Neilson Buchanan’s grandchildren I think if we really reject the notion of 20 apocalypse, which I’m not sure we can be confident in that rejection, but if we assume that there’s going 21 to be a continued Palo Alto with continued character of the community then there’s going to continue to 22 be traffic and parking problems. We’re going to have to grapple with some of these problems and so I’m 23 willing to go so far as to endorse that notion of an afterlife and I think we have a big responsibly towards 24 some urgency about tackling the problem. 25 26 I also think that there’s a little bit of a confusion perhaps only in my mind. Palo Alto thinks of itself as a 27 city. I think many years ago it was a suburb. Now it in some discussions it’s like a little big city or a big 28 little suburb, I’m not sure exactly what it is, but some of these programs that are applicable and are well 29 proven best practices are hard to implement in Palo Alto because of this sort of this hybrid aspect of what 30 makes this place so special. I know in some cities the cities have stopped having any parking 31 requirements whatsoever of developers. They are just saying “Hey, you build a building with no parking 32 it’s going to be less valuable than a building that has parking. So if that’s what you want to do go for it. 33 You’ll eventually learn your lesson and collectively the community will be better off for just letting the 34 market forces work.” But we seem to have the notion that we can do some planning, which I think is an 35 interesting maybe a bit of hubris. 36 37 Maybe if you have sort of the relationship between development requirements, parking, transportation 38 you have to assume that if you constrain parking with adjacency to mass transit that there actually is 39 mass transit that’s usable and that’s maybe applicable in some cases to people who are commuting to 40 work, but what about people like Commissioner Panelli pointed out who are very engaged, very 41 productive professionals, business people, whatever, but they don’t commute? And the driving that they 42 do and the parking that they take up is in a completely different pattern of usage. So with all that I think 43 that the effort that the staff has made to comb through the code and eliminate archaic exemptions is 44 worth our voting on and approving, but I think that the message to the Council is to really, really, really 45 ratchet up the effort on finalizing the long term planning much of which is completely out of date and 46 that puts the Planning Commission and me in a bind with respect to what rules we apply to address the 47 concerns of the community. 48 49 So before we turn it over to the Commission for a vote I’d like to say that we use a committee, a 50 subcommittee structure on the Commission and we have recently appointed two Commissioners to work 51 on a parking subcommittee. I’m asking those two Commissioners, Vice-Chair Keller and Commissioner 52 Panelli to come back to the PTC with a specific written proposed charter for the, what the Parking 53 Page 20 Committee will actually do. I think this is probably the most significant undertaking in front of us with 1 the possible exception of the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and I think this proposed charter of 2 our Parking Subcommittee should be something we should welcome public input and Council direction as 3 to what our Parking Subcommittee should be working on and that we should tee up urgently a study 4 session on parking issues informed in part by the work of our committee along with the staff. 5 6 So with that you’ve made a Motion. It’s been seconded. Does anybody want to comment on the Motion 7 before we vote? Commissioner King. 8 9 Commissioner King: Thank you. Yeah, I won’t attempt an amendment, but I would just like to clarify 10 with staff on my comment regarding the Item 2D regarding the remodel versus demolish that in my 11 opinion ideally you want clear guidelines that support the intent of the policy and that if a person reading 12 the ordinance were to look at photos of various projects they would be able to clearly say “Oh yes, this 13 one’s a remodel and this one’s a demolish.” Thank you. I’m good. 14 15 VOTE 16 17 Chair Michael: Any other comments? So we have a Motion. It’s been seconded. All in favor say aye 18 (Aye). Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously with Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent. Ok 19 and that closes the public hearing. 20 21 MOTION PASSED (5-0-2, Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent) 22 23 Commission Action: Approved staff recommendation for City Council to adopt the Parking 24 Exemptions Code. Motion by Vice-chair Keller second by Commissioner Alcheck (5-0-2, 25 Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent) 26 27 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4021) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report Report Type: Meeting Date: 9/25/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Parking Exemptions Code Review Title: Review and Recommendation to City Council of Two Ordinances to Amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code as follows: 1. Ordinance to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code to delete Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) related to Parking Assessment Districts to eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemption which allows for floor area up to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be exempt from parking requirements within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area and floor area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the California Avenue area parking assessment district. 2. Interim Ordinance to amend Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD) District, and 18.52, (Parking and Loading Requirements) to make the following changes to be effective for a period of two years: a. Delete Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to eliminate the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus and related parking exemption for buildings not eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus. b. Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to eliminate the parking exemption for on-site use of Historic and Seismic Bonus. c. Amend Section 18.18.080(g) remove the parking exemption for on-site use of historic and seismic FAR bonus; and elimination of the parking exemption for transfer of development rights of 5,000 SF FAR to a receiver site in the CD zoning district. d. Amend Section 18.18.120(a)(2) related to Grandfathered Uses and Facilities to clarify that a grandfathered use may be remodeled and improved, but may not be replaced and maintain its grandfathered status. e. Amend Section 18.52.070(a)( 3) related to remove the sentence allowing square footage to qualify for exemption that was developed or used previously for nonresidential purposes but was vacant at the time of the engineer's These actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines. From: ŵLJ&ƌĞŶĐŚ͕ŚŝĞĨWůĂŶŶŝŶŐKĨĨŝĐŝĂů City of Palo Alto Page 2 Lead Department: PlanningΘŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend Council’s adoption of: 1. An Ordinance to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to permanently delete Sections 18.52.060(a)(2) and 18.52.060(c) related to Parking Assessment Districts to eliminate the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemption which allows floor area up to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 to 1.0 to be exempt from parking requirements within the Downtown Parking Assessment Area, and floor area up to an FAR of 0.5 to 1.0 to be exempt within the California Avenue area parking assessment district; and 2. An Interim Ordinance to amend PAMC Chapters 18.18, Downtown Commercial (CD) District, and 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements), to make the following changes, to be effective for a period of two years: a. Delete Sections 18.18.070(a)(1), 18.18.090(b)(1)(C) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(D) to eliminate the 200 square foot Minor Floor Area Bonus and related parking exemption for buildings not eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus. b. Delete Sections 18.18.090(b)(1)(B), 18.52.070(a)(1)(B) and 18.52.070(a)(1)(C)(i) to eliminate the parking exemption for on-site use of Historic and Seismic Bonus. c. Amend Section 18.18.080(g) to remove the on-site parking exemption for floor area bonuses derived through historic and seismic upgrades via the transfer of development rights (TDR) program (where up to 5,000 square feet (SF) of floor area for each type of upgrade is allowed for receiver sites in the CD or downtown PC zoning districts). d. Amend Section 18.18.120(a)(2) related to Grandfathered Uses and Facilities to clarify that a grandfathered use/facility may be remodeled and improved while maintaining ‘grandfather’ status, but that the floor area may not be demolished and replaced onsite while maintaining such ‘grandfathered’ status. e. Amend Section 18.52.070(a)(3) to disallow the parking exemption for floor area developed or used previously for non-residential purposes and vacant at the time of the engineer’s report during the parking district assessment. Background On July 16, 2012, the City Council considered the status of ongoing parking efforts for the Downtown and directed staff to look at a variety of approaches to address the concerns of businesses and neighbors. Council requested an evaluation of existing zoning regulations, and an assessment of realistic parking ratios and the desirability and viability of parking exemptions. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Following that meeting, staff identified one particular parking exemption, applicable to the Downtown and California Avenue assessment districts likely to exacerbate the parking problems without providing a public purpose. This provision had allowed exemptions from parking requirements for any property within the two parking assessment districts; specifically, up to a 1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in the Downtown Assessment District and up to a 0.5:1 ratio in the California Avenue Assessment District (see Attachment C, October 15, 2012 Council Report). On October 15, 2012, the City Council adopted an Interim Urgency Ordinance that established a 45-day moratorium on the use of this “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemption pending further study of Downtown and California Avenue parking issues (refer to Attachment C, October 15th Council Staff Report and Attachment D, October 15, 2012 Council Minutes). On December 10, 2012, the City Council adopted another Interim Urgency Ordinance to extend this moratorium for a period of one year through December 28, 2013 (refer to Attachment E, December 15, 2012 Council Staff Report and Attachment F, December 15, 2012 Council Minutes). On March 18, 2013, the Council gave additional direction on several items related to parking policy. This included directing staff to review and provide recommendations on Municipal Code parking exemptions and the City’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Since that time, staff has examined the Municipal Code, and is recommending the subject changes. It is important to note that this is the first step. Staff will most likely have additional recommendations in the coming year. While the staff recommended interim suspension of the subject parking exemptions is narrowly focused in the Downtown area, future recommendations may be citywide and/or more comprehensive in nature. Furthermore, the subject “interim” changes may or may not be recommended for permanent inclusions after additional analysis is conducted during the two-year, interim stage. Description of Proposed Ordinances: There are two types of ordinances under review. The first is a standard ordinance revision permanently eliminating the “Exempt Floor Area” ordinance as described below. There is currently a moratorium on the use of this ordinance. The proposed ordinance revision would permanently eliminate the use of this exemption. This affects the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Districts. The second ordinance focuses on several parking exemptions found within the code that only affect downtown properties zoned CD. This is an interim ordinance which would be in effect for a trial 2-year period. Ordinance to Eliminate the Exempt Floor Area Parking Exemptions: The first ordinance would make permanent the elimination of the “Exempt Floor Area” parking exemptions related to the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment Districts. There is currently a one year moratorium on the use of this exemption that expires on December 28, 2013. In the Downtown Assessment District Area, this zoning code section allows floor area equal to the lot size to be City of Palo Alto Page 4 “un-parked”. For example, on a 10,000 sq. ft property, the first 10,000 sq. ft. of building would have to provide zero parking spaces. This provision was originally included in the zoning code in the 1980s to encourage downtown development by providing a benefit to offset the parking assessments enacted at that time. This was also done at the same time when properties were downzoned within the downtown area. This strategy was successful in its time, but the downtown area is now thriving and the exemption is no longer needed to encourage development. In the California Avenue Assessment District Area, this code section allows floor area equal to half the lot size to be un-parked. For example, on a 10,000 square foot lot in the California Avenue area, the first 5,000 sq. ft. of building would have to provide zero parking. Given that there is no longer a need to incent development in the Downtown and California Avenue areas and parking shortages are prevalent, the permanent elimination of this unnecessary parking exemption is recommended. Interim Ordinance to Eliminate other Parking Exemptions within the Downtown Area: Since the Council diretion given in March, staff has identified four (4) key areas where additional code changes could be made to eliminate future use of parking exemptions for properties in the Downtown area zoned CD. The second ordinance would be an interim ordinance for a period of two years to eliminate the following four code provisions related to floor area and parking only within the CD zone district. 1. Parking Exemptions Associated with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program: The TDR program encourages seismic and historic rehabilitation of buildings within the CD district by allowing for the transfer of certain development rights to eligible CD-zoned sites that are not historic properties. These provisions include both transfer of bonus floor area to another site, and provisions for exempting some of the bonus floor area from parking requirements. The program has been successful and has resulted in seismic and historic restoration of many older buildings in the Downtown area. However, staff believes an incentive can still be provided through bonus FAR area, without increasing nearby parking issues. The Interim Ordinance, therefore, would prohibit the creation of new TDRs as they relate to parking. Specifically, 5,000 SF of transferred bonus floor area to be exempt from on-site parking requirements. This exemption has been applied to floor area transferred to a receiver site within a CD or PC district from another CD-zoned site or even from an RT zoned site within the SOFA district. TDRs that have already been approved and earned under existing zoning code provisions would still be allowed to be utilized. Eliminating the use of already approved and earned TDRs would likely be subject to judicial challenge under a “takings” or “vested rights” legal theory. Staff is expecting to address the provision of parking related to already earned TDRs during future recommendations. 2. Minor Exemptions for Buildings Not Eligible for Historic or Seismic Bonus: The CD zone district regulations also contain an exemption that allows a 200 square foot floor area City of Palo Alto Page 5 bonus for any building that does not qualify for the seismic or historic bonuses. This increase, which has been used to increase floor area in both new buildings and existing buildings, does not count towards the site’s gross floor area (GFA) and floor area ratio (FAR), and is exempt from on-site parking requirements. Although it is minor, any CD zoned property not eligible for the other bonuses may request it and the impacts have been and will continue to be cumulative. The Interim Ordinance proposes to eliminate this 200 square foot minor floor area bonus. 3. Grandfathered Uses and Facilities: The CD Zone District contains provisions for “grandfathered uses and facilities” that allow continuation of uses and rebuilding of facilities that were in place prior to August 28, 1986 but which are no longer conforming to the standards of the district. One of the provisions allows that the grandfathered uses/facilities are permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements on the same site as long as it is within the same footprint and does not result in an increase in floor area, height, building envelope or building footprint. Because the existing code language allows replacement of a grandfathered facility’s “site improvements”, this provision has been used to completely rebuild a structure with the same amount of floor area that exceeds current standards, and the new structure is not required to provide parking for the replacement floor area that is considered “grandfathered”. The Interim Ordinance proposes to clarify that one may remodel or improve the grandfathered floor area and keep the parking exemption, but the floor area may not be demolished and rebuilt into a replacement structure. Staff believes that this exemption will not be proposed for permanent elimination in entirety after the interim ordinance as it could “lock” property owners into older buildings that do not function well for modern businesses. However, during this interim period, staff would like to quantify the impact of building modernization, particularly in terms of parking, so that suitable impact fees, conditions and/or municipal code provisions can be incorporated. 4. Vacant Floor Area Exemption: This portion of the interim ordinance would eliminate, with respect to properties within the CD assessment district, a sentence in Section 18.52.070(a)( 3) allowing exemption for existing floor area developed or used previously for nonresidential purposes but vacant at the time of the engineer’s report at the time of the parking district assessment. In other words, as currently written, the Municipal Code allows for floor area that was vacant at the time Downtown Assessment district was created, and therefore not assessed, to still be “grandfathered” for rebuilding purposes. Properties owners are not responsible for providing or paying for additional parking when a building is razed and rebuilt, even though payments were not made to the assessment district for the previously vacant squared footage. The interim ordinance will eliminate this existing inequity in the Code. Commission Purview City of Palo Alto Page 6 Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80 sets forth the process for amendments to the City’s zoning regulations. Section 18.80.080 (a)(2) allows the Planning and Transportation Commission, on its own initiative, to initiate changes to provisions of Title 18, the Zoning Code. Pursuant to Section 18.80.090, the PTC is to set forth the findings and determinations of the PTC with respect to the proposed changes initiated by the Commission in a written recommendation to City Council. Council would consider the PTC recommendations in a public hearing. The PTC’s determination for its recommendation should include why the public interest or general welfare require these amendments. The Planning and Transportation Commission is requested to review the two attached ordinances relating to parking requirements in the zoning code. In each case, the P&TC’s action is a recommendation to City Council for consideration in a public hearing. Both of these ordinances would become effective 31 days following Council adoption. The Exempt Floor Area ordinance would need to be acted on by the City Council by mid-November to become effective before the end of the moratorium on December 28, 2013. The Interim Ordinance to address exemptions related to bonuses is proposed to expire in two years (sunset) from the date of Council action unless it is replaced by a permanent code change or otherwise modified. Additional Issues Under State law, projects that have obtained their entitlements and building permits and have begun work in reliance on the building permit are largely exempt from new zoning provisions. (This is sometimes referred to as the “vested rights doctrine.”) A key issue raised when the moratorium on use of the “exempt floor area” parking was adopted in 2012 was the applicability of the ordinance to projects that were in process (on file, pending decisions by the Director, Council or building permit issuance). At that time, Council elected not only to exempt projects that had received building permits, but also to exempt those projects that had received Planning Permit approval, including the granting of parking exemptions, from the moratorium. While Council is required to exempt projects receiving building permits, it is a policy call whether to exempt projects that are in earlier phases of entitlement review. As noted in the table below, there are a number of projects that have received recent planning approval or under currently under planning review. Please also note, that as stated previously in this report, the interim oridance would only impact TDRs on a prospective basis. Therefore, all previous approved TDRs would still be able to be ulitilized for the purposes of parking and floor area. A recommendation should be made to Council regarding at what point filed applications would be subject to the provisions of the ordinances under consideration. Table 1 – Summary of Approved Planning Entitlements with Parking Exemptions City of Palo Alto Page 7 Address Description Planning Entitlement Status Building Permit Status 135 Hamilton A four-story 28,085 square foot mixed-use building (19,998 square feet commercial and two residential units) and below grade parking on a vacant lot. Zone: CD-C(P) (exemption using 5000 Sf TDR and 200 SF exemption) Approval Effective 2/7/13 Building Permit under review. It is expected that this permit will be issued prior to ordinance adoption. 611 Cowper A 34,703 square foot four-story mixed use building (three floors commercial and one floor residential) with below grade parking, replacing two buildings totalling 7,191 SF commercial floor area and 1,270 SF residential floor area. Zone: CD-C(P) (Exemption using grandfathered spaces, 10,000 SF TDR exemption and 400 SF exemptions for two parcels) Approval Effective 8/16/13 No Permit Application submitted to date 240 Hamilton A 15,000 square foot mixed use building, replacing an (approx.) 7,000 SF building (building plus mezzanine). Zone: CD-C(P) (Exemption using 4,327 SF TDR exemption, 200 SF bonus, and “grandfathered” floor area, including 2,000 that was not assessed) Approved 7/23/13 but Appealed to Council. Hearing to be scheduled. Not Applicable Table 2 – Summary of Pending Applications Requesting Exemptions Address Request Planning Entitlement Status Building Permit Status 636 Waverley 10,328 square foot, four-story mixed use building with commercial uses on the first and second floors and two residential units on the third and fourth floors, replacing a one-story 1,406 SF commercially used building. Zone: CD-C(P). (No subject parking exemptions applied) Formal ARB submitted 6/14/13 Going to ARB 9/19/13 (second formal hearing) Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Page 8 Address Request Planning Entitlement Status Building Permit Status 429 University 22,750 SF building with below grade parking for 29 cars, replacing “grandfathered” building. Zone: CD- C(GF)(P).(exemption using 5,000 SF TDR, 200 SF bonus and grandfathered building). Prelim ARB submitted 9/12/13 Not applicable 261 Hamilton Application for relocation of basement SF in retail storage use to third story office atop an historic category III, “grandfathered” commercial building (over 3.0:1 FAR) having 38,926 SF (37,800 SF assessed for parking); 37,800 SF retail/office at end. Zone: CD- C(GF)(P). (requesting creation of 15,000 SF TDR via rehabilitation). Formal ARB submitted 6/18/13 Not applicable 640 Waverley ARB application for a new 10,463 SF mixed use building with 2 dwelling units and 5,185 SF commercial area (replacing 1,829 SF of “grandfathered” floor area) providing 17 spaces. Zone: CD-C(P). (exemptions grandfathered, mixed-use parking reduction and 200 SF bonus). Prelim ARB submitted 9/16/13 Not applicable 500 University Three-story 26,806 SF commercial building replacing 15,899 SF previously assessed for 64 spaces not provided on site; includes 24 parking spaces below grade. Zone: CD-C(GF)(P). (Exemption using grandfathered building, TDR and 200 SF bonus). Prelim ARB reviewed. No formal submittal. Not applicable 301 High Addition and remodel of existing building. Proposes 6,706 SF (including existing 6,255 SF plus bonus an ADA area). Zone: CD-N(P). (requests 200 SF bonus). Formal ARB Submitted 5/20/13 Not applicable Next Steps The Interim Ordinance is proposed to be in place for a period of two years, during which time staff will study the impacts on development of permanently removing these floor area bonuses and parking exemptions. Much of this will be done during the policy recommendation phases of the Downtown Development Cap Study. The following are some of the items that have been identified for further analysis and consideration: residential parking program, in-lieu parking provisions, adjustments to parking requirements, SOFA 2 parking exemptions (additional details below), and other, city-wide parking exemptions. Other adjustments to the Municipal Code may also be considered. Furthermore, historically made interpretations of the Municipal Code may be taken to the PTC for consideration and recommendation. SOFA 2 Plan Area Policies and Programs: Within the SOFA 2 Plan Area are several sites within the Downtown Assessment District. The City of Palo Alto Page 9 sites are located north of Forest Avenue, between Alma and Emerson Streets. The SOFA 2 Code allows for parking reductions and exemptions. Residential Transition (RT) zoned sites in the SOFA 2 area are allowed to participate in the City’s TDR program, to transfer bonus floor area achieved via historic and seismic rehabilitations to CD zoned receiver sites as well as within the SOFA 2 area and the same parking exemptions are currently available for bonus floor area generated in the SOFA 2 area. The SOFA 2 regulations and policies related to incentives for bonus floor area may need to be reviewed in light of the proposed ordinances, following Council action on the proposed ordinances. Policy Implications The Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan contains a primary goal regarding parking to provide attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities. To implement this goal, Policy T-45 states: “Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business district to address long-range needs.” The proposed changes to the zoning regulations to eliminate some of the exemptions to the existing parking requirements improve parking availability in these areas and be would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (Refer to Attachment G, Transportation Element Goals and Policies regarding Parking). The Land Use and Natural and Urban Environment Elements contain the following policies and programs which encourage the use of incentives to preserve historic buildings and encourage seismic retrofits. Land Use Element: Policy L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. Program L-59: Allow parking exceptions for historic buildings to encourage rehabilitation. Require design review findings that the historic integrity of the building exterior will be maintained. Program L-60: Continue to use a TDR Ordinance to allow the transfer of development rights from designated buildings of historic significance in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone to non-historic receiver sites in the CD zone. Planned Community (PC) zone properties in the Downtown also qualify for this program. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Program L-66: Revise existing zoning and permit regulations as needed to minimize constraints to adaptive reuse, particularly in retail areas. Natural And Urban Environment Element: Program N-70: Continue to provide incentives for seismic retrofits of structures in the University Avenue/Downtown area. Staff believes the proposed changes remain consistent with the policies above, as historic rehabilitation incentives would still be provided through the provision of additional floor area associated with the TDR program. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance would still allow historic buildings to be renovated and restored and retain their “grandfathered” status. Resource Impact The zoning evaluation work would be done within the currently approved work program of the Planning and Community Environment Department. Timeline The Ordinance establishing the moratorium on the use of Parking Exemptions within the Downtown and California Avenue Parking Assessment areas will expire on December 28, 2013. In order for these provisions to stay in effect the permanent ordinance will need to be adopted by the City Council 31 days prior to the expiration. City Council action on an Ordinance requires two actions, an introduction of the ordinance and a second reading. It is proposed that the council hearings be scheduled in October and November, 2013. Environmental Review The proposed Ordinances eliminate certain exemptions to the parking regulations within the Downtown and California Avenue areas of the City of Palo Alto, which will result in projects that will comply with the remaining parking regulations established in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Further, each individual project submitted under the revised regulations will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, these ordinances are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that these proposed ordinances will have a minor impact on existing facilities. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance for Elimination of 1 to 1 Parking Exemption (DOCX) Attachment B - Interim Ordinance to Eliminate Certain Parking Exemptions within the Downtown Area (DOCX) Attachment C - 10.15.12.Council Report Downtown Parking (PDF) Attachment D - 10.15.12 Council Minutes (PDF) Attachment E - 12.10.12 Council Report Downtown Parking (PDF) Attachment F - 12.10.12 Council Minutes (PDF) Attachment G - Transportation Element Parking Goals & Policies (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 4082) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/21/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Adoption of Ordinances for New Building Codes Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of Eight Ordinances: (1) Repealing Chapter 16.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.04, California Building Code, California Historical Building Code, and California Existing Building Code, 2013 Editions, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; (2) Repealing Chapter 16.05 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.05, California Mechanical Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; (3) Repealing Chapter 16.06 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.06, California Residential Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; (4) Repealing Chapter 16.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.08, California Plumbing Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; (5) Repealing Chapter 16.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.14, California Green Building Standard Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; (6) Repealing Chapter 16.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.16, California Electrical Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; (7) Repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.17, California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings; and (8) Repealing Chapter 15.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 15 to Adopt a new Chapter 15.04, California Fire Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation City of Palo Alto Page 2 Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and then adopt the attached eight ordinances adopting, by reference, the various parts of the 2013 California Building Standards Code (CBSC), Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (described further in the “Background” section of this report). Seven of the ordinances also contain proposed local amendments to the State model codes, along with the necessary findings of fact supporting each local amendment. Executive Summary Every three years, the State of California adopts new building standards that are codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, referred to as the California Building Standards Code. Upon publication of the new Building Standards Code, local jurisdictions are allowed 180 days within which to amend the model State codes to enact more stringent local building standards. Such local amendments to the model State codes must be supported with findings that are based on unique local climatic, geologic and topographic conditions. To adopt the model State codes and local amendments, a public hearing must be held after which the various ordinances containing the proposed local amendments and findings for each part of the Building Standards Code can be passed. This report explains the process for adoption of the 2013 California Building Standards Code that will become effective statewide on January 1, 2014 and summarizes the proposed local amendments. Background The eight ordinances are described below: 1. Ordinance repealing Chapter 16.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and amending Title 16 to adopt a new Chapter 16.04, California Building Code, California Historical Building Code, and California Existing Building Code, 2013 Editions, and Local Amendments and Related Findings – The California Building Code (CBC) is the fundamental building code within the State of California that regulates most new building construction and is based on the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), written by the International Code Council (ICC), as amended by the California Building Standards Commission. The 2013 California Historical Building Code (CHBC) is unique to California and prescribes building standards for designated historic structures aimed at balancing the goals of historic preservation with life, safety and accessibility concerns when the provisions of the regular building code cannot be achieved. The 2013 California Existing Building Code (CEBC) is based on the 2012 International Existing Building Code, also written by the ICC, as amended by the Building Standards Commission. Similar to the CHBC, the CEBC prescribes alternative building standards for repairs to existing structures when the provisions of the regular code cannot be achieved. City of Palo Alto Page 3 2. Ordinance repealing Chapter 16.05 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and amending Title 16 to adopt a new Chapter 16.05, California Mechanical Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings – The California Mechanical Code (CMC) is based on the 2012 Uniform Mechanical Code (UMC), written by the International Association of Plumbing & Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), as amended by the Building Standards Commission, and prescribes standards for mechanical heating, ventilating and cooling systems, and appurtenant equipment, within buildings. 3. Ordinance repealing Chapter 16.06 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and amending Title 16 to adopt a new Chapter 16.06, California Residential Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings – The California Residential Code (CRC) is based on the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) which is written by the International Code Council, as amended by the Building Standards Commission. The Residential Code is a simplified version of the Building Code and prescribes building standards for low-rise (one and two-story), single and two-family dwelling units. 4. Ordinance repealing Chapter 16.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and amending Title 16 to adopt a new Chapter 16.08, California Plumbing Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings – The California Plumbing Code (CPC) is based on the 2012 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), also written by the IAPMO, as amended by the Building Standards Commission, and prescribes standards for water and wastewater distribution systems, and appurtenant equipment, within buildings. 5. Ordinance repealing Chapter 16.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and amending Title 16 to adopt a new Chapter 16.14, California Green Building Standard Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings – The California Green Building Standard Code (Cal Green) is unique to California. It is not based upon a model code nor adopted by reference. The purpose of Cal Green is to improve public health, safety and general welfare through enhancement of design and construction of buildings using building concepts reducing negative impacts or having positive environmental impacts and encouraging sustainable construction practices. As such, Cal Green along with City of Palo Alto amendments, applies to planning, design, operation, construction, use and occupancy of residential and non-residential construction. 6. Ordinance repealing Chapter 16.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and amending Title 16 to adopt a new Chapter 16.16, California Electrical Code, 2013 Edition– The 2013 California Electrical Code (CEC) is based on the 2011 National Electrical Code, written by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), as amended by the Building Standards Commission, and prescribes standards for electrical supply and operating systems and appurtenant equipment within buildings. 7. Ordinance repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and amending Title 16 to adopt a new Chapter 16.17, California Energy Code, 2013 Edition– The 2013 California Energy Code is unique to California. It is not based upon a model code nor adopted by reference. The California Energy Commission (CEC) is the state’s primary energy policy and planning agency. As such, the CEC adopts regulations to establish the minimum level of City of Palo Alto Page 4 energy efficiency a heated or cooled structure must meet or exceed. The 2013 code will continue to improve upon the current 2008 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. These Standards will help save Palo Alto residents money on their utility bills, keep them comfortable in their homes, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through better, more efficient buildings. 8. Ordinance repealing Chapter 15.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and amending Title 15 to Adopt a new Chapter 15.04, California Fire Code, 2013 Edition – The 2013 California Fire Code is based on the 2012 International Fire Code. The 2013 code improves upon the 2010 Standards for reducing hazards, increasing fire life safety, and property preservation. Most local amendments are derived from the collaborative efforts of the County Fire Marshal’s Association. Discussion Typically, a new edition of the CBSC is published and adopted by the State of California every three years, based substantially on the model uniform codes. Palo Alto last adopted new building codes in 2010. This year, the Building Standards Commission adopted and published a new edition of the CBSC based on the 2012 IBC and updated versions of other model codes. The new CBSC will become effective statewide on January 1, 2014, as published, unless local jurisdictions adopt more stringent amendments in accordance with State law. Generally, the local amendment process requires local authorities to make specific findings to support each local amendment, based on climatic, geologic or topographic conditions that are unique to each jurisdiction. For Palo Alto’s proposed local amendments, these findings of fact are attached to each Ordinance where applicable. Many of the proposed local amendments to the 2013 California Building and Residential Codes are administrative in nature and are intended to maintain consistency with other provisions of the Municipal Code and reflect the City’s current policies and practices dealing with building code enforcement. The proposed local amendments that are technical in nature have been developed in concert with building officials, fire chiefs and code consultants from throughout the region to promote consistency across jurisdictions. A number of these amendments address aspects of the CBC or IRC that would otherwise allow less restrictive building design and construction practices than what currently exists, particularly with respect to structural analysis and seismic safety. Additionally, new repair and reconstruction standards are proposed for incorporation into the Building Code to meet the Federal Emergency Management Association’s (FEMA’s) eligibility requirements for post-disaster funding assistance for repairs to public and private non-profit-owned buildings damaged in disasters. Other amendments to both the Building and Residential Codes ensure consistency with provisions of the 2013 California Fire Code that is being adopted concurrent with these codes. City of Palo Alto Page 5 A few local amendments are proposed to the 2013 California Electrical and Mechanical Codes that take into account climatic and geological uniqueness of Palo Alto while several are proposed to the Plumbing Code. These Plumbing Code amendments are intended to promote consistency with Palo Alto’s Sewer Use Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 16.09) and support the City’s efforts to reduce copper and other heavy metal discharges from the Wastewater Treatment Plant, in addition to water conservation, (e.g. the prohibition of single-pass cooling systems). The development of the Cal Green Code is intended to, cause a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; and (3) reduce energy and water consumption. Local amendments to the 2013 California Fire Code are recommended primarily in the areas of provision of site maps for fire permit final, clarifications relating to smoke detectors and fire sprinklers and regulations pertaining to holiday haunted houses. According to the Building Standards Commission, adoption of the new state model codes will also increase the insurance industry’s Building Code Effectiveness Grading for California communities, which insurance companies can then use to grant premium credits for buildings constructed and enforced under the latest codes. These ratings were downgraded in prior years because California had not adopted the latest model codes. Conclusion Consistent with State law, the California Codes will go into effect in Palo Alto on January 1, 2014, unless amended by local ordinance adopted prior to January 1. Thus, Palo Alto’s local amendments will be effective on January 1, 2014, when the model codes will otherwise go into effect statewide. Prior to the effective date, Building Division staff will undergo comprehensive training on the new codes and an outreach and public education effort aimed at the design and construction sectors that regularly work in Palo Alto will be implemented. Resource Impact Resource impacts from the adoption of these ordinances are limited to staff training costs, purchasing copies of the new codes and implementation of public outreach efforts. Policy Implications The State of California mandates enforcement of the updated California Building Standards Code and it will go into effect regardless of the City’s action or lack of action. The City does have discretion to adopt local amendments to the CBSC, which must be effective by January 1, 2014. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Environmental Review This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A: ORD 2013 CA Building Code (PDF) Attachment B: ORD 2013 CA Energy Code (PDF) Attachment C: ORD 2013 CA Green Building Standards Code (PDF) Attachment D: ORD 2013 CA Plumbing Code (PDF) Attachment E: ORD 2013 CA Residential Code (PDF) Attachment F: ORD 2013 California Electrical Code (PDF) Attachment G: ORD 2013 California Mechanical Code (PDF) Attachment H: ORD 2013 California Fire Code (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 16.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.04, California Building Code, California Historical Building Code, and California Existing Building Code, 2013 Editions, and Local Amendments and Related Findings The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety and adopting a new Chapter 16.04 to read as follows: 16.04.010 2013 California Building Code adopted. The California Building Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations, together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2010, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013. Ordinance No. 5099 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. Wherever the phrases “California Building Code” or “Building Code’ are used in this code or any ordinance of the City, such phrases shall be deemed and construed to refer and apply to the California Building Code, 2013 Edition, as adopted by this chapter. One copy of the California Building Code, 2013 Edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.04.020 2013 California Building Code Appendix Chapters adopted. The following Appendix Chapter of the California Building Code, 2013 Edition, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein: A. Appendix I – Patio Covers 16.04.030 Cross - References to California Building Code. NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 2 The provisions of this Chapter contain cross-references to the provisions of the California Building Code, 2013 Edition, in order to facilitate reference and comparison to those provisions. 16.04.040 Section 1.11.2.1.1 Duties and powers of the enforcing agency/Enforcement is amended to read the following: 1.11.2.1.1 The responsibility for enforcement of building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal and published in the California Building Standards Code relating to fire and panic safety and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal shall, except as provided in Section 1.11.2.1.2, be as follows: 1. The city, county or city and county with jurisdiction in the area affected by the standard or regulation shall delegate the enforcement of the building standards relating to fire and panic safety and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal as they relate to Group R-3 occupancies, as described in Section 310.1 of Part 2 of the California Building Standards Code, to both enforcement divisions specific to their areas of enforcement disciplines: 1.1 The chief of the fire authority of the city, county or city and county, or an authorized representative and; 1.2. The chief building official of the city, county or city and county, or an authorized representative. 16.04.050 Violations -- Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. When the building official determines that a violation of this chapter or chapters 16.05, 16.06, 16.08, 16.14, 16.16 or 16.17 of this code has occurred, he/she may record a notice of pendency of code violation with the Office of the County Recorder stating the address and owner of the property involved. When the violation has been corrected, the building official shall issue and record a release of the notice of pendency of code violation. 16.04.060 Enforcement -- Citation authority. The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2) building inspection supervisor; and (3) code enforcement officer. 16.04.70 Local Amendments. NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 3 The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the California Building Code, 2013 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross- referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter. 16.04.080 Section 105.1.3 Demolition permits of Chapter 1 Division II is added to read: 105.1.3 Demolition permits. In addition to other requirements of law, every person seeking a permit to demolish a unit used for residential rental purposes shall furnish an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury that the unit proposed to be demolished is vacant, or that notice to vacate has been given to each tenant lawfully in possession thereof as required by law or by the terms of such tenancy. No work or demolition shall begin upon any portion of such a unit until each and every portion has been vacated by all tenants lawfully in possession thereof. 16.04.90 Section 105.5 Expiration. Section 105.5 of Division II is amended to read: 105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized on the site by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. The chief building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each and may require; 1) that the construction documents be revised to partially or fully comply with current codes, and 2) payment of a fee. Extensions shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. For the purpose of this section, failure to progress a project to the next level of required inspection shall be deemed to be suspension of the work. 16.04.100 Section 109.6 Refunds of Chapter 1 Division II Administration is amended to read: 109.6 Refunds The building official or the permit center manager may authorize the refund of any fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected. The building official or the permit center manager may authorize the refund of not more than eighty percent (80%) of the Permit Fee paid when no work has occurred under a permit issued pursuant to this Chapter. The building official or the permit center manager may authorize the refund of not more than eighty percent (80%) of the Plan Review Fee paid when a permit application is withdrawn or canceled before any plan review work has started. 16.04.110 Section 109.7 Re-Inspection Fees of chapter 1 Division II Administration is added to read: NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 4 109.7 Re-Inspection Fees. A Re-Inspection Fee may be assessed/authorized by the building official or the building inspection supervisor for each re-inspection required when work for which an inspection is requested is not ready for inspection or when required corrections noted during prior inspections have not been completed. A “Re- Inspection Fee” may be assessed/authorized when; 1. The inspection record card is not posted or otherwise available on the work site, 2. The approved plans are not readily available for the inspector at the time of inspection, 3. The inspector is unable to access the work at the time of inspection, or; 4. When work has substantially deviated from the approved plans without the prior approval of the building official. 5. When a Re-Inspection Fee is assessed, additional inspection of the work will not be performed until the fee has been paid. 16.04.120 Section 110.3.3 Lowest Floor Elevation of chapter 1 Division II Administration is amended to read: 110.3.3 Lowest Floor Elevation. In flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to further vertical construction, the elevation certification shall be submitted to City Public Works Engineering for inspection approval prior to foundation inspection by City Building Inspection. 16.04.130 Section 111.1 of Division II – Use and occupancy. Section 111.1 of Division II of the California Building Code is amended to read: 111.1 Use and occupancy. No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made, until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. 1. Exception: Certificates of occupancy are not required for work exempt from permits under Section 105.2 and: 2. Group R – Division 3 occupancies 3. Group U occupancies 111.1.1 Change of occupancy or tenancy. Each change of occupancy, official name or tenancy of any building, structure or portion thereof, shall require a new certificate of occupancy, whether or not any alterations to the building are required by this code. If a portion of any building does not conform to the requirements of this code for a proposed occupancy, that portion shall be made to conform. The building NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 5 official may issue a new certificate of occupancy without requiring compliance with all such requirements if it is determined that the change in occupancy or tenancy will result in no increased hazard to life or limb, health, property or public welfare. When application is made for a new certificate of occupancy under this section, the building official and fire chief shall cause an inspection of the building to be made. The inspector(s) shall inform the applicant of those alterations necessary, or if none are necessary, and shall submit a report of compliance to the building official. Before any application for a new certificate of occupancy is accepted, a fee shall be paid by the applicant to cover the cost of the inspection of the building required by the change of occupancy or tenancy. 16.04.140 Section 111.3 of Division II – Temporary occupancy. Section 111.3 of Division II of the California Building Code is amended to read: 111.3 Temporary occupancy. The building official is authorized to issue a temporary certificate of occupancy before the completion of the entire work covered by the permit, or as otherwise required, provided that such portion or portions shall be occupied safely. The building official shall set a time period during which the temporary certificate of occupancy is valid. 16.04.150 Section 111.5 of Division II – Posting. Section 111.5 of Division II is added to the California Building Code to read: 111.5 Posting. The certificate of occupancy shall be posted in a conspicuous, readily accessible place in the building or portion of building to be occupied and shall not be removed except when authorized by the building official. 16.04.160 Section 702A amended – Definitions (Wild Land-Urban Interface Fire Area). Section 702A (Wild Land-Urban Interface Fire Area) of the California Building Code is amended to read: WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREA is a geographical area identified by the State of California as a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone” in accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 4201 through 4202 and Government Code Sections 51175 through 51189, or other areas designated by the enforcing agency to be at a significant risk from wildfires. Within the city limits of the City of Palo Alto, “Wild Land-Urban Fire Interface Area” shall also include all areas west of Interstate 280, and all other areas recommended as a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” by the Director of the California Department of Forestry. NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 6 16.04.170 Section 902.1 amended – Definitions. Section 902.1 of the California Building Code is amended to include the following definitions: DUAL SENSOR PHOTOELECTRIC/IONIZATION SMOKE DETECTOR OR ALARM. A smoke alarm or detector that utilizes both photoelectric and ionization methods in a single device. DUAL SENSOR CARBON MONOXIDE AND SMOKE ALARM. A combination carbon monoxide and smoke alarm or detector that senses both smoke and CO in a single device. IONIZATION SMOKE DETECTOR OR ALARM. A smoke alarm or detector that uses a small amount of radioactive material to detect invisible particles generated by flame. PHOTOELECTRIC SMOKE DETECTOR OR ALARM. A smoke alarm or detector that uses a light-source to detect the presence of smoke. 16.04.180 Section 903.2 – Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Where Required. Section 903.2 of the California Building Code is amended to read as follows: 903.2 Automatic sprinkler systems, where required. Approved a utomatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures and in existing modified buildings and structures, shall be provided in the locations described in this section. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed per the requirements set forth in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 and as follows, whichever is the more restrictive: For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. 1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings and structures. Exception: Group A,B,E,F,I,L,M,S and U occupancy buildings or structures that do not exceed 1,000 square feet of building area. 2. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for all existing buildings or structures where modifications have been determined by the Building Official to trigger requirements for seismic retrofit. 3. Any change in the character of the occupancy or in the use of any building with a Building Area equal to or greater than 3,600 square feet which in the NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 7 opinion of the fire chief or building official would place the building into a more hazardous division of the same occupancy group or into a different group of occupancies and constitutes a greater degree of life safety*, or increased fire risk**, shall require the installation of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Definition only but not limited to: Life Safety – Increased occupant load, public assembly areas, public meeting areas, churches, indoor amusement attractions, building with complex exiting system due to increased occupant loads, large schools/day-care facilities, large residential care facilities with non- ambulatory clients. Fire Risks – High piled combustible storage, woodworking operations, hazardous operations using hazardous materials, increased fuel loads (storage of moderate to highly combustible materials), increased sources of ignition (welding, automotive repair with the used of flammable liquids and open flame). 4. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing buildings when modifications are made that create conditions described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18, or that create an increase in fire area to more than 4100 square feet or modifications are equal to or greater than 100% of existing square footage of building area, whichever is more restrictive.. 5. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new basements regardless of size and throughout existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%. 6. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings located in the designated Wild Land-Urban Interface areas. Exception: Any non-residential accessory structures to single family residences that have a fire area of 500 square feet or less. 7. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing buildings located in the designated Wild Land-Urban Interface areas when modifications are made that increases the fire area. Exception: One-time additions to existing buildings made after January 1, 1994 that do not exceed 500 square feet in fire area. 16.04.185 Section 903.3.1.1 NFPA sprinkler systems. NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 8 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 sprinkler systems. Where the provisions of this code require that a building or portion thereof be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with this section, sprinklers shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13 and State and local requirements except as provided in Section 903.3.1.1.1. 1. For new buildings having no designated use or tenant, the minimum sprinkler design density shall be Ordinary Hazard Group 2. Where future use or tenant is determined to require a higher density, the sprinkler system shall be augmented to meet the higher density. 16.04.190 Section 903.3.1.2 – NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Section 903.3.1.2 of the California Building Code is amended to read as follows: 903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Where allowed in buildings of Group R, up to and including four stories in height , automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R and State and local standards. 16.04.200 Section 903.3.1.2.2 – Attics and usable crawl spaces. Section 903.3.1.2.2 is added to the California Building Code to read as follows: 903.3.1.2.2 Attics and usable crawl spaces. Attics and usable under-floor spaces including crawl spaces shall be fully protected to residential or light hazard density as appropriate for the slope of the ceiling and configuration of framing. 16.04.210 Section 903.3.1.3 – NFPA 13D sprinkler systems. Section 903.3.1.3 of the California Building Code is amended to read as follows: 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D sprinkler systems. Where allowed, automatic sprinkler systems installed in one-and two-family dwellings and townhouses shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D and State and local standards. 16.04.220 Section 903.3.1.3.1 - Garages and attics. Section 903.3.1.3.1 is added to the California Building Code to read as follows: 903.3.1.3.1 Garages and attics. Garages, including Group U occupancies, shall be fully protected with sprinklers designed for residential density calculated with four (4) sprinklers flowing. Attics shall be fully protected to residential density or light hazard as appropriate for the slope of ceiling and configuration n of framing. Exception: Non-usable attics in one-and two-family dwellings not located NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 9 in the Wild Land Urban Interface area may be provided with an intermediate temperature pilot sprinkler above the attic scuttle and above any heat producing equipment in lieu of complete attic protection meeting the requirements above. 16.04.230 Section 903.3.7 - Fire department connections. Section 903.3.7 of the California Building Code is amended to read as follows: 903.3.7 Fire department connections. Sprinkler systems shall be equipped with a minimum two-way Siamese Fire Department connection. Connections shall be located on a street front not less than three (3) feet or more than four (4) feet above grade and shall be equipped with an approved straightway check valve. Locations shall be subject to approval by the Fire Chief prior to any installation. Exception: Automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with the NFPA standards 13-D for one- and two-family dwellings in the designated Wild Land-Urban Interface areas, and 13-R for multi-family dwellings throughout the City Palo Alto, may have a single 2-1/2-inch connection with approved straightway check valve. 16.04.240 Section 903.4.3 - Floor control valves. Section 903.4.3 of the California Building Code is amended to read as follows: 903.4.3 Floor control valves. Automatic sprinkler systems serving buildings two (2) or more stories in height shall have valves installed so as to control the system independently on each floor including basements. Exception: Buildings not over three (3) stories in height containing only R-3 occupancies, or with 10,000 square feet or less above the first story. Floor control valves shall be protected from tampering by installation in lockable enclosures or as approved by the chief. Floor control valve assemblies shall be provided with a flow switch and drain connections. 16.04.250 Section 907.2.11 - Single- and multiple-station smoke alarms. Section 907.2.11 of the California Building Code is amended to read as follows: 907.2.11 Single- and multiple-station smoke alarms. Listed single- and multiple-station smoke alarms complying with UL217 shall be installed in accordance with Sections 907.2.11.1 through 907.2.11.5 and manufacturers installation and use instructions. Smoke alarms more than 10 years old shall not be considered as satisfying any requirement of this code or subject to the provisions of the Health and Safety NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 10 Code and shall be immediately replaced by the owner with a smoke alarm that complies with this section. Smoke alarms and smoke detectors installed on or after January 1, 2014in compliance with this code or subject to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code shall also either be listed and approved for enhanced nuisance resistance and rapid response to smoldering synthetic materials or shall meet the following requirements: 1. Smoke detectors or smoke alarms located within 20 feet of a kitchen, or a room containing a cooking appliance, wood burning fireplace or stove shall be photoelectric detectors or alarms. 2. In all other required locations dual sensor photoelectric/ionization detectors or alarms, shall be installed. A photoelectric smoke detector or alarm installed together with an ionization smoke detectors or alarms may be used as a substitute for a dual sensor photoelectric/ionization detector or alarm. Exception: For Group R occupancies. A fire alarm or other approved system with interconnected photoelectric smoke detectors or alarms located in accordance with, and meeting the requirements of, this section may be installed. Upon the actuation of a smoke detector or alarm, only those notification appliances or alarms in the dwelling unit or guest room where the detector is actuated shall activate. 16.04.260 Section 1206.3.4 – Roof guardrails at interior courts. Section 1206.3.4 is added to the California Building Code to read: 1206.3.4 Roof guardrails at interior courts. Roof openings into interior courts that are bounded on all sides by building walls shall be protected with guardrails. The top of the guardrail shall not be less than 42 inches in height above the adjacent roof surface that can be walked on. Intermediate rails shall be designed and spaced such that a 12 inch diameter sphere cannot pass through. Exception: Where the roof opening is greater than 600 square feet in area. 16.04.270 Section 1505.1.4 Roofing requirements in a Wild Land-Urban Interface Fire Area. Section 1505.1.4 of the California Building Code is amended to read: 1505.1.4 Roofing requirements in a Wild Land-Urban Interface Fire Area. The entire roof covering on new structures and existing structures on which more NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 11 than 50 percent of the total roof area is replaced within any one-year period, and any roof covering applied in the alteration, repair or replacement of roofs on existing structures, shall be a fire-retardant roof covering that is at least Class A. Roofing requirements for structures located in a Wild Land-Urban Interface Fire Area shall also comply with Section 705.A. 16.04.280 Section 1612.1.1 - Palo Alto Flood Hazard Regulations. Section 1612.1.1 is added to the California Building Code to read: 1612.1.1 Palo Alto Flood Hazard Regulations. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1612.1, all construction or development within a flood hazard area (areas depicted as a Special Flood Hazard Area on Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency) shall comply with the City of Palo Alto Flood Hazard Regulations (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.52). Where discrepancies exist between the requirements of this code and said regulations, the provisions of said regulations shall apply. 16.04.290 Section 1705.3 Concrete Construction. Section 1705.3 of the California Building Code is amended to read: 1705.3 Concrete construction. The special inspections and verifications for concrete construction shall be as required by this section and Table 1705.3. Exception: Special inspections shall not be required for: 1. Isolated spread concrete footings of buildings three stories or less above grade plane that are fully supported on earth or rock, where the structural design of the footing is based on a specified compressive strength, f’c, no greater than 2,500 pound per square inch (psi). 2. Continuous concrete footings supporting walls of buildings three stories or less above grade plane that are fully supported on earth or rock where: 2.1. The footings support walls of light-frame construction; 2.2. The footings are designed in accordance with Table 1809.7; or 2.3. The structural design of the footing is based on a specified compressive strength, f ′c, no greater than 2,500 pounds per square inch (psi) (17.2 MPa), regardless of the compressive strength specified in the construction documents or used in the footing construction. 3. Nonstructural concrete slabs supported directly on the ground, including pre- stressed slabs on grade, where the effective pre-stress in the concrete is less than 150 psi (1.03 MPa). 4. Concrete foundation walls constructed in accordance with Table 1807.1.6.2. 5. Concrete patios, driveways and sidewalks, on grade. 16.04.300 Table 1809.7 Prescriptive Footings Supporting Walls of Light-Frame Construction. NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 12 Table 1809.7 of the California Building Code is amended to read: TABLE 1809.7 Prescriptive Footings Supporting Walls of Light-Frame Constructionabcd Number of Floors Supported by the Footing e Thickness of Foundation Wall (inches) Width of Footing (inches) Thickness of Footing (inches) Depth of Foundation Below Natural Surface of Ground or Finish Grade (inches) 1&2 8 15 8 20 3 8 18 8 30 Group U Occupancies 8 12 8 12 a. The ground under the floor shall be permitted to be excavated to the elevation of the top of the footing. b. Interior stud-bearing walls shall be permitted to be supported by isolated footings. The footing width and length shall be twice the width shown in this table, and footings shall be spaced not more than 6 feet on center. c. See Section 1905 for additional requirements for concrete footings of structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F. d. All foundations as required in the above Table shall be continuous and have a minimum of three #4 bars of reinforcing steel, except for one story, detached accessory buildings of Group U occupancy where two bars are required. e. Footings shall be permitted to support a roof in addition to the stipulated number of floors. Footings supporting roof only shall be as required for supporting one floor. 16.04.310 Section 2308.9.3 Bracing. Section 2308.9.3 of the California Building Code is amended to read: 2308.9.3 Bracing. Braced wall lines shall consist of braced wall panels that meet the requirements for location, type and amount of bracing as shown in Figure 2308.9.3, specified in Table 2308.9.3(1) and are in line or offset from each other by not more than 4 feet (1219 mm). Braced wall panels shall start not more than 121/2 feet (3810 mm) from each end of a braced wall line. Braced wall panels shall be clearly indicated on the plans. Construction of braced wall panels shall be by one of the following methods: NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 13 1. Wood boards of 5/8 inch (15.9 mm) net minimum thickness applied diagonally on studs spaced not over 24 inches (610 mm) o.c. 2. Wood structural panel sheathing with a thickness not less than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) for 16-inch (406 mm) or 24-inch (610 mm) stud spacing in accordance with Tables 2308.9.3(2) and 2308.9.3(3). 3. Fiberboard sheathing panels not less than 1/2 inch (12.7 mm) thick applied vertically or horizontally on studs spaced not over 16 inches (406 mm) o.c. where installed with fasteners in accordance with Section 2306.6 and Table 2306.6. 4. Particleboard wall sheathing panels where installed in accordance with Table 2308.9.3(4). 5. Portland cement plaster on studs spaced 16 inches (406 mm) o.c. installed in accordance with Section 2510. 6. Hardboard panel siding where installed in accordance with Section 2303.1.6 and Table 2308.9.3(5). For cripple wall bracing, see Section 2308.9.4.1. For all methods above, each panel must be at least 48 inches (1219 mm) in length, covering three stud spaces where studs are spaced 16 inches (406 mm) apart and covering two stud spaces where studs are spaced 24 inches (610 mm) apart. 16.04.320 Section 2308.12.5 Attachment of sheathing. Section 2308.12.5 of the California Building Code is amended to read: 2308.12.5 Attachment of sheathing. Fastening of braced wall panel sheathing shall not be less than that prescribed in Table 2308.12.4 or 2304.9.1. Wall sheathing shall not be attached to framing members by adhesives. All braced wall panels shall extend to the roof sheathing and shall be attached to parallel roof rafters or blocking above with framing clips (18 gauge minimum) spaced at maximum 24 inches on center with four 8d nails per leg (total eight-8d nails per clip). Braced wall panels shall be laterally braced at each top corner and at maximum 24 inch intervals along the top plate of discontinuous vertical framing. 16.04. 310 Section 3404.7 – Suspended ceiling systems. Section 3404.7 is added to the California Building Code to read: 3404.7 Suspended ceiling systems. In existing buildings or structures, when a permit is issued for alterations or repairs, the existing suspended ceiling system within the area of the alterations or repairs shall comply with ASCE 7-10 Section 13.5.6. 16.04.330 Section 3405.2.1 – Seismic Evaluation and Design Procedures for Repairs. Section 3405.2.1 is deleted and replaced to the California Building Code to read: NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 14 3405.2.1 Evaluation and design procedures. The building shall be evaluated by a registered design professional, and the evaluation findings shall be submitted to the code official. The evaluation shall establish whether the damaged building, if repaired to its pre-damage state, would comply with the provisions of this code for wind and earthquake loads. Evaluation for earthquake loads shall be required if the substantial structural damage was caused by or related to earthquake effects or if the building is in Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F. The seismic evaluation and design shall be based on the procedures specified in the building code, ASCE 41 Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade of Existing Buildings. The procedures contained in Appendix A of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) shall be permitted to be used as specified in Section 3405.2.1.2. Wind loads for this evaluation shall be those prescribed in Section 1609. 3405.2.1.1 CBC level seismic forces. When seismic forces are required to meet the building code level, they shall be one of the following: 1. One hundred percent of the values in the building code. The R factor used for analysis in accordance with Chapter 16 of the building code shall be the R factor specified for structural systems classified as "Ordinary" unless it can be demonstrated that the structural system satisfies the proportioning and detailing requirements for systems classified as "intermediate" or "special". 1. Forces corresponding to BSE-1 and BSE-2 Earthquake Hazard Levels defined in ASCE 41. Where ASCE 41 is used, the corresponding performance levels shall be those shown in Table 3405.2.1.1. TABLE 3405.2.1.1 ASCE 41 PERFORMANCE LEVELS RISK CATEGORY (BASED ON CBC TABLE 1604.5) PERFORMANCE LEVEL FOR USE WITH ASCE 41 BSE-1 EARTHQUAKE HAZARD LEVEL PERFORMANCE LEVEL FOR USE WITH ASCE 41 BSE-2 EARTHQUAKE HAZARD LEVEL * I Life Safety (LS) Collapse Prevention (CP) II Life Safety (LS) Collapse Prevention (CP) III Damage Control Limited Safety IV Immediate Occupancy (IO) Life Safety (LS) * Only applicable when Tier 3 procedure is used. 3405.2.1.2 Reduced CBC level seismic forces. When seismic forces are permitted to meet reduced building code levels, they shall be one of the following: 1. Seventy-five percent of the forces prescribed in the building code. The R factor used for analysis in accordance with Chapter 16 of the building code shall be the R factor as specified in Section 3405.2.1.1. NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 15 2. In accordance with the California Existing Building Code and applicable chapters in Appendix A of the International Existing Building Code, as specified in Items a. through e. below. Structures or portions of structures that comply with the requirements of the applicable chapter in Appendix A shall be deemed to comply with the requirements for reduced building code force levels. a. The seismic evaluation and design of unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings in Risk Category I or II are permitted to be based on the procedures specified in Appendix Chapter A1 of CEBC. b. Seismic evaluation and design of the wall anchorage system in reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry wall buildings with flexible diaphragms in Risk Category I or II are permitted to be based on the procedures specified in Appendix Chapter A2 of IEBC. c. Seismic evaluation and design of cripple walls and sill plate anchorage in residential buildings of light-frame wood construction in Risk Category I or II are permitted to be based on the procedures specified in Appendix Chapter A3 of IEBC. d. Seismic evaluation and design of soft, weak, or open-front wall conditions in multi-unit residential buildings of wood construction in Risk Category I or II are permitted to be based on the procedures specified in Appendix Chapter A4 of IEBC. e. Seismic evaluation and design of concrete buildings and concrete with masonry infill buildings in all risk categories are permitted to be based on the procedures specified in Appendix Chapter A5 of IEBC. 3. Those associated with the BSE-1 Earthquake Hazard Level defined in ASCE 41 and the performance level as shown in Table 3405.2.1.1. Where ASCE 41 is used, the design spectral response acceleration parameters SXS and SX1 shall not be taken less than seventy-five percent of the respective design spectral response acceleration parameters SDS and SD1 defined by the California Building Code and its reference standards. 16.04.340 Reference Standards (CBC Chapter 35) Chapter 35 is amended by adding the following: Standard Referenced Number Title Reference in Code; Section Number ASCE 41-13 Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade of Existing Buildings 3405.2.1, TABLE 3405.2.1.1, 3405.2.1.2 16.04.350 2013 California Historical Building Code adopted. NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 16 The California Historical Building Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 8 (authorized by Health and Safety Code Sections 18950 through 18961), which provides alternative building regulations for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, or relocation of designated historic buildings, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. One copy of the California Historical Building Code, 2013 Edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.04.360 2013 California Existing Building Code adopted. The California Existing Building Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 10, which provides alternative building regulations for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, or relocation of existing buildings, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. One copy of the California Existing Building Code, 2013 Edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. The following portions of International Existing Building Code, 2012 edition or of the appendix thereto, are approved or adopted or incorporated in this Chapter by reference, and shall be deemed to be a part of this Chapter; A. Appendix Chapter A2, Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Reinforced Concrete and Reinforced Masonry Wall Buildings with Flexible Diaphragm. B. Appendix Chapter A4, Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Wood-Frame Residential Buildings with Soft, Weak or Open-Front Walls. C. Appendix Chapter A5, Seismic evaluation and design of concrete buildings and concrete with masonry infill buildings in all risk categories. SECTION 2. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Building Code, 2013 Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. // // // // // // // // // // NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 17 SECTION 4. 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: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 18 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions of the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions of the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970, and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation do not require findings. Code: CBC Section Title Add Amended Justification (See below for keys) 702A Wild Land-Urban Interface Fire Area T 902.1 Definition (Dual Sensor Carbon Monoxide and Smoke Alarm) T 903.2 Where Automatic Sprinklers Required T 903.3.1.1 NFPA 13 Sprinkler Systems T 903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R Sprinkler Systems T 903.3.1.2.2 Attic and Usable Crawl Space T 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D Sprinkler Systems T 903.3.1.3.1 Garages and Attics T 903.3.7 Fire Department Connections T 903.4.3 Floor Control Valves T 907.2.11 Single- and Multiple-Station Smoke Alarms T 1206.3.4 Roof Guardrails at Interior Courts T 1505.1.4 Roof Requirements in a Wild Land- Urban Interface Fire Area C, T NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 19 1612.1.1 Palo alto Flood Hazard Regulations C, T 1705.3 Concrete Construction G Table 1809.7 Prescriptive Footings Supporting Walls of Light Frame Construction G 2308.9.3 Bracing G 2308.12.5 Attachment of Sheathing G 3404.7 Suspended Ceiling Systems G 3405.2.1 Evaluation and Design Procedures T Appendix I Patio Covers C Code: IEBC Chapter Title Add Amended Justification (See below for keys) A2 Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Reinforced Concrete and Reinforced Masonry Wall Buildings with Flexible Diaphragm G A4 Prescriptive Provisions for Seismic Strengthening of Cripple Walls and Sill Plate Anchorage of Lights, Wood- Frame Residential Buildings G A5 Seismic evaluation and design of concrete buildings and concrete with masonry infill buildings in all risk categories G NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131138 20 Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is required. C G T This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. Also the City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is warranted. NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131139 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.17, California Energy Code, 2013 Edition The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety and adopting a new Chapter 16.17 to read as follows: 16.17 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 16.17.010 2013 California Energy Code adopted. The California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2008, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013 Ordinance No. 5064 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. One copy of the California Energy Code, 2013 edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.17.020 Violations -- Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. 16.17.030 Enforcement -- Citation authority. The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2) building inspection supervisor; and (3) code enforcement officer. NOT YET APPROVED 131002 jb 0131139 2 SECTION2. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION3. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of 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: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 1 131002 jb 0131140 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a New Chapter 16.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Green Building Standards Code 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety Chapter 16.14 and adopting a new Chapter 16.14 to read as follows: 16.14.010 2013 California Green Building Standards Code adopted. The California Green Building Standards Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations, together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2010, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013. Ordinance No. 5107 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. Wherever the phrases “California Green Building Standards Code” or “Cal Green” are used in this code or any ordinance of the City, such phrases shall be deemed and construed to refer and apply to the California Green Building Standards Code, 2013 Edition, as adopted by this chapter. One copy of the California Green Building Standards Code, 2013 Edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.14.020 2013 California Green Building Standards Code Appendix Chapters adopted. The following Appendix Chapters of the California Green Building Standards Code, 2013 Edition, are adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein: A. Appendix A4 - Residential Voluntary Measures (Sections A4.105 and A4.408 only) B. Appendix A5 – Nonresidential Voluntary Measures (Tier 1 and Tier 2) 16.14.030 Cross - References to California Green Building Standards Code. The provisions of this Chapter contain cross-references to the provisions of the California Green Building Standards Code, 2013 Edition, in order to facilitate reference and comparison to those provisions. NOT YET APPROVED 2 131002 jb 0131140 16.14.040 Build It Green Build It Green is a professional non-profit membership organization whose mission is to promote healthy, energy and resource-efficient buildings in California. A Green Point Rated home must meet certain pre-requisites and earn a minimum point requirement in each of the five environmental categories. The points must be verified by a third-party independent Green Point Rater. The most current version of the following checklists are adopted by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein: Green Point Rated New Homes Single Family, Green Point Rated New Homes Multi Family, Green Point Rated Existing Homes Single Family, and Green Point Rated Existing Homes Multi Family, and the rating manuals from which the checklists are derived. 16.14.050 Violations -- Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. 16.14.060 Enforcement -- Citation authority. The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2) building inspection supervisor; (3) Director of Development Services, and (4) Code enforcement officer. 16.14.070 Local Amendments. The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the California Green Building Standards Code, 2013 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross-referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter. 16.14.080 Section 202 amended – Definitions added. Section 202 of the California Green Building Standards Code is amended to include the following definitions: NOT YET APPROVED 3 131002 jb 0131140 BUILD IT GREEN, GREENPOINT RATED. Build It Green is a non-profit organization that administers the Green Point Rated program for the design and construction of environmentally responsive and healthy homes. The program includes a rating system that is third-party verified and includes recognition. DEDICATED IRRIGATION METER. A dedicated irrigation meter is a water meter that exclusively meters water used for outdoor watering and irrigation, and is completely independent from the meter used for indoor water use. HERS II. HERS shall mean the California Home Energy Rating System, a statewide program for residential dwellings administered by the California Energy Commission and defined in the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. HERS Phase I provides field verification and diagnostic testing to show compliance with Title 24, Part 6, of the 2008 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. HERS Phase II includes whole-house home energy efficiency ratings for existing and newly constructed homes. Applicants are not required to achieve a set rating. INVASIVE PLANTS. Invasive plants are both indigenous and non-indigenous species with growth habits that are characteristically aggressive. Invasive plants that are of concern and may be prohibited by this code are defined as such in the “Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS), A Guide to the Water Needs of Landscape Plants,” from the University of California Cooperative Extension. MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. The California ordinance regulating new construction and rehabilitated landscape project design, installation and maintenance. The Model Ordinance assigns a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) based on landscaped area and climatological parameters. The City of Palo Alto has adopted more stringent compliance regulations in this code than the Model Ordinance; however, the Model Ordinance is referenced as the guiding document for water use calculations, irrigation system design, and water waste prevention. PROCESS WATER. Process water means untreated wastewater, uncontaminated by toilet discharge or an unhealthy bodily waste, which is not a threat from unhealthful processing, manufacturing or operating wastes. SALVAGE. Salvage means the controlled removal of construction or demolition debris/ material from a building, construction, or demolition site for the purpose of on- or off- site reuse, or storage for later reuse. Examples include air conditioning and heating systems, columns, balustrades, fountains, gazebos, molding, mantels, pavers, planters, quoins, stair treads, trim, wall caps, bath tubs, bricks, cabinetry, carpet, doors, ceiling fans, lighting fixtures, electrical panel boxes, fencing, fireplaces, flooring materials of wood, marble, stone or tile, furnaces, plate glass, wall mirrors, door knobs, door brackets, door hinges, marble, iron work, metal balconies, structural steel, plumbing NOT YET APPROVED 4 131002 jb 0131140 fixtures, refrigerators, rock, roofing materials, siding materials, sinks, stairs, stone, stoves, toilets, windows, wood fencing, lumber and plywood. SQUARE FOOTAGE. For application of green building requirements, square footage means all new and replacement square footage, including basement areas (7 feet or greater in height) and garages, except that unconditioned garage space shall only count as 50% . Areas demolished shall not be deducted from the total new construction square footage. Square footage may also apply to landscapes, in which case it is the total surface area of the site not covered by impervious surfaces. 16.14.090 Section 303.1.2 Cumulative construction. Section 303.1.2 is added to the California Green Building Standards Code to read: 303.1.2 Cumulative construction. Cumulative construction over any two-year period, or a project completed in phases, shall be considered as a single project, subject to the highest level of green building requirements for that project, unless exempted by the Director of Development Services as impractical for compliance. If a project is developed in phases, such as a core and shell development following by a tenant improvement, regardless of ownership each phase will be subject to the green building requirements which apply to the scope of work constructed as part of that phase. 16.14.100 Chapter 4 Preface: Green building requirements for project type and scope. A preface is added to Chapter 4 of the California Green Building Standards Code to read: Preface – Green Building Requirements for Project Type and Scope For design and construction of residential projects, the City requires use of the Build It Green (BIG), Green Point Rated (GPR) program to comply with the mandatory measures of Chapter 4. 16.14.110 All Residential Building additions and alterations exceeding 1250 square feet must meet Build It Green, Green Point Rated (BIG GPR) minimum requirements and achieve 50 points. 16.14.120 All newly constructed Residential Buildings must achieve BIG GPR minimum requirements and achieve 70 points + 1 point per additional 70 square feet over 2500 square feet. Projects with landscape area greater than 5,000 square feet must claim a minimum of 15 points in water efficiency from the Landscape section of the BIG GPR or show compliance with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 16.14.130 At the completion of construction, a Green Point Rated Certificate of Evaluation must be filed with the City of Palo Alto for all projects requiring Build It Green, Green Point Rating. NOT YET APPROVED 5 131002 jb 0131140 16.14.140 Section A4.105.1 and A4.105.2 Reuse of Materials are adopted and apply to demolition of all Residential Projects. 16.14.150 Section A5.305.2 Recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems is adopted and applies to all projects other than single-family homes in geographic areas within the boundaries of a recycled water project area. All projects other than single-family homes not within the boundaries of a recycled water project area must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation when the landscape area exceeds 1,000 square feet. Dedicated irrigation meters are to be installed in all new construction and rehabilitated landscapes when the landscape is greater than 1,000 square feet. 16.14.160 Section A4.408.1 Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction is adopted at Tier 2 (75% construction waste reduction), and applies to all Residential Projects. 16.14.170 Chapter 5 Preface Green Building Requirements for Project Type and Scope. A Preface is added to Chapter 5 of the California Green Building Standards Code to read: Preface – Green Building Requirements for Project Type and Scope. For design and construction of non-residential projects, the City requires compliance with the mandatory measures of Chapter 5, in addition to use of the Voluntary Tiers. 16.14.180 All new nonresidential construction and additions of 1000 square feet or greater must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. 16.14.190 Section A5.303.5 Dual Plumbing and use of recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing is required for all building projects in geographic areas within the boundaries of a recycled water project area when the building area is greater than 10,000 square feet or where installation of 25 or more toilets and urinals is proposed. All projects not within the boundaries of a recycled water project area must install dual plumbing for use of recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing when the building area exceeds 100,000 square feet or where installation of 100 or more toilets and urinals is proposed. 16.14.200 Tenant improvements, renovations, or alterations of 5,000 square feet that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system must comply with Mandatory California Green Building Standards Code plus Tier 1 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. 16.14.210 Section A5.304.4.1 Potable Water Reduction Tier 1 is adopted and applies to all nonresidential and multi-family residential tenant improvement and renovation construction projects when a landscape area greater than 1,000 square feet is included in the project scope. Documentation is required to demonstrate the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the appropriate evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) designated by the prescribed potable water reduction tier. NOT YET APPROVED 6 131002 jb 0131140 16.14.220 Section A5.304.4.2 Potable Water Reduction Tier 2 is adopted and applies to all nonresidential and multi-family residential new construction projects when a landscape of any size is included in the project scope. Documentation is required to demonstrate the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the appropriate evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) designated by the prescribed potable water reduction tier. 16.14.230 Section A5.305.2 Recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems is adopted and applies to all projects in geographic areas within the boundaries of a recycled water project area. All projects not within the boundaries of a recycled water project area must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation when the landscape area exceeds 1,000 square feet. Dedicated irrigation meters are to be installed in all new construction and rehabilitated landscapes when the landscape is greater than 1,000 square feet. 16.14.240 Section A5.408.3.1.1 Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction - Tier 2 is adopted and applies to all nonresidential construction, including both renovations and new construction, as long as the construction has a valuation exceeding $25,000. 16.14.250 All nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. 16.14.260 Section A5.105.1.3 Salvage is adopted and applies to demolition of all nonresidential projects. 16.14.270 Section A5.408.3.1.1 Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction - Tier 2 is adopted and applies to all nonresidential demolition. 16.14.280 Section 5.106.2 Local storm water pollution prevention. Section 5.106.2 is added to the California Green Building Standards Code to read: Section 5.106.2 Local storm water pollution prevention. Comply with additional storm water pollution prevention measures as applicable. (See Chapter 16.11, Storm water Pollution Prevention, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.) 16.14.290 Section 5.304.3.2 Irrigation efficiency; Sections 5.304.3.2 is added to the California Green Building Standards Code to read: 5.304.3.2 Irrigation efficiency. The irrigation system must meet an efficiency level of 71%, and subsurface and/or low volume irrigation must be used in all areas that exhibit any of these characteristics: less than 8 feet in width, with a slope greater than 25%, setback area within 24 inches of a non-permeable surface. 16.14.300 Section 5.304.3.3 Water waste; Sections 5.304.3.2 is added to the California Green Building Standards Code to read: NOT YET APPROVED 7 131002 jb 0131140 5.304.3.3 Water waste. The irrigation system must be designed and installed to prevent water waste due to overspray, low head drainage, or other conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. 16.14.310 Irrigation scheduling. Overhead irrigation shall be scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the potable water use reduction tier. 16.14.320 Section A5.105.1.3 Salvage. Section A5.105.1.3 of the California Green Building Standards Code is amended to read: A5.105.1.3 Salvage. Salvage structural and non-structural items in good condition such as wood, light fixtures, plumbing fixtures, and doors as follows. Document the weight and number of the items salvaged. 1. Salvage for reuse on the project items that conform to other provisions of Title 24 in an onsite storage area. 2. Nonconforming items may be salvaged in dedicated collection bins for exempt projects or other uses. 16.14.330 Section A5.304.4 Potable water reduction. Section A5.304.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code is amended to read: A5.304.4 Potable water reduction. Provide water efficient landscape irrigation design that reduces the use of potable water beyond the initial requirements for plant installation and establishment in accordance with Section A5.304.4.1 or A5.304.4.2. Calculations for the reduction shall be based on the water budget developed pursuant to section 5.304.1. A5.304.4.1 Do not install invasive plant species. 16.14.340 Section A5.601.3.4 Voluntary measures for California Green Building Standards Code Tier 2. Sub-section 4 of Section A5.601.3.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code is amended to read: 4. From Division A5.5, c) Comply with four elective measures selected from this division. 16.14.350 Performance Reviews -- Energy All projects over 10,000 square feet. The City reserves the right to conduct a performance review, no more frequently than once every five years unless a project fails review, to evaluate NOT YET APPROVED 8 131002 jb 0131140 the building's energy use to ensure that resources used at the building and/or site do not exceed the maximum allowance set forth in the rehabilitation or new construction design. Energy use reviews may be initiated by the Building Division or as a coordinated effort between the City's Utilities Department and/or its designated contractors. Following the findings and recommendations of the review, the City may require adjustments to the energy usage or energy-using equipment or systems if the building is no longer compliant with the original design. Renovation or rehabilitation resulting from such audit activity shall be considered a project, and shall be subject to applicable documentation submittal requirements of the City. This section is effective only for those projects for which a building permit was issued after 01/01/2009. 16.14.360 Performance Reviews -- Water Use All sites greater than one acre. The City reserves the right to conduct performance reviews, no more frequently than once every five years unless a project fails review, to evaluate water use to ensure that resources used at the building and/or site do not exceed a maximum allowance set forth in the rehabilitation or new construction design. Water use reviews may be initiated by the Building Division, or as a coordinated effort between the City's Utilities Department and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), or as part of SCVWD's established water conservation programs. Following the findings and recommendations of the review, the City may require adjustments to irrigation usage, irrigation hardware, and/or landscape materials to reduce consumption and improve efficiency. Renovation or rehabilitation resulting from such audit activity shall be considered a project, and shall be subject to applicable documentation submittal requirements of the City. SECTION 2. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Green Building Standards Code, 2010 Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. // // // // // // NOT YET APPROVED 9 131002 jb 0131140 SECTION 4. 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: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 10 131002 jb 0131140 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARD CODE, 2010 EDITION Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions in the uniform codes that are published in the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions in the uniform codes and published in the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970, and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation, including amendments made only for administrative consistency, do not require findings. Code: Cal Green Section Title Add Deleted Amended Justification (See below for keys) 303.1.2 Cumulative Construction C & E 5.106.2 Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention C 5.304.3.2 Irrigation Efficiency C 5.304.3.3 Water Waste C A4.105 Deconstruction and Reuse of Existing Materials C & E A4.408 Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal and Recycling. E Appendix 5 Non-Residential Voluntary Measures C & E NOT YET APPROVED 11 131002 jb 0131140 Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations C This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is required. Failure to address and significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses, public facilities, and Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), particularly the mapped Flood Hazard areas of the City. Energy efficiency is a key component in reducing GHG emissions, and construction of more energy efficient buildings can help Palo Alto reduce its share of the GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. The burning of fossil fuels used in the generation of electric power and heating of buildings contributes to climate change, which could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses 1 public facilities, and Highway 101. Due to decrease in annual rain fall, Palo Alto experiences the effect of drought and water saving more than some other communities in California. E Green building enhances the public health and welfare by promoting the environmental and economic health of the City through the design, construction, maintenance, operation and deconstruction of buildings and sites by incorporating green practices into all development. The green provisions in this Chapter are designed to achieve the following goals: (a) Increase energy efficiency in buildings; (b) Increase water and resource conservation; (c) Reduce waste generated by construction and demolition projects; (d) Provide durable buildings that are efficient and economical to own and operate; ( e) Promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors to the city; (f) Recognize and conserve the energy embodied in existing buildings; (g) Encourage alternative transportation; and (h) Reduce disturbance of natural ecosystems. G T This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. Also the NOT YET APPROVED 12 131002 jb 0131140 City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is warranted. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131141 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 16.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.08, California Plumbing Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety and adopting a new Chapter 16.08 to read as follows: 16.08 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 16.08.010 2013 California Plumbing Code adopted. The California Plumbing Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 5 of the California Code of Regulations together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2010, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013. Ordinance No. 5102 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. Wherever the phrases "California Mechanical Code" or "Mechanical Code" are used in this code or any ordinance of the City, such phrases shall be deemed and construed to refer and apply to the California Mechanical Code, 2013 Edition, as adopted by this Chapter. One copy of the California Plumbing Code, 2013 edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.08.020 2013 California Plumbing Code Appendix Chapters adopted. The following Appendix Chapters of the California Plumbing Code, 2013 Edition, are adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein: A. Appendix A – Recommended Rules for Sizing the Water Supply System B. Appendix I – Installation Standards 16.08.030 Cross - References to California Plumbing Code. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131141 2 The provisions of this Chapter contain cross-references to the provisions of the California Plumbing Code, 2013 Edition, in order to facilitate reference and comparison to those provisions. 16.08.040 Violations -- Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. 16.08.050 Enforcement -- Citation authority. The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2) building inspection supervisor; and (3) code enforcement officer. 16.08.060 Local Amendments The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the California Plumbing Code, 2013 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross-referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter. 16.08.070 Section 306.3 Palo Alto Sewer Use Section 306.3 is added to the California Plumbing Code to read: 306.3 Palo Alto Sewer Use. All non-domestic waste shall comply with the City of Palo Alto Sewer Use Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.09). Where discrepancies exist between the requirements of this code and said ordinance, the provisions of said ordinance shall apply. 16.08.080 Section 606.9 Hose Bibs. Section 606.9 is added to the California Plumbing Code to read: 606.9 Hose Bibs. All commercial and industrial buildings where the building face is parallel to the city sidewalk shall have a hose bib connection installed, conveniently available to accommodate persons washing the building face or watering plants. 16.08.090 Section 701.1, Part 4 Materials. Section 701.1, Part 4 of the California Plumbing Code is amended to read: NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131141 3 701.1 (4) Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used for building sanitary sewer systems except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. Where permitted by the building official, copper tube for drainage and vent piping shall have a weight of not less than that of copper drainage tube type DWV. 16.08.100 Table 701.1 Materials for Drain, Waste, Vent Pipe and Fittings Footnote 1 is amended to Table 701.1 to read as follows: 1 For limitations on the use of Brass and Copper (Type DWV) refer to Section 701.1, Part 4. 16.08.110 Section 710.2 Sewage Discharge. Section 710.2of the California Plumbing Code is amended to read: 710.2 Sewage Discharge. Drainage piping serving fixtures with flood level rims located below one foot above the elevation of the next upstream manhole cover of the public or private sewer serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve except as approved by the local administrative authority. On existing structures, the backwater valve may be installed on the private property sewer lateral upstream of the building’s cleanout at the public right of way. 16.08.120 Section 714.4 Commercial Food Waste Grinders Prohibited. Section 714.4 of the California Plumbing Code is amended to read: 714.4 Commercial Food Waste Grinders Prohibited. The installation of a commercial food waste grinder connecting to a private sewage disposal system is prohibited. 16.08.130 Section 719.7 Cleanouts Section 719.7 is added to the California Plumbing Code to read: 719.7 A cleanout shall be provided at the point of connection between the building sewer and the city lateral and an approved fitting shall be used to bring the cleanout riser to grade. Where sewer cleanouts are to be connected to existing city laterals, such connections shall be accomplished by use of an approved fitting. 16.08.140 Section 808.2 Cooling Water. Section 808.2 of the California Plumbing Code is added to read: 808.2 Single Pass Cooling Water Systems Prohibited. Clean running water used NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131141 4 exclusively as a cooling medium in an appliance, device, or apparatus is prohibited. 16.08.150 Section 908.2 Horizontal Wet Venting for Bathroom Groups Section 908.2 of the California Plumbing Code is deleted. 16.08.160 Section 1014.1.3 Food Waste Disposal Units and Dishwashers. Section 10.14.1.3 of the California Plumbing Code is amended to read: 1014.1.3 Food Waste Disposal Units and Dishwashers. Unless specifically required or permitted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, no dishwasher shall be connected to or discharge into any grease interceptor. Commercial Food Waste Disposal Units are prohibited. 16.08.170 Section 1101.3 Material Uses. Section 1101.3 of the California Plumbing Code is amended to read: 1101.3 Material Uses. Rainwater piping placed within the interior of a building or run within a vent or shaft shall be of cast iron, galvanized steel, wrought iron, Schedule 40 ABS DWV, Schedule 40 PVC DWV, stainless steel 304 or 316L (stainless steel 304 pipe and fittings shall not be installed underground and shall be kept not less than six (6) inches (152 mm) aboveground), or other approved materials, and changes in direction shall conform to the requirements of Section 706.0. ABS and PVC DWV piping installations shall be installed in accordance with IS 5 and IS 9. Except for individual single-family dwelling units, materials exposed within ducts or plenums shall have a flame-spread index of a maximum of twenty-five (25) and a smoke-developed index of a maximum of fifty (50), when tested in accordance with the Test for Surface-Burning Characteristics of the Building Materials (see the Building Code standards based on ASTM E 84 and UL 723.). ABS or PVC installations are limited to not more than two stories of areas of residential accommodation. 16.08.180 Section 1105.1.2 Roof Drains (Materials). Section 1105.1.2 of the California Plumbing Code is amended to read: 1105.1.2 Roof drains and conductor/leader’s shall be of cast iron, plastic or other approved materials. 16.08.190 Chapter 16A Non-Potable Water Reuse Systems. Chapter 16A of the California Plumbing Code is adopted in entirety. SECTION 2. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Plumbing Code, 2013Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131141 5 SECTION 3. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of 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: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131141 6 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, 2010 EDITION Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions in the uniform codes that are published in the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions in the uniform codes and published in the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970, and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation, including amendments made only for administrative consistency, do not require findings. Code: CPC Section Title Add Deleted Amended Justification (See below for keys) 306.3 Palo Alto Sewer Use C 606.9 Hose Bib C 701.1, Part4 Materials T Table 701.1 Materials for Drain, Waste, vent Pipe and Fittings T 710.2 Sewage Discharge T 714.4 Commercial Food Waste Grinders Prohibited G & T 719.7 Cleanouts T & G 808.2 Cooling Water C & T 908.2 Horizontal Wet Venting for Bathroom Groups C & T 1014.1.3 Food Waste Disposal Units and Dishwashers T 1101.3 Material Uses G T 1105.1.2 Roof Drains (Materials) T Chapter 16A Non-Potable Water Reuse Syst. C & T NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131141 7 Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is required. C G T This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. Also the City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is warranted. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 16.06 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.06, California Residential Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments And Related Findings The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.06 of Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety and adopting a new Chapter 16.06 to read as follows:: 16.06.010 2013 California Residential Code adopted. The California Residential Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 2.5 of the California Code of Regulations, together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2010, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013. Ordinance No. 5101 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. Wherever the phrases "California Residential Code" or "Residential Code" are used in this code or any ordinance of the city, such phrases shall be deemed and construed to refer and apply to the California Residential Code, 2013 Edition, as adopted by this Chapter. One copy of the California Residential Code, 2013 Edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.06.020 2013 California Residential Code Appendix Chapters adopted. The following Appendix Chapters of the California Residential Code, 2013 Edition, are adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein: A. Appendix G – Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs B. Appendix H – Patio Covers C. Appendix K – Sound Transmission 16.06.030 Cross - References to California Residential Code. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 2 The provisions of this Chapter contain cross-references to the provisions of the California Residential Code, 2013 Edition, in order to facilitate reference and comparison to those provisions. 16.06.040 Section 1.11.2.1.1 Duties and powers of the enforcing agency/Enforcement is amended with the following language: Section 1.11.2.1.1 Duties and powers of the enforcing agency/Enforcement The responsibility for enforcement of building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal and published in the California Building Standards Code relating to fire and panic safety and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal shall, except as provided in Section 1.11.2.1.2, be as follows: 1. The city, county or city and county with jurisdiction in the area affected by the standard or regulation shall delegate the enforcement of the building standards relating to fire and panic safety and other regulations of the State Fire Marshal as they relate to Group R-3 occupancies, as described in Section 310.1 of Part 2 of the California Building Standards Code, to both enforcement divisions specific to their areas of enforcement disciplines: 1.1 The chief of the fire authority of the city, county or city and county, or an authorized representative and; 1.2. The chief building official of the city, county or city and county, or an authorized representative. 16.06.050 Violations -- Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. When the building official determines that a violation of this chapter or chapters 16.04, 16.05, 16.08, 16.14, 16.16 or 16.17 of this code has occurred, he/she may record a notice of pendency of code violation with the Office of the County Recorder stating the address and owner of the property involved. When the violation has been corrected, the building official shall issue and record a release of the notice of pendency of code violation. 16.06.060 Enforcement -- Citation authority. The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2) building inspection supervisor; and (3) code enforcement officer. 16.06.070 Local Amendments. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 3 The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the California Residential Code, 2013 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross-referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter. 16.06.080 Chapter 1, Division II amended – Administration. Chapter 1, Division II of the California Residential Code is amended to read: DIVISION II ADMINISTRATION The provisions of Chapter 1 (Scope and Administration), Division II of the California Building Code, 2013 Edition, as locally amended and adopted, shall apply to this code. 16.06.090 Section R105.1.2 Demolition permits is added to read: Section R105.1.2 Demolition Permits. In addition to other requirements of law, every person seeking a permit to demolish a unit used for residential rental purposes shall furnish an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury that the unit proposed to be demolished is vacant, or that notice to vacate has been given to each tenant lawfully in possession thereof as required by law or by the terms of such tenancy. No work or demolition shall begin upon any portion of such a unit until each and every portion has been vacated by all tenants lawfully in possession thereof. 16.04.100 Section R105.5 Expiration is amended to read: R105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the work authorized on the site by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is commenced. The chief building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time, for periods not more than 180 days each and may require; 1) that the construction documents be revised to partially or fully comply with current codes, and 2) payment of a fee. Extensions shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. For the purpose of this section, failure to progress a project to the next level of required inspection shall be deemed to be suspension of the work. 16.06.110 Section R108.5 Refunds is amended to read: R108.5 Refunds. The building official or permit center manager may authorize the refund of any fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected. The building official or permit center manager may authorize the refund of not more than eighty percent (80%) of the permit fee paid when no work has occurred under a permit issued NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 4 pursuant to this Chapter. The building official or permit center manager may authorize the refund of not more than eighty percent (80%) of the Plan Review Fee paid when a permit application is withdrawn or canceled before any plan review work has started. 16.06.120 Section R109.1.3 Floodplain Inspection is amended to read: R109.1.3 Floodplain Inspections. In flood hazard areas, upon placement of the lowest floor, including the basement, and prior to further vertical construction, the elevation certification shall be submitted to City Public Works Engineering for inspection approval prior to foundation inspection by city building inspection. 16.06.130 Section R109.5 Re-Inspection Fees Assessed/Authorized is added to read: R109.5 Re-Inspection Fees. A Re-Inspection Fee may be assessed/authorized by the building official or building inspection supervisor for each re-inspection required when work for which an inspection is requested is not ready for inspection or when required corrections noted during prior inspections have not been completed. A “Re-Inspection Fee” may be assessed/authorized when; 1. The inspection record card is not posted or otherwise available on the work site, 2. The approved plans are not readily available for the inspector at the time of inspection, 3. The inspector is unable to access the work at the time of inspection, or; 4. When work has substantially deviated from the approved plans without the prior approval of the building official. 5. When a Re-Inspection Fee is assessed, additional inspection of the work will not be performed until the fee has been paid. 16.06.140 Section R110.1 Use and Occupancy is amended to read: R110.1 Use and Occupancy. No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made, until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Exception: Certificates of occupancy are not required for work exempt from permits under Section 105.2: 1. Group R - Division 3 occupancies 2. Group U occupancies 16.06.150 Section R202 amended – Definitions added. Section R202 of the California Residential Code is amended to include the following definitions: DUAL SENSOR PHOTOELECTRIC/IONIZATION SMOKE DETECTOR OR ALARM. A smoke alarm or detector that utilizes both photoelectric and ionization methods in a single device. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 5 DUAL SENSOR CARBON MONOXIDE AND SMOKE ALARM. A combination carbon monoxide and smoke alarm or detector that senses both smoke and CO in a single device. IONIZATION SMOKE DETECTOR OR ALARM. A smoke alarm or detector that uses a small amount of radioactive material to detect invisible particles generated by flame. PHOTOELECTRIC SMOKE DETECTOR OR ALARM. A smoke alarm or detector that uses a light-source to detect the presence of smoke. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREA is a geographical area identified by the State of California as a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone” in accordance with Public Resources Code Sections 4201 through 4202 and Government Code Sections 51175 through 51189, or other areas designated by the enforcing agency to be at a significant risk from wildfires. Within the city limits of the City of Palo Alto, “Wildland-Urban Fire Interface Area” shall also include all areas west of Interstate 280, and all other areas recommended as a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” by the Director of the California Department of Forestry. 16.06.160 Table 301.2(1) Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria: Section Table 301.2(1) of the California Residential Code is added to read: TABLE R301.2(1) CLIMATIC AND GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA GROUND SNOW LOAD WIND DESIGN SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY SUBJECT TO DAMAGE FROM Speed (mph) Topographic effects Weathering Frost line depth Termite 0 85 No D1 thru E Negligible 5” Very High WINTER DESIGN TEMP. (OF) ICE BARRIER UNDERLAYEMENT REQUIRED FLOOD HAZARDS AIR FREEZING INDEX MEAN ANNUAL TEMP. (OF) 40 No See Footnotes a thru c 0 55 a) The City of Palo Alto entered National Flood Insurance Program in 1979. b) The effective date of the current Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map is May 18, 2009. c) The panel numbers and dates of all currently effective FIRMs and FBFMs: 06085CIND0A, 06085C0010H, 06085C0015H through 06085C0019H, 06085C0030H, 06085C0036H , 06085C0038H , 06085C0180H , 06085C0185H ( May 18, 2009 for all) NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 6 16.06.170 Section R310.2.3 Window Well Fall Protection: Section R310.2.3 of the California Residential Code is added to read: R310.2.3 Window Well Fall Protection. Window wells with a vertical depth greater than 30 inches shall have guards on all sides. The guards shall be provided in accordance with Section R312.1. Window well grates are not allowed. When gates are installed for exit at window wells and the depth of the window well is greater than 30 inches gates shall be installed with a permanent lock to prevent access by unauthorized persons. The gates shall be equipped to accommodate a locking device. The gates shall open outward away from the well, and shall be self-closing and have a self-latching device. Where the release mechanism of the self-latching device is located less than 54 inches from the bottom of the gate, the release mechanism shall be located at least 3 inches below the top of the gate. The gate and guards shall have no opening larger than ½ inch within 18 inches of the release mechanism. Openings, in other parts of gates, shall comply with Section R312.1.3. Access ladder shall comply with Section R310.2.1 and shall extend from the bottom of the well to the top of the guard. 16.06.180 Section R310.4.1 Security Bars: Section R310.4.1 of the California Residential Code is added to read: R310.4.1 Security Bars. Fire Department plan check review and approval of all security bar submittals shall be required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 16.06.190 Section R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire sprinkler systems. Section R313.2 of the California Residential Code is amended to read: R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire sprinkler systems. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new one- and two- family dwellings and in existing modified one- and two- family dwellings shall be provided in accordance with this section. 1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new residential buildings and structures. Exception: New detached Group U occupancies, buildings or structures that do not exceed 1,000 square feet of building area. 2. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing buildings when modifications are made that create an increase in fire area to more than 4100 square feet or modifications are equal to or greater than 100% of existing square footage of building area, whichever is more restrictive. 3. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new basements regardless of size and throughout existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 7 4. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings located in the designated Wild Land-Urban Interface Fire areas. Exception: Any detached non-residential accessory structures to single family residences that have a fire area of 500 square feet or less. 5. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing buildings located in the designated Wild Land-Urban Interface Fire areas when modifications are made that increases the fire area. Exception: One-time additions to existing buildings made after January 1, 1994 that do not exceed 500 square feet in fire area. 16.04.193 Section R313.1.1 – Design and installation Section R313.1.1 of the California Residential Code is amended to read as follows: R313.1.1 Design and installation. Where allowed, automatic sprinkler systems installed in townhouses shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D and State and local standards. 16.04.195 Section R313.2.1 – Design and installation Section R313.2.1 of the California Residential Code is amended to read as follows: R313.2.1 Design and installation. Where allowed, automatic sprinkler systems installed in one- and two-family dwellings shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D and State and local standards. 16.04.198 Section R313.3.1.1 – Required sprinkler locations. Section R313.3.1.1 is amended to the California Residential Code to read as follows: Section R313.3.1.1 – Required sprinkler locations. Sprinklers shall be installed to protect all areas of a dwelling unit. Garages, including Group U occupancies, shall be fully protected with sprinklers designed for residential density calculated with four (4) sprinklers flowing. Attics shall be fully protected to residential density or light hazard as appropriate for the slope of ceiling and configuration of framing. Exception: Non-usable attics in one-and two-family dwellings not located in the Wild Land Urban Interface area may be provided with an intermediate temperature pilot sprinkler above the attic scuttle and above any heat producing equipment in lieu of complete attic protection meeting the requirements above. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 8 16.06.200 Section R314.1– Smoke detection and notification. Section R314.1 of the California Residential Code is amended to read: R314.1 Smoke detection and notification. Listed single- and multiple-station smoke alarms complying with UL 217 shall be installed in accordance with the provisions of this code and the household warning equipment provisions of NFPA 72 and manufacturers installation and use instructions. Smoke alarms more than 10 years old shall not be considered as satisfying any requirement of this code or subject to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code and shall be immediately replaced by the owner with a smoke alarm that complies with this section. Smoke alarms and smoke detectors installed on or after January 1, 2014in compliance with this code or with the provisions of the Health and Safety Code shall also either be listed and approved for enhanced nuisance resistance and rapid response to smoldering synthetic materials or shall meet the following requirements: 1. Smoke detectors or smoke alarms located within 20 feet of a kitchen, or a room containing acooking appliance, wood burning fireplace or stove shall be photoelectric detectors or alarms. 2. In all other required locations dual sensor photoelectric/ionization detectors or alarms, shall be installed. A photoelectric smoke detector or alarm installed together with an ionization smoke detectors or alarms may be used as a substitute for a dual sensor photoelectric/ionization detector or alarm. Exception: A fire alarm or other approved system with interconnected photoelectric smoke detectors or alarms located in accordance with, and meeting the requirements of, this section may be installed. Upon the actuation of a smoke detector or alarm, only those notification appliances or alarms in the dwelling unit or guest rooms where the detectors are actuated shall activate. 16.06.210 Section R322.1 – General. The following paragraph is added to Section R322.1 of the California Residential Code: Palo Alto Flood Hazard Regulations. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, all construction or development within a flood hazard area (areas depicted as a Special Flood Hazard Area on Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency) shall comply with the City of Palo Alto Flood Hazard Regulations (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.52). Where discrepancies exist between the requirements of this code and said regulations, the provisions of said regulations shall apply. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 9 16.06.220 Section R327.1.5 Vegetation management compliance. Section R327.1.5 of the California Residential Code is amended to read: R327.1.5 Vegetation management compliance. Prior to building permit final approval, the property shall be in compliance with the vegetation management requirements prescribed-in California Fire Code section 4906, including California Public Resources Code 4291 or California Government Code Section 51182. Acceptable methods of compliance inspection and documentation shall be determined by the enforcing agency and may include any of the following: 1. Local, state, or federal fire authority or designee authorized to enforce vegetation management requirements. 2. Enforcing agency - City of Palo Alto Fire Inspection shall inspect the aforementioned requirements and indicate compliance prior to building division final inspection sign- off. 3. Third party inspection and certification authorized to enforce vegetation management requirements. 4. Property owner certification authorized by the enforcing agency. 16.06.230 Section R403.1.3 Seismic Reinforcing. Section R403.1.3 of the California Residential Code is amended to read: R403.1.3 Seismic reinforcing. Concrete footings located in Seismic Design Categories D0, D1 and D2, as established in Table R301.2(1), shall have minimum reinforcement of at least two continuous longitudinal reinforcing bars, one top and one bottom and not smaller than No. 4 bars. Bottom reinforcement shall be located a minimum of 3 inches (76 mm) clear from the bottom of the footing. In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1 and D2 where a construction joint is created between a concrete footing and a stem wall, a minimum of one No. 4 bar shall be installed at not more than 4 feet (1219 mm) on center. The vertical bar shall extend to 3 inches (76 mm) clear of the bottom of the footing, have a standard hook and extend a minimum of 14 inches (357 mm) into the stem wall. In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1 and D2 where a grouted masonry stem wall is supported on a concrete footing and stem wall, a minimum of one No. 4 bar shall be installed at not more than 4 feet (1219 mm) on center. The vertical bar shall extend to 3 inches (76 mm) clear of the bottom of the footing and have a standard hook. In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1 and D2 masonry stem walls without solid grout and vertical reinforcing are not permitted. Exception: In detached one- and two-family dwellings which are three stories or less in height and constructed with stud bearing walls, plain concrete footings without longitudinal reinforcement supporting walls and isolated plain concrete footings supporting columns or pedestals are permitted. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 10 16.06.240 Section R403.1.8 – Foundations on expansive soils. Section R403.1.8 of the California Residential Code is amended to read: R403.1.8 Foundations on expansive soils. Foundations and floor slabs for buildings located on expansive soils shall be designed in accordance with Section 1808.6 or Table 1809.7 of the California Building Code. Table 1809.7 of the California Building Code is added and amended to read: TABLE 1809.7 Prescriptive Footings Supporting Walls of Light-Frame Constructionabcd Number of Floors Supported by the Footing e Thickness of Foundation Wall (inches) Width of Footing (inches) Thickness of Footing (inches) Depth of Foundation Below Natural Surface of Ground or Finish Grade (inches) 1&2 8 15 8 20 3 8 18 8 30 Group U Occupancies 8 12 8 12 a) The ground under the floor shall be permitted to be excavated to the elevation of the top of the footing. b) Interior stud-bearing walls shall be permitted to be supported by isolated footings. The footing width and length shall be twice the width shown in this table, and footings shall be spaced not more than 6 feet on center. c) See Section 1905 of California Building Code for additional requirements for concrete footings of structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F. d) All foundations as required in the above Table shall be continuous and have a minimum of three #4 bars of reinforcing steel, except for one story, detached accessory buildings of Group U occupancy where two bars are required. e) Footings shall be permitted to support a roof in addition to the stipulated number of floors. Footings supporting roof only shall be as required for supporting one floor. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 11 16.06.250 Table R602.10.3(3) – Bracing Requirements Based on Seismic Design Category. Footnote e is added to Table R602.10. 3(3) to read as follows: e. In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1 and D2, Method GB is not permitted and the use of Method PCP is limited to one-story single-family dwellings and accessory structures. 16.06.260 Section R902.1.4 – Roofing requirements in a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. Section R902.1.4 of the California Residential Code is amended to read: R902.1.4 Roofing requirements in a Wild Land-Urban Interface Fire Area. The entire roof covering on new structures and existing structures on which more than 50 percent of the total roof area is replaced within any one-year period, and any roof covering applied in the alteration, repair or replacement of roofs on existing structures, shall be a fire-retardant roof covering that is at least Class A. Roofing requirements for structures located in a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area shall also comply with Section R327.5. 16.06.270 Section R1003.9.2.1 – Repairs, replacements and alterations. Section R1003.9.2.1 is added to the California Residential Code to read: R1003.9.2.1 Repairs, replacements and alterations. When any repair, replacement or alteration to the roof of an existing structure is performed, a spark arrester shall be installed on the existing chimney in accordance with Section R1003.9.2. SECTION 2. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Residential Code, 2013 Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. // // // // // // // // // NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 12 SECTION 3. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4. 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: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 13 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions of the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions of the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Code: CRC Section Title Add Deleted Amended Justification (See below for keys) R 202 Definition (Dual Sensor Carbon Monoxide and Smoke Alarm) T Table R301.2(1) Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria C, G, T R310.2.3 Window Well Fall Protection T R 310.4.1 Security Bars T R313.1.1 Design and installation T R 313.2 One and Two Family Dwellings Automatic Spr. Syst. T R313.2.1 Design and installation T R313.3.1.1 Required sprinkler locations T R 314.1 Smoke Detection and Notification C, T R 322.1 Flood Hazard Regulations T R 327.1.5 Vegetation Management Compliance T R403.1.3 Seismic Reinforcing G R 403.1.8 Foundation on expansive Soils G, T Table R602.10.3(3) Bracing Requirements Based on Seismic Design Category G R902.1.4 Roofing Requirements in Wildland- Urban Interface Fire Area T R1003.9.2.1 Repairs, Replacements and Alterations T Appendix G Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs C, G Appendix H Patio Covers C Appendix K Sound Transmission C NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131142 14 Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is required. C G T This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. Also the City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is warranted. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131143 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 16.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code And Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.16, California Electrical Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety 16.16 and adopting a new Chapter 16.16 to read as follows: 16.16 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 16.16.010 2013 California Electrical Code adopted. The California Electrical Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 4 of the California Code of Regulations together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2010, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013. Ordinance No. 5103 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. Wherever the phrases "California Electrical Code" or "Electrical Code" are used in this code or any ordinance of the City, such phrases shall be deemed and construed to refer and apply to the California Electrical Code, 2013 Edition, as adopted by this Chapter. One copy of the California Electrical Code, 2013 edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.16.020 2013 California Electrical Code Annex Chapters adopted. The following Annex Chapters of the California Electrical Code, 2013 Edition, are adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein: A. Annex B – Application Information for Ampacity Calculations B. Annex C – Conduit and Tubing Fill Tables for Conductors and Fixture Wires of the Same Size C. Annex I – Unit Recommended Tightening Torque Tables from UL Standard 486A-B NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131143 2 16.16.030 Cross - References to California Electrical Code. The provisions of this Chapter contain cross-references to the provisions of the California Electrical Code, 2013 Edition, in order to facilitate reference and comparison to those provisions. 16.16.040 Section 89.102.2.3 Third Part Field Evaluation. Section 89.102.2.3 is added to read: 89.102.2.3. Third-Party Field Evaluation. City of Palo Alto approved applications for Third-Party Field Evaluators shall be submitted for each project submitting evaluation reports on Electrical Systems and others as required for these types of reports. Educational background, training experience, professional licenses, registrations or certificates, and other applicable qualifications for each key personnel shall include information as required and defined in NFPA 790 and 791 including but not limited to: a. Technical Manager, direct Supervisor of FEB operations, and individual(s) managing the management system, minimum competency for personnel completing Field Evaluation projects, including educational background, experience, training, and professional registration. b. Provide information on the basic evaluation process to the building official in determining the adequacy and completeness of submitted evaluations and evaluation reports. 16.16.050 Section 110.13 Mounting and Cooling of Equipment. Section 110.13 (A) (1) is added to read: 110.13 (A) (1) Slab-On-Grade Supporting Electrical Equipment. When electrical equipment is proposed to be installed, including temporary electrical for construction, in locations where the deleterious effects of the environment may create adverse maintenance issues with ground mounted electrical equipment a concrete slab-on- grade shall be installed to elevate, protect, and attach equipment to per City of Palo Alto Electrical Utilities Standards or approved engineering design. 16.16.060 Violations -- Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. 16.16.070 Enforcement -- Citation authority. The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131143 3 violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2) building inspection supervisor; and (3) code enforcement officer. 16.16.080 Local Amendments The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the California Electrical Code, 2013 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross-referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter. SECTION 2. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Electrical Code, 2013Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of 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: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131143 4 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, 2013 Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions of the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions of the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970, and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation do not require findings. Code: CEC Section Title Add Justification (See below for keys) 110.13 (A) Mounting and Cooling of Equipment C Annex B Application Information for Ampacity Calculations G Annex C Conduit and Tubing Fill Tables for Conductors and Fixture Wires of the Same Size G Annex I Unit Recommended Tightening Torque Tables from UL Standard 486A-B G NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131143 5 Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is required. C G T This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. Also the City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is warranted. NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131144 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapter 16.05 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Title 16 to Adopt a New Chapter 16.05, California Mechanical Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.05 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety 16.05and adopting a new Chapter 16.05 to read as follows: 16.05 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 16.05.010 2013 California Mechanical Code adopted. The California Mechanical Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 4 of the California Code of Regulations together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2010, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013. Ordinance No. 5100 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. Wherever the phrases "California Mechanical Code" or "Mechanical Code" are used in this code or any ordinance of the City, such phrases shall be deemed and construed to refer and apply to the California Mechanical Code, 2013 Edition, as adopted by this Chapter. One copy of the California Mechanical Code, 2013 edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.05.020 2013 California Mechanical Code Appendix Chapters adopted. The following Appendix Chapters of the California Mechanical Code, 2013 Edition, are adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein: A. Appendix B– Procedures to be Followed to Place Gas Equipment in Operation B. Appendix C– Installation and testing of Oil (Liquid) Fuel-Fired Equipment C. Appendix D– Unit Conversion Tables NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131144 2 16.05.030 Cross - References to California Mechanical Code. The provisions of this Chapter contain cross-references to the provisions of the California Mechanical Code, 2013 Edition, in order to facilitate reference and comparison to those provisions. 16.05.040 Violations -- Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. 16.05.050 Enforcement -- Citation authority. The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2) building inspection supervisor; and (3) code enforcement officer. 16.05.060 Local Amendments The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the California Mechanical Code, 2013 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross-referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter. 16.05.70 504.2.1 Kitchen Exhaust Makeup Air: Section 504.2.1 of the California Mechanical Code is added to read: 504.2.1 Kitchen Exhaust Makeup Air. Exhaust hood systems capable of exhausting in excess of 400 cubic feet per minute (0.19 m3/s) shall be provided with makeup air at a rate approximately equal to the exhaust air rate and shall not negatively impact the California Energy Code supply air requirements of ASHRAE 62.2. Such makeup air systems shall be equipped with a means of closure and shall be automatically controlled to start and operate simultaneously with the exhaust system. SECTION 2. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Mechanical Code, 2013Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131144 3 Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of 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: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131144 4 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2013 Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions of the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions of the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970, and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation do not require findings. Code: CMC Section Title Add Justification (See below for keys) 504.2.1 Kitchen Exhaust Makeup Air C Appendix B Procedures to be Followed to Place Gas Equipment in Operation G Appendix C Installation and testing of Oil (Liquid) Fuel-Fired Equipment G NOT YET APPROVED 131003 jb 0131144 5 Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is required. C G T This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. Also the City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Code is warranted. 1 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 1 Ordinance No. ____ Adoption of an Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting Title 15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt the 2012 Edition of the International Fire Code, as Amended By the State of California, Also Known as the 2013 Edition of the California Fire Code, With Local Amendments and Related Findings (Chapter 15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Title 15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety Title 15 and enacting a new Title 15 to read as follows: 15.04 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 15.04.010 Adoption of the California Fire Code. The California Fire Code, 2013 Edition, as adopted by the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9, and Appendices B, C, D, F, and K is adopted as herein amended. One copy of the California Fire Code is on file and open to public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. Additional copies of the secondary codes set forth within the California Fire Code, and the amendments set forth in this chapter, are on file and open to public inspection in the fire department administrative office. Whenever the phrase “California Fire Code” appears in this code or in any ordinance of the city, such phrase shall be deemed and construed to refer to and apply to the “California Fire Code, 2013 Edition” as adopted by the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 9 and this chapter. 15.04.015 Section 102.5 amended – Application of residential code. Section 102.5 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 102.5 Application of residential code. Where structures are designed and constructed in accordance with the California Residential Code, the provisions of this code shall apply as follows: 1. Construction and design provisions: Provisions of this code pertaining to the exterior of the structure shall apply including, but not limited to, premises identification, fire apparatus access and water supplies. Provisions of this code pertaining to the interior of the structure shall apply when specifically required by this code including, but not limited to, Sections 903.2 through 903.3.7 and Section 907.2.10. Where interior or 2 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 2 TYPE OF GAS AMOUNT(cubic feet)2 X 0.0283 for m3 Corrosive 200 Flammable (except cryogenic and liquefied petroleum gases) 200 Highly toxic Any amount Inert and simple asphyxiant 6,000 Irritant 200 Moderately toxic 20 Other health hazards 650 Oxidizing (including oxygen) 504 Pyrophoric Any amount Radioactive Any amount Sensitizer 200 Toxic Any Amount Unstable (reactive) Any amount exterior systems or devices are installed, construction permits required by Section 105.7 of this code shall also apply. 2. Administrative, operational and maintenance provisions: all such provisions of this code shall apply. 15.04.020 Sections 105.3.9 and 105.3.10 added- Permits/Permit fees. Sections 105.3.9 and 105.3.10 are added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 105.3.9 Permits/Permit fees. All permit fees shall be established by the City Council as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. 105.3.10 Operational Permits. Operational permits are valid for one year at which time they must be renewed by paying a fee specified in the municipal fee schedule. 15.04.030 Table 105.6.8 amended- Permit amounts for compressed gases. Table 105.6.8 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: TABLE 105.6.8 PERMIT AMOUNTS FOR COMPRESSED GASES1 For SI: 1 cubic foot = 0.02832m3. 1 Refer to Chapters 27, 30, 32, 35, 37, 40 and 41 for additional requirements and exceptions. 2 Cubic feet measured at normal Temperature and pressure. 15.04.040 Table 105.6.20 amended - Permit amounts for hazardous materials. 3 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 3 Table 105.6.20 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: TABLE 105.6.20 PERMIT AMOUNTS FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS1 TYPE OF MATERIAL AMOUNT Carcinogens 10 pounds Combustible liquids See Section 105.6.16 Corrosive materials: Gases Liquids Solids See Section 105.6.8 55 gallons 500 pounds Cryogens See Section 105.6.10 Explosive materials See Section 105.6.14 Flammable materials: Gases Liquids Solids See Section 105.6.8 See Section 105.6.16 10 pounds Highly toxic materials: Gases Liquids Solids Any amount Any amount Any amount Moderately toxic gas 20 cubic feet Organic peroxides: Liquids: Class I-IV Liquids: Class V Solids: Class I-IV Solids: Class V Any Amount No Permit Required Any Amount No Permit Required Oxidizing materials: Gases Liquids Solids: 504 Cubic Feet Any amount Any amount Other health Hazards: Liquids Solids 55 gallons 500 pounds Pyrophoric materials: Gases Liquids Solids Any amount Any amount Any amount Radioactive materials: Gases Liquids Solids Any Amount See Section 105.6.47 See Section 105.6.47 4 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 4 Toxic materials: Gases Liquids Solids Any amount Any amount Any amount Unstable (reactive) materials: Gases Liquids Solids Any amount Any amount Any amount Water reactive materials: Liquids Solids Any amount Any amount For SI: 1 gallon = 3.785 L, 1 pound = 0.454kg. a. 20 gallons when Table 2703.1.1(1) Note k applies and hazard identification signs in accordance with Section 2703.5 are provided for quantities of 20 gallons or less. b. 200 pounds when Table 2703.1.1(1) Note k applies and hazard identification signs in accordance with Section 2703.5 are provided for quantities of 200 pounds or less. 15.04.050 Sections 105.6.48 and 105.6.49 added – Permits required. Sections 105.6.48 and 105.6.49 are added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 105.6.48 Radioactive materials. To store or handle at any installation more than one microcurie (37,000 becquerel) of radioactive material not contained in a sealed source or more than 1 millicurie (37,000,000 becquerel) of radioactive material in a sealed source or sources, or any amount of radioactive material for which a specific licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is required. 105.6.49 Day Care Permit. To operate a day care facility for more than six children or adults. 15.04.060 Sections 105.7.15 and 105.7.15 added. Sections 105.7.15 and 105.7.16 are added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 105.7.14 Cryogenic fluids. Except where federal or state regulations apply and except for fuel systems of the vehicle, to produce, store or handle cryogens in excess of the amounts listed in Table 105.6.10, to install a cryogenic vessel or piping system for the storage or distribution of cryogens. See Chapter 32. 105.7.15 Underground Fire Service Lines, installation or modification. 15.04.070 Sections 105.8.1 and 105.8.2 added – Fire and life safety. Subsections 105.8.1 and 105.8.2 are added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 105.8.1 Fire and life-safety plan review. Fire and life-safety plan review of all new construction, all remodels, and all additions shall be performed by the Fire Chief or his designee. 5 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 5 105.8.2 Site Map and Floor plans. The Fire Chief or fire code official may require as a condition of final permit approval, a site map including the use of standard or approved Palo Alto Fire Department symbols. Features would include interior floor plans, on-site hydrant locations, FDC locations, key safe locations, alarm panel locations, electrical panel locations, stairwell and elevator locations, water shut off locations, hazardous materials locations, and other significant design elements or fire service features. The site map is to be provided in a format compatible with the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) at time of construction. This requirement applies to newly constructed buildings, facilities where hazardous materials are used or stored in quantities exceeding permit amounts in Section 105, additions or permitted remodels when in the opinion of the fire code official a site map is warranted. 15.04.080 Section 105.9 added – Certified Unified Program Agency Fees. Section 105.9 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 105.9 Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Fees. Pursuant to the Participating Agency Agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Palo Alto dated July 1, 1997, or as amended, the Fire Department is authorized to collect fees associated with the CUPA programs. The CUPA fees will be collected on an annual basis or as specified in the Palo Alto Fire Department Fee Schedule. 15.04.090 Section 106.1 amended – Inspection authority. Section 106.1 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 106.1 Inspection authority. The fire code official is authorized to inspect, as often as necessary, buildings and premises, including such other hazards or appliances designated by the fire code official for the purposes of ascertaining and causing to be corrected any conditions which would reasonably tend to cause fire or contribute to its spread, result in an unauthorized discharge of hazardous materials, or any violation of this code or any other law or standard affecting fire and life safety. 15.04.100 Section 109.1.2 added - Enforcement/citation authority. Section 109.1.2 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 109.1.2 Enforcement/citation authority. The following designated employee positions may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations. Persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code Section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Fire Marshal, Fire Inspector, Hazardous Materials Specialist and Hazardous Materials Inspector. 6 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 6 15.04.110 Section 109.3 amended – violations and penalties. Section 109.3 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this Title 15 shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of the fire code occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as herein provided. 15.04.120 Definitions added to section 202- “Device” and “Workstation.” The following definitions are added to Section 202 of the California Fire Code to read as follows: DEVICE. Device is, for the purpose of Exhibit “A,” an appliance or piece of equipment that plays an active part in the proper functioning of the regulated systems. Examples include, but are not limited to the following: smoke detectors, heat detectors, flame detectors, manual pull stations, horns, alarms, bells, warning lights, hydrants, risers, FDCs, standpipes, strobes, control panels, transponders, and other such equipment used to detect, transmit, initiate, annunciate, alarm, or respond according to the system design criteria. WORKSTATION is a defined space or independent principal piece of equipment using hazardous materials where a specific function, laboratory procedure or research activity occurs. Approved or listed hazardous materials storage cabinets, flammable liquid storage cabinets or gas cabinets serving a workstation are included as part of the workstation. A workstation is allowed to contain ventilation equipment, fire protection devices, electrical devices, and other processing and scientific equipment. CONTINUOUS GAS DETECTION SYSTEM. An gas detection system where the analytical instrument is maintained in continuous operation and sampling is performed without interruption. Analysis is allowed to be performed on a cyclical basis at intervals not to exceed 30 minutes. In occupied areas where air is re-circulated and not exhausted to a treatment system (e.g. breathing zone), the fire code official may require a cyclical basis at intervals not to exceed 5 minutes. The gas detection system shall be able to detect the presence of a gas at or below the permissible exposure limit in occupiable areas and at or below ½ IDLH (or 0.05 LC 50 if no established IDLH) in unoccupiable areas. CORROSIVE LIQUID. Corrosive liquid is any liquid which, when in contact with living tissue, will cause destruction or irreversible alteration of such tissue by chemical action; 1) any liquid having a pH of 2 or less or 12.5 or more; 2) any liquid classified as corrosive by the U.S. Department of Transportation; and 7 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 7 3) any material exhibiting the characteristics of corrosivity in accordance with Title 22, California Code of Regulations §66261.22. MODERATELY TOXIC GAS. A chemical or substance that has a median lethal concentration (LC50) in air more than 2000 parts per million but not more than 5000 parts per million by volume of gas or vapor, when administered by continuous inhalation for an hour, or less if death occurs within one hour, to albino rats weighing between 200 and 300 grams each. MAXIMUM THRESHOLD QUANTITY (MAX TQ). Maximum Threshold Quantity (Max TQ) is the maximum quantity of a moderately toxic or toxic gas, which may be stored in a single vessel before a more stringent category of regulation is applied. The following equation shall be used to calculate the Max TQ: Max TQ (pounds) = LC50 (ppm) x 2 lb. For gas mixtures containing one or more toxic, highly toxic or moderately toxic components, LC50 shall be calculated using CGA Standards P-20 and P-23 as referenced in Appendix E, Section 103.1.3.1 OTHER HEALTH HAZARD MATERIAL. A hazardous material which affects target organs of the body, including but not limited to, those materials which produce liver damage, kidney damage, damage to the nervous system, act on the blood to decrease hemoglobin function, deprive the body tissue of oxygen or affect reproductive capabilities, including mutations (chromosomal damage), sensitizers or teratogens (effect on fetuses). SECONDARY CONTAINMENT. Secondary containment is that level of containment that is external to and separate from primary containment and is capable of safely and securely containing the material, without discharge, for a period of time reasonably necessary to ensure detection and remedy of the primary containment failure. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREA. A geographical area identified by the state as a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone” in accordance with the Public Resources Code Sections 4201 through 4204 and Government Code Sections 51175 through 51189, or other areas designated by the enforcing agency to be at a significant risk from wildfires. See Article 86B for the applicable referenced sections of the Government Code and the Public Resources Code. The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area shall be defined as all areas within the City of Palo Alto as set forth and delineated on the map entitled "Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area” which map and all notations, references, data and other information shown thereon are hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter. The map properly attested, shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Palo Alto. 15.04.210 Section 605.12 added - Immersion Heaters. Section 605.12 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 8 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 8 605.12 Immersion Heaters. All electrical immersion heaters used in dip tanks, sinks, vats and similar operations shall be provided with approved over- temperature controls and low liquid level electrical disconnects. Manual reset of required protection devices shall be provided. 15.04.220 Section 608.6.1 added - Failure of Ventilation System. Section 608.6.4 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 608.6.1.1 Failure of Ventilation System. Failure of the ventilation system shall automatically disengage the charging system. 15.04.225 Definitions added to section 902.1- “Dual Sensor Photoelectric/Ionization Smoke Detector or Alarm,” “Dual Sensor Carbon Monoxide and Smoke Detector or Alarm”, “Ionization Smoke Detector or Alarm,” and “Photoelectric Smoke Detector or Alarm.” The following definitions are added to Section 902.1 of the California Fire Code to read as follows: DUAL SENSOR PHOTOELECTRIC/IONIZATION SMOKE DETECTOR OR ALARM. A smoke alarm or detector that utilizes both photoelectric and ionization methods in a single device. DUAL SENSOR CARBON MONOXIDE AND SMOKE ALARM. A combination carbon monoxide and smoke alarm or detector that senses both smoke and CO in a single device. IONIZATION SMOKE DETECTOR OR ALARM. A smoke alarm or detector that uses a small amount of radioactive material to detect invisible particles generated by flame. PHOTOELECTRIC SMOKE DETECTOR OR ALARM. A smoke alarm or detector that uses a light-source to detect the presence of smoke. 15.04.230 Section 903.2 amended – Automatic Sprinkler Systems, Where Required. Section 903.2 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 903.2 Automatic sprinkler systems, where required. Approved a utomatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures and in existing modified buildings and structures, shall be provided in the locations described in this section. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed per the requirements set forth in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 and as follows, whichever is the more restrictive: 1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings and structures. 9 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 9 Exception: New non-residential occupancies, buildings or structures that do not exceed 1,000 square feet of building area. 2. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for all existing buildings or structures where modifications have been determined by the Building Official to trigger requirements for seismic retrofit. 3. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing buildings when modifications are made that create conditions described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18, or that create an increase in fire area to more than 4100 square feet or when the addition is equal or greater than 100% of the existing building square footage whichever is more restrictive. 4. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new basements regardless of size and throughout existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%. If the addition is only the basement, then only the basement is required to be sprinklered. 5. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface areas. Exception: Any non-residential accessory structures to single family residences that have a fire area of 500 square feet or less. 6. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing buildings located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface areas when modifications are made that increases the fire area. Exception: One time additions to existing buildings made after January 1994 that do not exceed 500 square feet in fire area. 15.04.235 Amend Section 903.1.1.1 to read: 903.1.1.1 NFPA 13 sprinkler systems. Where the provisions of this code require that a building or portion thereof be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with this section, sprinklers shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13 and State and local requirements except as provided in Section 903.3.1.1. 1. For new buildings having no designated use or tenant, the minimum sprinkler design density shall be Ordinary Hazard Group 2. Where future use or tenant is determined to require a higher density, the sprinkler system shall be augmented to meet the higher density. 15.04.240 Section 903.3.1.2 amended – NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Section 903.3.1.2 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Where allowed in buildings of Group R, up to and including four stories in height , automatic sprinkler systems shall be 10 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 10 installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R and State and local standards. 15.04.245 Section 903.3.1.2.2 added – Attics and usable crawl spaces. Section 903.3.1.2.2 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 903.3.1.2.2 Attics and usable crawl spaces. Attics and usable under-floor spaces including crawl spaces shall be fully protected to residential or light hazard density as appropriate for the slope of the ceiling and configuration of framing. 15.04.250 Section 903.3.1.3 amended – NFPA 13D sprinkler systems. Section 903.3.1.3 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D sprinkler systems. Where allowed, automatic sprinkler systems installed in one-and two-family dwellings and townhouses shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D and State and local standards. 15.04.255 Section 903.3.1.3.1 added - Garages and attics. Section 903.3.1.3.1 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 903.3.1.3.1 Garages and attics. Garages, including Group U occupancies, shall be fully protected with sprinklers designed for residential density calculated with four (4) sprinklers flowing. Attics shall be fully protected to residential density or light hazard as appropriate for the slope of ceiling and configuration n of framing. Exception: Non-usable attics in one-and two-family dwellings not located in the Wildland Urban Interface area may be provided with an intermediate temperature pilot sprinkler above the attic scuttle and above any heat producing equipment in lieu of complete attic protection meeting the requirements above. 15.04.260 Section 903.3.7 amended - Fire department connections. Section 903.3.7 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 903.3.7 Fire department connections. Sprinkler systems shall be equipped with a minimum two-way Siamese Fire Department connection. Connections shall be located on a street front not less than three (3) feet or more than four (4) feet above grade and shall be equipped with an approved straightway check valve. Locations shall be subject to approval by the Fire Chief prior to any installation. Exception: Automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with the NFPA standards 13-D for one- and two-family dwellings in the designated Wildland- Urban Interface areas, and 13-R for multi-family dwellings throughout the City Palo Alto, may have a single 2-1/2-inch connection with approved straightway 11 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 11 check valve. 15.04.270 Section 903.4.3 amended - Floor control valves. Section 903.4.3 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 903.4.3 Floor control valves. Automatic sprinkler systems serving buildings two (2) or more stories in height shall have valves installed so as to control the system independently on each floor including basements. Exception: Buildings not over three (3) stories in height containing only R-3 occupancies, or with 10,000 square feet or less above the first story. Floor control valves shall be protected from tampering by installation in lockable enclosures or as approved by the chief. Floor control valve assemblies shall be provided with a flow switch and drain connections. 15.04.275 Section 907.2.11 amended - Single- and multiple-station smoke alarms. Section 907.2.11 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 907.2.11 Single- and multiple-station smoke alarms. Listed single- and multiple-station smoke alarms complying with UL217 shall be installed in accordance with Sections 907.2.11.1 through 907.2.11.5 and manufacturers installation and use instructions. Smoke alarms more than 10 years old shall not be considered as satisfying any requirement of this code or subject to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code and shall be immediately replaced by the owner with a smoke alarm that complies with this section. Smoke alarms and smoke detectors installed on or after January 1, 2014 in compliance with this code or subject to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code shall also either be listed and approved for enhanced nuisance resistance and rapid response to smoldering synthetic materials or shall meet the following requirements: 1. Smoke detectors or smoke alarms located within 20 feet of a kitchen, or a room containing a cooking appliance, wood burning fireplace or stove shall be photoelectric detectors or alarms. 2. In all other required locations dual sensor photoelectric/ionization detectors or alarms, shall be installed. A photoelectric smoke detector or alarm installed together with an ionization smoke detectors or alarms may be used as a substitute for a dual sensor photoelectric/ionization detector or alarm. Exception: For Group R occupancies. A fire alarm or other approved system with interconnected photoelectric smoke detectors or alarms located in accordance with, and meeting the requirements of, this section 12 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 12 may be installed. Upon the actuation of a smoke detector or alarm, only those notification appliances or alarms in the dwelling unit or guest room where the detector is actuated shall activate. 15.04.280 Section 3304.8 added - Fire Walls. Section 3304.8 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 3304.8 Fire Walls. When firewalls are required, the wall construction shall be completed (with all openings protected) immediately after the building is sufficiently weather-protected at the location of the wall(s). 15.04.290 Section 3311.1 amended - Stairways Required. Section 1411.1 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 3311.1 Stairways Required. Each level above the first story in new multi- story buildings shall be provided with at least two usable exit stairways after the floor decking is installed. The stairways shall be continuous and discharge to grade level. Stairways serving more than two floor levels shall be enclosed (with openings adequately protected) after exterior walls/windows are in place. Exit stairs in new and in existing, occupied buildings shall be lighted and maintained clear of debris and construction materials at all times. Exception: For new multi-story buildings, one of the required exit stairs may be obstructed on not more than two contiguous floor levels for the purposes of stairway construction (i.e., installation of gypsum board, painting, flooring, etc.). 15.04.295 Section 3311.1 added - Required Means Of Egress. Section 1411.1.1 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 3311.1 Required Means Of Egress. All new buildings under construction shall have a least one unobstructed means of egress. All means of egress shall be identified in the Fire Protection Plan. 15.04.300 Section 202 amended – Definition of “continuous gas detection system.” The definition of “Continuous Gas Detection System” in Section 202 of the California Fire Code is amended to read: CONTINUOUS GAS DETECTION SYSTEM. An approved gas detection system where the analytical instrument is maintained in continuous operation and sampling is performed without interruption. Analysis is allowed to be performed on a cyclical basis at intervals not to exceed 30 minutes. In occupied areas where air is re-circulated and not exhausted to a treatment system (e.g. breathing zone), the Chief may require a cyclical basis at intervals not to exceed 5 minutes. The gas detection system shall be able to detect the 13 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 13 presence of a gas at or below the permissible exposure limit in occupiable areas and at or below ½ IDLH (or 0.05 LC 50 if no established IDLH) in unoccupiable areas. 15.04.320 Section 507 added - Fire Protection Water Supply System. Section 507 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 507.1.2 Fire Protection Water Supply System. An approved hydrant and hose system or portable fire-extinguishing equipment suitable for the fire hazards involved shall be provided for open storage yards and processing areas. Hydrant and hose systems shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 24. 15.04.325 Section 5001.2.1.1 added – Gas mixtures. Section 5001.2.1.1 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: Section 5001.2.1.1 Gas mixtures. For gas mixtures containing one or more toxic, highly toxic or moderately toxic components, LC50 shall be calculated using CGA Standards P-20 and P-23 as referenced in Appendix E, Section 103.1.3.1 15.04.330 Section 5001.2.2.2 amended - Health Hazards. Section 2701.2.2.2 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 5001.2.2.2 Health Hazards. The material categories listed in this section are classified as health hazards. A material with a primary classification as a health hazard can also pose a physical hazard. 1. Highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic. 2. Corrosive materials 3. Moderately toxic gas. 4. Other health hazards 15.04.335 Section 5001.5.2.1 added – HMIS Exemptions. Section 2701.5.2.1 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: Section 5001.5.2.1 HMIS Exemptions. The following hazardous materials uses are found to not represent a sufficient degree of hazard in of themselves to justify the filing of a HMMP or HMIS. SMALL COMPRESSED GAS CYLINDER EXEMPTION A facility using compressed gas cylinders containing any of the following hazardous materials used for the purpose specified and stored at each facility in quantities not exceeding the thresholds specified below shall be exempted from the requirements of Chapter 6.95 Section 25501 (p) of the California Health and Safety Code: 14 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 14 (a) Non refrigerated or non-cryogenic helium compressed gas in quantities of not more than 1000 cubic feet at standard temperature and pressure for the purpose of filling party balloons. (b) Non-refrigerated or non-cryogenic carbon dioxide and nitrogen compressed gases used for carbonation of beverages and stored in quantities of not more than 6000 cubic feet at standard temperature and pressure. (c) Refrigerated or cryogenic carbon dioxide compressed gas used for carbonation of beverages and stored in quantities of not more than 6000 cubic feet (116 gallons) at standard temperature and pressure. SMALL PROPANE GAS TANK EXEMPTION Commercial facilities, restaurants and RV hookup stations that handle 300 gallons or less of propane gas in stationary tanks outside of buildings used exclusively for heating, cooling, or cooking shall be exempted from the requirements of Chapter 6.95 Section 25501 (p) of the California Health and Safety Code. This exception does not include sites that dispense propane. CLOSED COOLING SYSTEM EXEMPTION Closed cooling systems containing group A1 refrigerants, including fluorocarbons, chlorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons used for air conditioning and refrigeration shall be exempted from the requirements of chapter 6.95 Section 25501 (p) of the California Health and Safety Code. CLOSED FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM EXEMPTION Closed fire suppression systems shall be exempted from the requirements of Chapter 6.95 Section 25501 (p) of the California Health and Safety Code. COMPRESSED AIR EXEMPTION Compressed air in cylinders and bottles shall be exempted from Chapter 6.95 Section 25501 (p) of the California Health and Safety Code. 15.04.340 Section 5002.1 amended – addition of definition of “secondary containment.” The following definition is added to section 5002.1 of the California Fire Code to read: SECONDARY CONTAINMENT. Secondary containment is that level of containment that is external to and separate from primary containment and is capable of safely and securely containing the material, without discharge, for a period of time reasonably necessary to ensure detection and remedy of the primary containment failure. 15.04.350 Section 5003.1 amended – addition of definitions of “carcinogen,” “other health hazard material,” and “sensitizer.” 15 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 15 The following definitions are added to section 5003.1 of the California Fire Code to read: CARCINOGEN is a substance that causes the development of cancerous growths in living tissue. A chemical is considered a carcinogen if: 1. It has been evaluated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and found to be a carcinogen or potential carcinogen, or 2. It is listed a s a carcinogen or potential carcinogen in the latest edition of the Annual Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology program, or 3. It is regulated by OSHA as a carcinogen. OTHER HEALTH HAZARD MATERIAL is a hazardous material which affects target organs of the body, including but not limited to, those materials which produce liver damage, kidney damage, damage to the nervous system, act the blood to decrease hemoglobin function, deprive the body tissue of oxygen or affect reproductive capabilities, including mutations (chromosomal damage) or teratogens (effect on fetuses). SENSITIZER is a chemical that causes a substantial proportion of exposed people or animals to develop an allergic reaction in normal tissue after repeated exposure to the chemical. 15.04.352 Section 5003.1.3.1 added - Toxic, Highly Toxic, Moderately Toxic gases and similarly used or handled materials. Section 2703.1.3.1 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 5003.1.3.1 Toxic, Highly Toxic, Moderately Toxic gases and similarly used or handled materials. The storage, use and handling of toxic, highly toxic and moderately toxic gases in amounts exceeding Table 60004.2 or 60004.3 shall be in accordance with this chapter and Chapter 60. Any toxic, highly toxic or moderately toxic material that is used or handled as a gas or vapor shall be in accordance with the requirements for toxic, highly toxic or moderately toxic gases. 15.04.354 Section 5003.1.5 added - Secondary Containment Requirements. Section 5003.1.5 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 5003.1.5 Other Health Hazards Including Carcinogens, Irritants and Sensitizers. The storage, use and handling of materials classified as other health hazards including carcinogens, irritants and sensitizers in amounts exceeding 810 cubic feet for gases, 55 gallons for liquids and 5,000 pounds for solids shall be in accordance with this Section 5003. 15.04.356 Section 5003.1.6 added - Secondary Containment Requirements. Section 2703.1.6 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 16 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 16 5003.1.6 Secondary Containment Requirements. A containment system shall be required for all hazardous materials, which are liquids or solids at normal temperature, and pressure (NTP) where a spill is determined to be a plausible event and where such an event would endanger, people, property or the environment. Construction shall be substantial, capable of safely and securely containing a sudden release without discharge. Design criteria shall be performance oriented and constructed of physically and chemically compatible materials to resist degradation and provide structural and functional integrity for a period of time reasonably necessary to ensure detection, mitigation, and repair of the primary system. Regardless of quantities, spill control and secondary containment shall also comply with Section 5004.2. 15.04.358 Section 5003.1.6 added – Other health hazards. Section 5003.1.6 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 5003.1.6 Other Health Hazards Including Carcinogens, Irritants and Sensitizers. The storage, use and handling of materials classified as other health hazards including carcinogens, irritants and sensitizers in amounts exceeding 810 cubic feet for gases, 55 gallons for liquids and 5,000 pounds for solids shall be in accordance with this chapter. 15.04.360 Section 5003.2.2.1 amended - Design and Construction. Section 2703.2.2.1 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 5003.2.2.1 Design and Construction. Piping, tubing, valves, fittings and related components used for hazardous materials shall be in accordance with the following: 1. Piping, tubing, valves, fittings and related components shall be designed and fabricated from materials compatible with the material to be contained and shall be of adequate strength and durability to withstand the pressure, structural and seismic stress, and exposure to which they are subject. 2. Piping and tubing shall be identified in accordance with ASME A13.1 and the Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs Marking Requirements and Guidelines for Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste to indicate the material conveyed. 3. Readily accessible manual valves or automatic remotely activated fail-safe emergency shutoff valves shall be installed on supply piping and tubing at the following locations: a. The point of use. b. The tank, cylinder or bulk use. 4. Manual emergency shutoff valves and controls for remotely activated emergency shutoff valves shall be identified and the location shall be clearly visible accessible and indicated by means of a sign. 5. Backflow prevention or check valves shall be provided when the backflow of 17 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 17 hazardous materials could create a hazardous condition or cause the unauthorized discharge of hazardous materials. 6. Where gases or liquids having a hazard ranking of: Health hazard Class 3 or 4 Flammability Class 3 or 4 Reactivity Class 4 in accordance with NFPA 704 are carried in pressurized piping above 15 pounds per square inch gauge (psig)(103 Kpa), an approved means of leak detection, emergency shutoff and excess flow control shall be provided. Where the piping originates from within a hazardous material storage room or area, the excess flow control shall be located within the storage room or area. Where the piping originates from a bulk source, the excess flow control shall be located as close to the bulk source as practical. Exceptions: 1. Piping for inlet connections designed to prevent backflow. 2. Piping for pressure relief devices. 7. Secondary containment or equivalent protection from spills shall be provided for piping for liquid hazardous materials and for highly toxic and toxic corrosive gases above threshold quantities listed in Tables 6004.2 and 6004.3. Secondary containment includes, but is not limited to double walled piping. Exceptions: 1. Secondary containment is not required for toxic corrosive gases if the piping is constructed of inert materials. 2. Piping under sub-atmospheric conditions if the piping is equipped with an alarm and fail-safe-to-close valve activated by a loss of vacuum. 8. Expansion chambers shall be provided between valves whenever the regulated gas may be subjected to thermal expansion. Chambers shall be sized to provide protection for piping and instrumentation and to accommodate the expansion of regulated materials. 15.04.361 Section 5003.2.2.2 amended - Additional Regulation for Supply Piping for Health Hazard Materials. Section 2703.2.2.2 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 5003.2.2.2 Additional Regulation for Supply Piping for Health Hazard Materials. Supply piping and tubing for gases and liquids having a health hazard ranking of 3 or 4 in accordance with ASME B31.3 and the following: 1. Piping and tubing utilized for the transmission of toxic, highly toxic, or highly volatile corrosive liquids and gases shall have welded or brazed connections throughout except for connections within an exhausted enclosure if the material is a gas, or an approved method of drainage or containment is provided for connections if the material is a liquid. 2. Piping and tubing shall not be located within corridors, within any portion of a means of egress required to be enclosed in fire-resistance-rated construction or in concealed spaces in areas not classified as Group H Occupancies. Exception: Piping and tubing within the space defined by the walls of corridors and the floor or roof above or in concealed space above other occupancies when installed in accordance with Section 415.8.6.3 of the California Building Code as required for Group H, Division 5 Occupancies. 18 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 18 3. All primary piping for toxic, highly toxic and moderately toxic gases shall pass a helium leak test of 1x10-9 cubic centimeters/second where practical, or shall pass testing in accordance with an approved, nationally recognized standard. Tests shall be conducted by a qualified “third party” not involved with the construction of the piping and control systems. 15.04.370 Section 5003.3.1 amended - Unauthorized Discharges. Section 2703.3.1 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 5003.3.1 Unauthorized Discharges. When hazardous materials are released in quantities reportable under state, federal or local regulations or when there is a threatened release that presents a threat to health, property or the environment, the fire code official shall be notified immediately in an approved manner and the following procedures required in accordance with Sections 5003.3.1.1 through 5003.3.1.4. 15.04.380 Section 5003.5.2 added - Ventilation Ducting. Section 5003.5.2 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 5003.5.2 Ventilation Ducting. Product conveying ducts for venting hazardous materials operations shall be labeled with the hazard class of the material being vented and the direction of flow. 15.04.381 Section 5003.5.3 added - “H” Occupancies. Section 2703.5.4 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 5003.5.3 “H” Occupancies. In “H” occupancies, all piping and tubing may be required to be identified when there is any possibility of confusion with hazardous materials transport tubing or piping. Flow direction indicators are required. 15.04.390 Section 5003.9.8 amended - Separation of Incompatible Materials. Section 2703.9.8 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 5003.9.8 Separation of Incompatible Materials. Incompatible materials in storage and storage of materials that are incompatible with materials in use shall be separated. When the stored materials are in containers having a capacity of more than 5 pounds (2 kg) or 0.5 gallon (2 L), separation shall be accomplished by: 1. Segregating incompatible materials in storage by a distance of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) and in an independent containment system. 2. Isolating incompatible materials in storage by a noncombustible partition extending not less than 18 inches (457 mm) above and to the sides of the stored material. 19 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 19 3. Storing liquid and solid materials in hazardous material storage cabinets. 4. Storing compressed gases in gas cabinets or exhausted enclosures in accordance with Sections 5003.8.5 and 5003.8.6. Materials that are incompatible shall not be stored within the same cabinet or exhausted enclosure. 15.04.391 Section 5003.9.11 added - Fire Extinguishing Systems for Workstations Dispensing, Handling or Using Hazardous Materials. Section 5003.9.11 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 5003.9.11 Fire Extinguishing Systems for Workstations Dispensing, Handling or Using Hazardous Materials. Combustible and non-combustible work stations which dispense, handle or use hazardous materials shall be protected by an approved automatic fire extinguishing system in accordance with Section 1803.10. Exception: Internal fire protection is not required for Biological Safety Cabinets that carry NSF/ANSI certification where quantities of flammable liquids in use or storage within the cabinet do not exceed 500 ml. 15.04.400 Section 5004.2.1 amended - Spill Control for Hazardous Material Liquids. Section 2704.2.1 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 5004.2.1 Spill Control for Hazardous Material Liquids. Rooms, buildings or areas used for storage of hazardous material liquids shall be provided with spill control to prevent the flow of liquids to adjoining areas. Floors in indoor locations and similar surfaces in outdoor locations shall be constructed to contain a spill from the largest single vessel by one of the following methods: 1. Liquid-tight sloped or recessed floors in indoor locations or similar areas in outdoor locations. 2. Liquid-tight floors in indoor locations or similar areas provided with liquid-tight raised or recessed sills or dikes. 3. Sumps and collection systems. 4. Other approved engineered systems. Except for surfacing, the floors, sills, dikes, sumps and collection systems shall be constructed of noncombustible material, and the liquid-tight seal shall be compatible with the material stored. When liquid-tight sills or dikes are provided, they are not required at perimeter openings having an open-grate trench across the opening that connects to an approved collection system. 15.04.401 Section 5004.2.2 amended and Table 5004.2.2 deleted - Secondary Containment for Hazardous Material Liquids and Solids. Table 5004.2.2 is deleted and Section 5004.2.2 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 20 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 20 5004.2.2 Secondary Containment for Hazardous Material Liquids and Solids. Buildings, rooms or areas used for the storage of hazardous materials liquids or solids shall be provided with secondary containment in accordance with this section. Amend Section 5004.2.2.2 as follows: 5004.2.2.2 Incompatible Materials. Incompatible materials shall be separated from each other in independent secondary containment systems. 15.04.410 Section 5005.4.4 amended - Emergency Alarm. Section 5005.4.4 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 5005.4.4 Emergency Alarm. When hazardous materials having a hazard ranking of 3 or 4 in accordance with NFPA 704, or toxic gases exceeding 10 cu. ft. and any amount of highly toxic compressed gases are transported through corridors or exit enclosures, there shall be an emergency telephone system, a local manual alarm station or an approved alarm-initiating device at not more than 150-foot (45,720 mm) intervals and at each exit and exit-access doorway throughout the transport route. The signal shall be relayed to an approved central, proprietary or remote station service or constantly attended on-site location and shall also initiate a local audible alarm. 15.04.420 Section 202 amended – addition of definition of “corrosive liquid.” The following definition is added to section 202of the California Fire Code to read as follows: CORROSIVE LIQUID. Corrosive liquid is a liquid which, when in contact with living tissue, will cause destruction or irreversible alteration of such tissue by chemical action. Examples include acidic, alkaline or caustic materials. Such material will be considered corrosive when the Ph is 2 or less or 12.5 or more, except for foodstuffs or medicine. Included are Department of Transportation and Title 22, California Code of Regulations, 66261.22 classed corrosives. 15.04.430 Section 5704.2.7.5.8 amended - Overfill Prevention. Section 3404.2.7.5.8 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 5704.2.7.5.8 Overfill Prevention. An approved means or method in accordance with Section 5704.2.9.6.6 shall be provided to prevent overfill of all Class I, II and IIIA liquid storage tanks. Storage tanks in refineries, bulk plants or terminals regulated by Sections 5706.4 or 5706.7 shall have overfill protection in accordance with API 2350. An approved means or method in accordance with Section 5704.2.9.7.6 shall be provided to prevent the overfilling of Class IIIB liquid storage tanks connected to fuel-burning equipment inside buildings. 15.04.440 Section 5704.2.7.5.9 added - Automatic Filling of Tanks. 21 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 21 Section 5704.2.7.5.9 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 5704.2.7.5.9 Automatic Filling of Tanks. Systems that automatically fill flammable or combustible liquid tanks shall be equipped with an approved overfill protection system that sends an alarm signal to a constantly attended location and immediately stops the filling of the tank. The alarm signal and automatic shutoff shall be tested on an annual basis and records of such testing shall be maintained on-site for a period of five (5) years. 15.04.450 Section 6001.3 added - Moderately Toxic Gases with a LC50 Equal to or Less Than 3000 Parts Per Million. Section 6001.3 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 6001.3 Moderately Toxic Gases With A LC50 Equal To Or Less Than 3000 Parts Per Million. Notwithstanding the hazard class definition in Section 3702, moderately toxic gases with an LC50 less than 3000 parts per million shall additionally comply with the requirements for toxic gases in Section 6004 of this code. 15.04.460 Section 6002.1 amended – add definition of “moderately toxic gas” and “maximum threshold quantity.” The following definition is added to section 6002.1 of the California Fire Code to read as follows: MODERATELY TOXIC GAS. Moderately toxic gas is a chemical or substance that has a median lethal concentration (LC50) in air more than 2000 parts per million but not more than 5000 parts per million by volume of gas or vapor, when administered by continuous inhalation for an hour, or less if death occurs within one hour, to albino rats weighing between 200 and 300 grams each. MAXIMUM THRESHOLD QUANTITY. Maximum Threshold Quantity (Max TQ) is the maximum quantity of a moderately toxic or toxic gas, which may be stored in a single vessel before a more stringent category of regulation is applied. The following equation shall be used to calculate the Max TQ: Max TQ (pounds) = LC50 (ppm) x 2 lb. 15.04.470 Section 6004 amended – Toxic gases including refrigerants. Section 3704 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: Section 6004 HIGHLY TOXIC, TOXIC AND MODERATELY TOXIC GASES INCLUDING THOSE USED AS REFRIGERANTS. 15.04.480 Sections 6004.1.4 through 6004.1.17 added - Controls for toxic gases. Sections 6004.1.4 through 6004.1.17 are added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 22 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 22 6004.1.4 Automatic Shut-Off Valve. An automatic shut-off valve, which is of a fail-safe to close design, shall be provided to shut off the supply of highly toxic gases for any of the following: 1. Activation of a manual fire alarm system. 2. Activation of the gas detection system. 3. Failure of emergency power. 4. Failure of primary containment. 5. Seismic activity. 6. Failure of required ventilation. 7. Manual activation at an approved remote location. 6004.1.5 Emergency Control Station. Signals from emergency equipment used for highly toxic gases shall be transmitted to an emergency control station or other approved monitoring station, which is continually staffed by trained personnel. 6004.1.6 Maximum Threshold Quantity. Toxic gases stored or used in quantities exceeding the maximum threshold quantity in a single vessel per control area or outdoor control area shall comply with the additional requirements for highly toxic gases of Section 6004 of this code. Moderately toxic gases stored or used in quantities exceeding the maximum threshold quantity in a single vessel per control area or outdoor control area shall comply with the additional requirements for toxic gases of Section 3704 of this code 6004.1.7 Reduced Flow Valve. All containers of materials other than lecture bottles containing Highly Toxic material and having a vapor pressure exceeding 29 psia shall be equipped with a reduced flow valve when available. If a reduced flow valve is not available, the container shall be used with a flow- limiting device. All flow limiting devices shall be part of the valve assembly and visible to the eye when possible; otherwise, they shall be installed as close as possible to the cylinder source. 6004.1.8 Annual Maintenance. All safety control systems at a facility shall be maintained in good working condition and tested not less frequently than annually. Maintenance and testing shall be performed by persons qualified to perform the maintenance and tests. Maintenance records and certifications shall be available to any representative of the Fire Department for inspection upon request. 6004.1.9 Fire Extinguishing Systems. Buildings and covered exterior areas for storage and use areas of materials regulated by this Chapter shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13. The 23 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 23 design of the sprinkler system for any room or area where highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic gases are stored, handled or used shall be in accordance with Section 2704.5. 6004.1.10 Local Gas Shut Off. Manual activation controls shall be provided at locations near the point of use and near the source, as approved by the fire code official. The fire code official may require additional controls at other places, including, but not limited to, the entry to the building, storage or use areas, and emergency control stations. Manual activated shut-off valves shall be of a fail-safe- to-close design. 6004.1.11 Exhaust Ventilation Monitoring. For highly toxic gases and toxic gases exceeding threshold quantities, a continuous monitoring system shall be provided to assure that the required exhaust ventilation rate is maintained. The monitoring system shall initiate a local alarm. The alarm shall be both visual and audible and shall be designed to provide warning both inside and outside of the interior storage, use, or handling area. 6004.1.12 Emergency Response Plan. If the preparation of an emergency response plan for the facility is not required by any other law, responsible persons shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, and filed with the fire code official, a written emergency response plan. If the preparation of an emergency response plan is required by other law, a responsible person shall file a copy of the plan with the Fire Chief. 6004.1.13 Emergency Response Team. Responsible persons shall be designated the on-site emergency response team and trained to be liaison personnel for the Fire Department. These persons shall aid the Fire Department in preplanning emergency responses, identifying locations where regulated materials are stored, handled and used, and be familiar with the chemical nature of such material. An adequate number of personnel for each work shift shall be designated. 6004.1.14 Emergency Drills. Emergency drills of the on-site emergency response team shall be conducted on a regular basis but not less than once every three months. Records of drills conducted shall be maintained. 6004.1.15 Cylinder Leak Testing. Cylinders shall be tested for leaks immediately upon delivery and again immediately prior to departure. Testing shall be approved by the fire code official in accordance with appropriate nationally recognized industry standards and practices, if any. Appropriate remedial action shall be immediately undertaken when leaks are detected 6004.1.16 Inert Gas Purge System. Gas systems shall be provided with dedicated inert gas purge systems. A dedicated inert gas purge system may be 24 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 24 used to purge more than one gas, provided the gases are compatible. Purge gas systems inside buildings shall be located in an approved gas cabinet unless the system operates by vacuum demand. 6004.1.17 Seismic Shutoff Valve. An automatic seismic shut-off valve, which is of a fail-safe to close design, shall be provided to shutoff the supply of highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic gases with an LC50 less than 3000 parts per million upon a seismic event within 5 seconds of a horizontal sinusoidal oscillation having a peak acceleration of 0.3G (1.47m/sec2) and a period of 0.4 seconds. 15.04.490 Section 6004.2 amended – Indoor storage and use of toxic gases. Section 6004.2 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 6004.2 Indoor Storage and Use. The indoor storage or use of highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic compressed gases shall be in accordance with Sections 6004.1 through 3704.2.2.10.3.3. The threshold quantity for highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic gases for indoor storage and use are set forth in Table 6004.2. Table 6004.2 Threshold Quantities for Highly Toxic, Toxic and Moderately Toxic Gases for Indoor Storage and Use Highly Toxic 0 Toxic 10 cubic feet Moderately Toxic 20 cubic feet 15.04.491 Sections 6004.2.1 through 6004.2.1.1 amended – Applicability of toxic gas regulations. Sections 6004.2.1 through 6004.2.1.1 of the California Fire Code are amended to read as follows: 6004.2.1 Applicability. The applicability of regulations governing the indoor storage and use of highly toxic, toxic, and moderately toxic compressed gases shall be as set forth in Sections 6004.2.1.1 through 6004.2.1.3. 6004.2.1.1 Quantities Not Exceeding the Maximum Allowable Quantity per Control Area. The indoor storage or use of highly toxic, and toxic and moderately toxic gases in amounts exceeding the threshold quantity per control area set forth in Table 6004.2 shall be in accordance with Sections 5001, 5003, 6001, 6004.1 and 6004.2. 15.04.492 Section 6004.2.2 amended – General requirements for use and storage of toxic gases. Section 6004.2.2 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 25 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 25 6004.2.2 General indoor requirements. The general requirements applicable to the indoor storage and use of highly toxic and toxic compressed gases shall be in accordance with Sections 6004.2.2.1 through 6004.2.2.10.3. Moderately toxic gases with an LC50 less than 3000 parts per million shall comply with the requirements for toxic gases in Sections 6004.2.2.1 through 6004.2.2.10.3 All other moderately toxic gases exceeding the threshold quantity shall comply with the requirements for toxic gases in Sections 6004.2.2.1 through 6004.2.2.7. 15.04.493 Section 6004.2.2.7 amended –Treatment systems. Section 3704.2.2.7 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 6004.2.2.7 Treatment Systems. The exhaust ventilation from gas cabinets, exhausted enclosures, gas rooms and local exhaust systems required in Section 6004.2.2.4 and 6004.2.2.5 shall be directed to a treatment system. The treatment system shall be utilized to handle the accidental release of gas and to process exhaust ventilation. The treatment system shall be designed in accordance with Sections 6004.2.2.7.1 through 6004.2.2.7.5 and Section 505 of the California Mechanical Code. Exceptions: 1.1 Highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic gases storage. A treatment system is not required for cylinders, containers and tanks in storage when all of the following are provided: 1.2 Valve outlets are equipped with gas-tight outlet plug or caps. 1.3 Hand wheel-operated valves have handles secured to prevent movement. 1.4 Approved containment vessels or containment systems are provided in accordance with Section 6004.2.2.3. 15.04.494 Section 6004.2.2.10.1 amended – Alarms. Section 3704.2.2.10.1 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 6004.2.2.10.1. Alarms. The gas detection system shall initiate a local alarm and transmit a signal to a constantly attended control station when a short- term hazard condition is detected. The alarm shall be both visual and audible and shall provide warning both inside and outside the area where the gas is detected. The audible alarm shall be distinct from all other alarms. 15.04.500 Section 6004.3 amended – Outdoor storage and use. Section 6004.3 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 6004.3 Outdoor Storage and Use. The outdoor storage or use of highly toxic, 26 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 26 toxic and moderately toxic compressed gases shall be in accordance with Sections 6004.3.1 through 6004.3.4. The threshold quantity for highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic gases for outdoor storage and use are set forth in Table 6004.3. Table 6004.3 Threshold Quantities for Highly Toxic, Toxic and Moderately Toxic Gases for Outdoor Storage and Use Highly Toxic 0 Toxic 10 cubic feet Moderately Toxic 20 cubic feet 15.04.501 Sections 6004.3.1 and 6004.3.1.1 amended – Applicability of toxic gas regulations. Sections 6004.3.1 and 6004.3.1.1 of the California Fire Code are amended to read as follows: 6004.3.1 Applicability. The applicability of regulations governing the outdoor storage and use of highly toxic, toxic, and moderately toxic compressed gases shall be as set forth in Sections 6004.3.1.1 through 6004.3.1.3. 6004.3.1.1 Quantities not exceeding the maximum allowable quantity per control area. The outdoor storage or use of highly toxic and toxic gases in amounts exceeding the threshold quantity per control area set forth in Table 6004.3 shall be in accordance with Sections 5001, 5003, 6001, 6004.1, and 6004.3. Moderately toxic gases with an LC50 less than 3000 parts per million in amounts exceeding the threshold quantity in Table 6004.3 shall comply with the requirements for toxic gases in Sections 5001, 5003, 6001, 6004.1 and 6004.3. Moderately toxic gases in amounts exceeding the threshold quantity in Table 6004.3 shall comply with the requirements for toxic gases in Sections 5001, 5003, 6001, 6004.1 and 6004.3.2.1 through 6004.3.2.5. 15.04.502 Section 6004.3.3 amended – Outdoor storage of tanks and cylinders. Section 6004.3.3 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 6004.3.3 Outdoor storage weather protection for portable tanks and cylinders. Weather protection in accordance with Section 5004.13 and this section shall be provided for portable tanks and cylinders located outdoors and not within gas cabinets or exhausted enclosures. The storage area shall be equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 5004.5. 15.04.510 Section 6101.4 added – Storage and use of liquefied petroleum gas. 27 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 27 Section 6101.4 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 6101.4 Storage and use of liquefied petroleum gas. Storage and use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is prohibited within the City limits of Palo Alto where natural gas mains exist. EXCEPTION: The Fire Chief may permit the use of LPG for the following purposes and in the following manner: (1) A single tank of no more than 500-gallon (1892 L) water capacity in connection with portable equipment or devices which are approved for use with LPG. (2) As an emergency standby fuel supply for critical industrial, medical or research equipment. (3) A single tank of no more than 2000-gallon (7570 L) water capacity used in vehicle servicing operations installed in accordance with applicable safety standards. The storage of LPG shall conform to the provisions of applicable state and local Codes and ordinances. 15.04.515 Section 6405.3.1 added – Silane distribution systems automatic shutdown. Section 6405.3.1 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 6405.3.1 Silane distribution systems automatic shutdown. Silane distribution systems shall automatically shut down at the source upon activation of the gas detection system at levels above the alarm level and/or failure of the ventilation system for the silane distribution system. 15.04.520 Section 4902.1 amended – Definition of wildland-urban interface area. The definition of “wildland-urban interface fire area” in Section 4902.1 is amended to read as follows: WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREA is a geographical area identified by the state as a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone” in accordance with the Public Resources Code Sections 4201 through 4202 and Government Code Sections 51175 through 51189. In addition, within the limits of the City of Palo Alto, wildland-urban fire interface area shall include all areas west of Highway 280 and all other areas recommended as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the director of Cal Fire. 15.04.530 Sections 4903.1 through 4903.4 added – General Requirements for wildland- urban interface fire areas. Sections 4903.1 through 4903.4 are added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 4903.1 General. When required by the fire code official, a fire protection plan shall be prepared. 4903.2 Content. The plan shall be based upon a site-specific wildfire risk 28 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 28 assessment that includes considerations of location, topography, aspect, flammable vegetation, climatic conditions and fire history. The plan shall address water supply, access, building ignition and fire-resistance factors, fire protection systems and equipment, defensible space and vegetation management. 4903.3 Cost. The cost of fire protection plan preparation and review shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 4903.4 Plan retention. The fire protection plan shall be retained by the fire code official. 15.04.540 Sections 4907.1 though 4907.2 amended - Defensible space. Sections 4070.1 through 4907.2 are added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 4907.1 General. Persons owning, leasing, controlling, operating or maintaining buildings or structures in, upon or adjoining the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area and persons owning, leasing or controlling land adjacent to such buildings or structures, shall at all times: 1. Maintain an effective defensible space by removing and clearing away flammable vegetation and combustible growth from areas within 30 feet (9144 mm) of such buildings or structures. Exception: Single specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery or similar plants used as ground covers, provided that they do not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from the native growth to any structure. 2. Maintain additional effective defensible space by removing brush, flammable vegetation and combustible growth located 30 feet to 100 feet (9144 mm to 30480 mm) from such buildings or structures, when required by the fire code official due to steepness of terrain or other conditions that would cause a defensible space of only 30 feet (9144 mm) to be insufficient. Exception: Grass and other vegetation located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) from buildings or structures and less than 18 inches (457 mm) in height above the ground need not be removed where necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion. 3. Remove portions of trees, which extend within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the outlet of a chimney. 4. Maintain trees adjacent to or overhanging a building free of deadwood. 5. Maintain the roof of a structure free of leaves, needles or other dead vegetative growth. 6. Remove flammable vegetation a minimum of 10 feet around liquefied petroleum 29 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 29 gas tanks/containers. 7. Firewood and combustible materials shall not be stored in unenclosed spaces beneath buildings or structures, or on decks or under eaves, canopies or other projections or overhangs. The storage of firewood and combustible material within the defensible space shall be located a minimum of 30 feet (6096 mm) from structures and separated from the crown of trees by a minimum horizontal distance of 15 feet (4572 mm). Exception: Firewood and combustible materials not for consumption on the premises shall be stored as approved by the fire code official. 8. Clear areas within 10 feet (3048 mm) of fire apparatus access roads and driveways to of non-fire-resistive vegetation growth. Exception: Grass and other vegetation located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) from buildings or structures and less than 18 inches (457 mm) in height above the ground need not be removed where necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion. 4907.2 Corrective Actions. The executive body is authorized to instruct the fire code official to give notice to the owner of the property upon which conditions regulated by Section 4907.1 exist to correct such conditions. If the owner fails to correct such conditions, the executive body is authorized to cause the same to be done and make the expense of such correction a lien upon the property where such condition exists. 15.04.550 Sections 4914 through 4914.3 added – Access Requirements for wildland-urban interface fire areas. Section 4914 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 4914 ACCESS 4914.1 General. Buildings and structures, or portions thereof, hereafter constructed or relocated into or within wildland-urban interface areas shall be provided with fire apparatus access in accordance with this chapter. 4914.2 Driveways. Driveways with an all-weather surface shall be provided when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of a building is located more than 150 feet (45 720 mm) from a fire apparatus access road. Driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet (3658 mm) and a minimum unobstructed height of 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm). Driveways in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length shall be provided with turnarounds. Driveways in excess of 200 feet (60960 mm) in length and less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in width shall be provided with turnouts in addition to turnarounds. An all-weather surface shall be any surface material acceptable to the code official. 30 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 30 A driveway shall not serve in excess of two dwelling units without meeting the requirements for an access road in accordance with this chapter. Driveway turnarounds shall be in accordance with Fire Department Standards. Driveways that connect with a road or roads at more than one point may be considered as having a turnaround if all changes of direction meet the radii requirements for driveway turnarounds. Driveway turnouts shall be an all-weather road surface at least 10 feet (3048 mm) wide and 30 feet (9144 mm) long. Driveway turnouts shall be located as required by the code official. Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges on driveways and private roads. Design loads for bridges shall be established by the code official. 4914.3 Fire apparatus access roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall be all weather roads with a minimum width of 20 feet (6096 mm) and a clear height of 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm); and shall be designed in accordance with Fire Department Standards. Dead-end roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length shall be provided with turnarounds designed in accordance with Fire Department Standards. An all-weather road surface shall be any surface material acceptable to the code official. 15.04.560 Sections 4915 through 4915.9 added – Water supply requirements for wildland- urban interface fire areas. Section 4915 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 4915 WATER SUPPLY 4915.1 General. Buildings and structures, or portions thereof, hereafter constructed or relocated into or within wildland-urban interface areas shall be provided with fire protection water supplies in accordance with this chapter. Exception: Buildings containing only private garages, carports, sheds and agricultural buildings with a building area of not more than 500 square feet (56 m2). 4915.2 Water sources. The point at which a water source is available for Fire Department use shall be located not more than 600 feet from all portions of the exterior walls of the building and be approved by the code official. The distance shall be measured along an unobstructed line of travel. Water sources shall have a minimum usable water volume as determined by the adequate water supply needs in accordance with Section 4915.4. This water 31 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 31 source shall be equipped with an approved hydrant. The water source shall be provided and maintained by a recognized water purveyor, mutual water company or water pumped from a well. The design, construction, location, water level maintenance, access, and access maintenance of man-made water sources shall be approved by the code official. 4915.3 Hydrants. All hydrants shall be designed and constructed in accordance with nationally recognized standards. The location and access shall be approved by the code official. 4915.4 Adequate water supply. Adequate fire protection water supplies shall be as follows: 1. One and two-family dwellings. The required fire protection water supply for one- and two- family dwellings shall be in accordance with Appendix B. Exception: The water supply duration need not exceed 30 minutes for structures not exceeding 2,400 sq. ft. 2. Buildings other than one- and two-family dwellings. The water supply required for buildings other than one-and two-family dwellings shall be in accordance with Appendix B. Exception: The water supply duration need not exceed 2 hours. 4915.5 Obstructions. Access to all water sources required by this code shall be unobstructed at all times. The code official shall not be deterred or hindered from gaining immediate access to water source equipment, fire protection equipment or hydrants. 4915.6 Identification. Water sources, hydrants and fire protection equipment shall be clearly identified in a manner approved by the code official to identify location and to prevent obstruction by parking and other obstructions. 4915.7 Testing and maintenance. Water sources, hydrants and other fire protection equipment required by this code shall be subject to periodic tests as required by the code official. All such equipment installed under the provisions of this code shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and shall be repaired or replaced where defective. Additions, repairs, alterations and servicing of such fire protection equipment and resources shall be in accordance with approved standards. 4915.8 Clearance of fuel. Defensible space shall be provided around water tank structures, water supply pumps and pump houses in accordance with Section 4907. 4915.9 Standby power. Stationary water supply facilities within the wildland- 32 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 32 urban interface area dependent on electrical power to meet adequate water supply demands shall provide standby power systems in accordance with the Electrical Code to ensure that an uninterrupted water supply is maintained. The standby power source shall be capable of providing power for a minimum of two hours. Exceptions: 1. When approved by the code official, a standby power supply is not required where the primary power service to the stationary water supply facility is underground. 2. A standby power supply is not required where the stationary water supply facility serves no more than one single-family dwelling. 15.04.570 Sections 4916 through 4916.3 added – Fire sprinkler requirements for wildland- urban interface fire areas. Section 4916 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 4916 AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS 4916.1 General. Buildings and structures located in wildland-urban interface areas shall be provided with automatic fire sprinkler protection in accordance with this chapter. 4916.2 New buildings. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings located in the wildland-urban interface area. Exception: Accessory structures to single-family residences that are non- residential and that have a building area of 500 square feet or less. 4916.3 Existing buildings. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing buildings located in the wildland-urban interface area when modifications are made that increase the building area. Exception: One-time additions to existing buildings made after January 1, 1994 that do not exceed 500 square feet in building area. 15.04.580 Sections 4917 through 4917.3.5 added – General Requirements for wildland- urban interface fire areas. Sections 4917 through 4917.3.5 are added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 4917 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPRESSION AND CONTROL 4917.1 General 4917.1.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter establish general requirements applicable to new and existing properties located within wildland-urban interface areas. 33 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 33 4917.1.2 Objective. The objective of this appendix is to provide necessary fire- protection measures to reduce the threat of wildfire in a wildland-urban interface area and improve the capability of controlling such fires. 4917.2 Vegetation Control 4917.2.1 General. Vegetation control shall comply with Sections 4917.2.2 through 4917.2.5. 4917.2.2 Maintenance of Defensible Space 4917.2.2.1 General. Defensible spaces required by 4907 shall be maintained in accordance with Section 4917.2.2. 4917.2.2.2 Modified Area. Non-fire-resistive vegetation or growth shall be kept clear of buildings or structures, in accordance with Section 4907, in such a manner as to provide a clear area for fire suppression operations. 4917.2.2.3 Responsibility. Persons owning, leasing, controlling, operating or maintaining buildings or structures are responsible for maintenance of defensible spaces. Maintenance of the defensible space shall include modifying or removing nonfire-resistive vegetation and keeping leaves, needles and other dead vegetative material regularly removed from roofs of buildings and structures. 4917.2.2.4 Trees. Tree crowns extending to within 10 feet (3048 mm) of any structure shall be pruned to maintain a minimum horizontal clearance of 10 feet (3048 mm). Tree crowns within the defensible space shall be pruned to remove limbs located less than 6 feet (1829 mm) above the ground surface adjacent to the trees. Portions of tree crowns that extend within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the outlet of a chimney shall be pruned to maintain a minimum horizontal clearance of 10 feet (3048 mm). Deadwood and litter shall be regularly removed from trees. 4917.2.3 Clearance Of Brush Or Vegetative Growth From Roadways. The code official is authorized to require areas within 10 feet (3048 mm) on each side of portions of fire apparatus access roads and driveways to be cleared of non-fire- resistive vegetation growth. Exception: Single specimens of trees, ornamental vegetative fuels or cultivated ground cover, such as green grass, ivy, succulents or similar plants used as ground cover, provided they do not forma means of readily transmitting fire. 4917.2.4 Clearance of brush and vegetative growth from electrical transmission 34 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 34 and distribution lines. 4917.2.4.1 General. Clearance of brush and vegetative growth from electrical transmission and distribution lines shall be in accordance with Section 4917.2.4. Exception: Section 4917.2.4 does not authorize persons not having legal right of entry to enter on or damage the property of others without consent of the owner. 4917.2.4.2 Support clearance. Persons owning, controlling, operating or maintaining electrical transmission or distribution lines shall have an approved program in place that identifies poles or towers with equipment and hardware types that have a history of becoming an ignition source, and provides a combustible free space consisting of a clearing of not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) in each direction from the outer circumference of such pole or tower during such periods of time as designated by the code official. Exception: Lines used exclusively as telephone, telegraph, messenger call, alarm transmission or other lines classed as communication circuits by a public utility. 4917.2.4.3 Electrical distribution and transmission line clearances. 4917.2.4.3.1 General. Clearances between vegetation and electrical lines shall be in accordance with 4917.2.4.3. 4917.2.4.3.2 Trimming clearance. At the time of trimming, clearances not less than those established by Table 4917.2.4.3.2 shall be provided. The radial clearances shown below are minimum clearances that shall be established, at time of trimming, between the vegetation and the energized conductors and associated live parts. Table 4917.2.4.3.2 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: TABLE 4917.2.4.3.2 MINIMUM CLEARANCES BETWEEN VEGETATION AND ELECTRICAL LINES AT TIME OF TRIMMING LINE VOLTAGE MINIMUM RADIAL CLEARANCE FROM CONDUCTOR (feet) 2,400-72,000 4 72,001-110,000 6 110,001-300,000 10 300,001 or more 15 For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 mm. 35 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 35 Exception: The code official is authorized to establish minimum clearances different than those specified by Table 4917.2.4.3.2 when evidence substantiating such other clearances is submitted to and approved by the code official. 4917.2.4.3.3 Minimum Clearance To Be Maintained. Clearances not less than those established by Table 4917.2.4.3.3 shall be maintained during such periods of time as designated by the code official. The site-specific clearance achieved, at time of pruning, shall vary based on species growth rates, the utility company- specific trim cycle, the potential line sway due to wind, line sag due to electrical loading and ambient temperature and the tree’s location in proximity to the high voltage lines. Exception: The code official is authorized to establish minimum clearances different than those specified by 4917.2.4.3.3.3 when evidence substantiating such other clearances is submitted to and approved by the code official. Table 4917.2.4.3.3 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: TABLE 4917.2.4.3.3 MINIMUM CLEARANCES BETWEEN VEGETATION AND ELECTRICAL LINES TO BE MAINTAINED LINE VOLTAGE MINIMUM CLEARANCE (inches) 750-35,000 6 35,001-60,000 12 60,001-115,000 19 115,001-230,000 30.5 230,001-500,000 115 For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm. 4917.2.4.3.4 Electrical Power Line Emergencies. During emergencies, the utility shall perform the required work to the extent necessary to clear the hazard. An emergency can include situations such as trees falling into power lines, or trees in violation of Table 4917.2.3.3.3. 4917.2.5 Correction Of Condition. The fire code official is authorized to give notice to the owner of the property on which conditions regulated by Section 4917.2 exist to correct such conditions. If the owner fails to correct such conditions, the legislative body of the jurisdiction is authorized to cause the same to be done and make the expense of such correction a lien on the property where such condition exists. 4917.3 ACCESS RESTRICTIONS 4917.3.1 Restricted Entry To Public Lands. The fire code official is authorized to 36 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 36 determine and publicly announce when wildland-urban interface areas shall be closed to entry and when such areas shall again be opened to entry. Entry on and occupation of wildland-urban interface areas, except public roadways, inhabited areas or established trails and campsites that have not been closed during such time when the wildland-urban interface area is closed to entry, is prohibited. Exceptions: 1. Residents and owners of private property within wildland-urban interface areas and their invitees and guests going to or being on their lands. 2. Entry, in the course of duty, by peace or police officers, and other duly authorized public officers, members of a fire department and members of the Wildland Firefighting Service. 4917.3.2 Trespassing On Posted Private Property. 4917.3.2.1 General. When the fire code official determines that a specific area within a wildland-urban interface area presents an exceptional and continuing fire danger because of the density of natural growth, difficulty of terrain, proximity to structures or accessibility to the public, such areas shall be restricted or closed until changed conditions warrant termination of such restriction or closure. Such areas shall be posted in accordance with Section 4917.3.2.2. 4917.3.2.2 Signs. Approved signs prohibiting entry by unauthorized persons and referring to this code shall be placed on every closed area. 4917.3.2.3 Trespassing. Entering and remaining within areas closed and posted is prohibited. Exception: Owners and occupiers of private or public property within closed and posted areas; their guests or invitees; authorized persons engaged in the operation and maintenance of necessary utilities such as electrical power, gas, telephone, water and sewer; and local, state and federal public officers and their authorized agents acting in the course of duty. 4917.3.3 Use Of Fire Roads And Defensible Space. Motorcycles, motor scooters and motor vehicles shall not be driven or parked on, and trespassing is prohibited on, fire roads or defensible space beyond the point where travel is restricted by a cable, gate or sign, without the permission of the property owners. Vehicles shall not be parked in a manner that obstructs the entrance to a fire road or defensible space. Exception: Public officers acting within their scope of duty. Radio and television aerials, guy wires thereto, and other obstructions shall not be installed or maintained on fire roads or defensible spaces, unless located 16 feet (4877 mm) or more above such fire road or defensible space. 4917.3.4 Use of Motorcycles, Motor Scooters, Ultra light Aircraft And Motor Vehicles. Motorcycles, motor scooters, ultra light aircraft and motor vehicles 37 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 37 shall not be operated within wildland-urban interface areas, without a permit by the code official, except on clearly established public or private roads. Permission from the property owner shall be presented when requesting a permit. 4917.3.5 Tampering With Locks, Barricades, Signs and Address Markers. Locks, barricades, seals, cables, signs and address markers installed within wildland- urban interface areas, by or under the control of the code official, shall not be tampered with, mutilated, destroyed or removed. Gates, doors, barriers and locks installed by or under the control of the code official shall not be unlocked. 15.04.584 Sections 4917.4 through 4917.4.10 added – Ignition source control requirements for wildland-urban interface fire areas. Sections 4917.4 through 4917.4.10 are added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 4917.4 IGNITION SOURCE CONTROL 4917.4.1 General. Ignition sources shall be in accordance with Section 4917.4. 4917.4.2 Objective. Regulations in this section are intended to provide the minimum requirements to prevent the occurrence of wildfires. 4917.4.3 Clearance From Ignition Sources. Clearance between ignition sources and grass, brush or other combustible materials shall be maintained a minimum of 30 feet (9144 mm). 4917.4.4 Smoking. When required by the fire code official, signs shall be posted stating NO SMOKING. No person shall smoke within 15 feet (4572 mm) of combustible materials or non-fire-resistive vegetation. Exception: Places of habitation or in the boundaries of established smoking areas or campsites as designated by the fire code official. 4917.4.5 Equipment and Devices Generating Heat, Sparks Or Open Flames. Equipment and devices generating heat, sparks or open flames capable of igniting nearby combustibles shall not be used in wildland-urban interface areas without a permit from the code official. Exception: Use of approved equipment in habitated premises or designated campsites that are a minimum of 30 feet (9144 mm) from grass-, grain-, brush- or forest-covered areas. 4917.4.6 Fireworks. Fireworks shall not be used or possessed in wildland- urban interface areas. 38 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 38 4917.4.7 Outdoor Fires. 4917.4.7.1 General. No person shall build, ignite or maintain any outdoor fire of any kind for any purpose in or on any wildland-urban interface area, except by the authority of a written permit from the code official. Exception: Outdoor fires within inhabited premises or designated campsites where such fires are in a permanent barbecue, portable barbecue, outdoor fireplace or grill and are a minimum of 30 feet (9144 mm) from any combustible material or nonfire-resistive vegetation. 4917.4.7.2 Permits. Permits shall incorporate such terms and conditions that will reasonably safeguard public safety and property. Outdoor fires shall not be built, ignited or maintained in or on hazardous fire areas under the following conditions: 1. When high winds are blowing, 2. When a person 17 years old or over is not present at all times to watch and tend such fire, or 3. When a public announcement is made that open burning is prohibited. 4917.4.7.3 Restrictions. No person shall use a permanent barbecue, portable barbecue, outdoor fireplace or grill for the disposal of rubbish, trash or combustible waste material. 4917.4.8 Outdoor Fireplaces, Permanent Barbecues And Grills. Outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbecues and grills shall not be built, installed or maintained in wildland-urban interface areas without approval of the fire code official. Outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbecues and grills shall be maintained in good repair and in a safe condition at all times. Openings in such appliances shall be provided with an approved spark arrestor, screen or door. Exception: When approved by the fire code official, unprotected openings in barbecues and grills necessary for proper functioning. 4917.4.9 Reckless Behavior. The fire code official is authorized to stop any actions of a person or persons if the official determines that the action is reckless and could result in an ignition of fire or spread of fire. 4917.4.10 Planting Vegetation Under Or Adjacent To Energized Electrical Lines. No vegetation shall be planted under or adjacent to energized power lines that, at maturity, shall grow within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the energized conductors. 15.04.585 Section 4917.5 added – Storage control requirements for wildland-urban interface 39 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 39 fire areas. Section 4917.5 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 4917.5 CONTROL OF STORAGE 4917.5.1 General. In addition to the requirements of the California Fire Code, storage and use of the materials shall be in accordance with Section 4917.5. 4917.5.2 Hazardous materials. Hazardous materials in excess of 10 gallons (37.8 L) of liquid, 200 cubic feet (5.66 m 3) of gas, or 10 pounds (4.54 kg) of solids require a permit and shall comply with nationally recognized standards for storage and use. 4917.5.2.1 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Installations 4917.5.2.1.1 General. The storage of liquefied petroleum gas (LP gas) and the installation and maintenance of pertinent equipment shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code and recognized standards. 4917.5.2.1.2 Location of containers. LP-gas containers shall be located within the defensible space in accordance with the California Fire Code. 4917.5.3 Explosives. Explosives shall not be possessed, kept, stored, sold, offered for sale, given away, used, discharged, transported or disposed of within wildland- urban interface areas. 4917.5.4 Combustible Materials. 4917.5.4.1 General. Outside storage of combustible materials such as, but not limited to, wood, rubber tires, building materials or paper products shall comply with the other applicable sections of this code and this section. 4917.5.4.2 Individual Piles. Individual piles shall not exceed 5,000 square feet (465 m 2) of contiguous area. Piles shall not exceed 50,000 cubic feet (1416 m 3) in volume or 10 feet (3048 mm) in height. 4917.5.4.3 Separation. A clear space of at least 40 feet (12 192 mm) shall be provided between piles. The clear space shall not contain combustible material or nonfire-resistive vegetation. 4917.5.4.4 Storage of Firewood and Combustible Materials 4917.5.4.4.1 General. Firewood and combustible material shall not be stored in unenclosed spaces beneath buildings or structures, or on decks or under 40 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 40 eaves, canopies or other projections or overhangs. When required by the code official, storage of firewood and combustible material stored in the defensible space shall be located a minimum of 20 feet (6096 mm) from structures and separated from the crown of trees by a minimum horizontal distance of 15 feet (4572 mm). 4917.5.4.4.2 Storage For Off-Site Use. Firewood and combustible materials not for consumption on the premises shall be stored so as to not pose a hazard. 15.04.586 Section 4917.6 added –Dumping in wildland-urban interface areas. Section 4917.6 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 4917.6 DUMPING 4917.6.1 Waste Material. Waste material shall not be placed, deposited or dumped in wildland-urban interface areas, or in, on or along trails, roadways or highways or against structures in wildland-urban interface areas. Exception: Approved public and approved private dumping areas. 4917.6.2 Ashes And Coals. Ashes and coals shall not be placed, deposited or dumped in or on wildland-urban interface areas. Exceptions: 1. In the hearth of an established fire pit, camp stove or fireplace. 2. In a noncombustible container with a tight fitting lid, which is kept or maintained in a safe location not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) from nonfire- resistive vegetation or structures. 3. Where such ashes or coals are buried and covered with 1 foot (305 mm) of mineral earth not less than 25 feet (7620 mm) from nonfire-resistive vegetation or structures. 15.04.587 Section 4917.7 added - Protection Of Pumps And Water Storage Facilities. Section 4917.7 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 4917.7 PROTECTION OF PUMPS AND WATER STORAGE FACILITIES 4917.7.1 General. The reliability of the water supply shall be in accordance with Section 4917.7. 4917.7.2 Objective. The intent of this section is to increase the reliability of water storage and pumping facilities and to protect such systems against loss from intrusion by fire. 4917.7.3 Fuel Modification Area. Water storage and pumping facilities shall be provided with a defensible space of not less than 30 feet (9144 mm) clear of non-fire- resistive vegetation or growth around and adjacent to such facilities. 41 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 41 Persons owning, controlling, operating or maintaining water storage and pumping systems requiring this defensible space are responsible for clearing and removing nonfire-resistive vegetation and maintaining the defensible space on the property owned, leased or controlled by said person. 4917.7.4 Trees. Portions of trees that extend to within 30 feet (9144 mm) of combustible portions of water storage and pumping facilities shall be removed. 4917.7.5 Protection of Electrical Power Supplies. When electrical pumps are used to provide the required water supply, such pumps shall be connected to a standby power source to automatically maintain electrical power in the event of power loss. The standby power source shall be capable of providing power for a minimum of two hours in accordance with the Electrical Code. Exception: A standby power source is not required where the primary power service to pumps are underground as approved by the code official. 15.04.588 Section 4917.8 added – Land use limitations in wildland-urban interface fire areas. Section 4917.8 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 4917.8 LAND USE LIMITATIONS 4917.8.1 General. Temporary fairs, carnivals, public exhibitions and similar uses must comply with all other provisions of this code in addition to enhanced ingress and egress requirements. 4917.8.2 Objective. The increased public use of land or structures in wildland- urban interface areas also increases the potential threat to life safety. The provisions of this section are intended to reduce that threat. 4917.8.3 Permits. Temporary fairs, carnivals, public exhibitions or similar uses shall not be allowed in a designated wildland-urban interface area, except by permit from the code official. Permits shall incorporate such terms and conditions that will reasonably safeguard public safety and property. 15.04.590 Addition of Chapter 19 – Life safety requirements for existing high rise buildings. Chapter 19 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 19 LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS SECTION 1901 42 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 42 GENERAL 1901.1 Purpose. The purpose of this appendix is to provide a reasonable degree of safety to persons occupying existing high-rise buildings by requiring minimum standards for exit corridors, exit stairways and elevator shafts, monitored alarm systems and emergency plans. 1901.2 Scope. The requirements shall apply to all high-rise buildings constructed prior to January 1, 1994 which have floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of approved fire department vehicle access or other physical configuration that qualifies a building as high rise by local ordinance. 1901.3 Permits Required. 1. Building permits shall be obtained as required by the Building Code. 2. Not less than 30 days prior to submitting plans for a building permit, a preplan review meeting shall be held, including the owner’s design team, building official and the chief, to determine the adequacy of the life-safety emergency systems concept for the building. The life-safety emergency systems shall be reflected on the plans for the building and become a permanent part of the building department’s records. The building official and the chief may require sufficient documentation, based upon engineering analysis, that the concept meets the intent of nationally recognized good practices and such guidelines as the building official and chief have published. 1901.4 Enforcement. The provisions of this appendix shall be enforced by the chief. 1901.5 Compliance. All buildings shall be made to conform with the requirements of Section 1902 within the following time periods: 1. Subsections 1902.11, 1902.12 and 1902.13 shall be completed within six months of the adoption date of this Chapter. 2. The owners of buildings affected by this appendix or their representatives shall submit plans to the building official showing intended methods of compliance with subsections 1902.1 through 1902.10 on or before June 30, 1990. 3. Subsections 1902.5, 1902.8, and 1902.9 shall be completed on or before January 1, 1991. 4. Subsections 1902.1, 1902.2, 1902.3, 1902.4, 1902.5, 1902.6 and 1902.8 shall 43 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 43 be completed on or before April l, 1994. Note: Regardless of any specific compliance date stipulated above, a building shall not be deemed in violation of this Chapter until such date has expired. 1901.6 Exceptions. The Fire Chief may grant certain exceptions to the requirements of this Chapter, under the following circumstances: 1. The Fire Chief may allow the use of alternate materials or methods of compliance upon a finding that the use of such alternate materials or methods of compliance will provide levels of fire and life safety equal to or greater than those otherwise required in this Chapter. 2. The Fire Chief may waive individual requirements of this Chapter or grant reasonable extensions of time in which to comply with said requirements upon a finding that such requirements are not practical or possible, or pose an unreasonable hardship. The determination of whether compliance is not practical or possible, or an unreasonable hardship, shall be based upon an overall evaluation of the following factors: (i) The amount of fire and life safety that would be lost if the requirements were waived or deferred; (ii) The cost of complying with the requirements; (iii) The financial hardship and disruption to occupants and users of the building in question; (iv) The type and nature of the use of the building in question; and (v) Such other factors as in the judgment of Fire Chief will result in providing a reasonable degree of safety as required by this Uniform Fire Code, to persons occupying or using the building. 3. The Fire Chief may grant reasonable extensions of time, up to two additional years, within which to comply with the requirements of subsections 1902.1, 1902.2, 1902.3, 1902.4, 1902.6, 1902.7 and 1902.9 of this Chapter, upon making a finding of hardship based upon the factors set forth in subsection (2) of this subsection 1901.6(f), or upon the agreement of the building owner that within said time, the building will be 100% sprinklered, in accordance with NFPA 13. 4. The Fire Chief shall prepare written notice of determination to grant or not to grant exceptions pursuant to this paragraph. The Fire Chief shall distribute the notice of determination in the next available council packet; shall mail 44 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 44 notice, postage prepaid, to the affected building owner; and shall publish such notice once in a newspaper of general circulation not later than five (5) days after the distribution of the notice on the city council packet. The notice shall state the address and general description of the subject property and the nature of the determination. The notice shall also state that the details regarding the decision will be available in the Fire Chief’s office, and that an appeal may be taken within ten (10) days after the date of publication of the notice. 1901.7 Appeals. 1. Any person aggrieved or affected by any determination made by the Fire Chief pursuant to subsection 1901.6 of this Chapter may appeal that determination in accordance with this subsection 1901.7. 2. An appeal from the decision of the Fire Chief shall be initiated within ten (10) days after the publication of notice, as provided in Paragraph 1901.6, by the filing at the office of the City Manager of a written, dated appeal, signed by all parties named as appellants, stating the names and official mailing addresses of all appellant(s) participating in the appeal and their relationship to the matter being appealed. 3. The appeal shall contain a statement of all facts supporting the contention of the appellant(s) and all reasons why the decision of the Fire Chief should be reversed, modified or set aside. 4. The appeal shall be accompanied by a fee, as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule for Fire Department appeals. 5. Upon receipt of any appeal, the City Manager or designee shall set a date for a hearing. Such hearing shall be held within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the appeal. A notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given to the appellant(s) by the City Manager or designee in writing. The notice shall be mailed, postage prepaid, addressed to the appellant(s) at the address(es) listed on the appeal, or it shall be delivered to the appellant(s) personally, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing date. If the appellant is other than the building owner, the building owner shall also be notified of the hearing. 6. The City Manager or designee (other than any personnel from the Fire Department), shall hear the appeal. At the time and place set for the hearing, the City Manager or designee shall receive all testimonial, documentary and tangible evidence bearing on the issues. The City Manager or designee may continue the hearing from time to time. The City Manager or designee may approve, modify or disapprove the 45 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 45 determination of the Fire Chief. Within three (3) working days of the close of the hearing, the City Manager or designee shall render a decision in writing. The decision shall be mailed, postage prepaid, to the appellant(s) at the address(es) listed on the appeal or delivered to the appellant(s) personally. If the appellant is other than the building owner, the building owner shall also be notified of the decision. 7. The decision of the City Manager or designee shall be final. 1901.8 Penalty. Failure to comply with subsection (e) above is unlawful and any person, firm or corporation, whether as principal, agent, employee or otherwise, violating any provisions of the above requirements shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Such person, firm or corporation is guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of these requirements is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm or corporation. 1901.9 Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this appendix be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of these requirements. SECTION 5002 REQUIREMENTS 1902.1 Automatic Sprinklers. All required exit corridors, stairwells, elevator lobbies, public assembly areas occupied by 100 or more persons and commercial kitchens shall be protected by an approved automatic sprinkler system meeting the design criteria of NFPA 13. One sprinkler head shall be provided on the room side of every corridor opening. Exception: Sprinkler heads may be omitted in stairwells of noncombustible construction. 1902.2 Corridor Doors. All doors opening into required exit corridors shall be in conformance with the Building Code. Exception: Existing 1-3/8 inch bonded, solid-core wood doors, if equipped with self-closures, need not be replaced. 1902.3 Corridor Openings. All openings into required exit corridor, other than doors, shall be in conformance with the Building Code. 1902.4 Exit Stairways. All high-rise buildings shall have a minimum of two approved exit stairways. The Fire Chief may allow a minimum of one approved stairway upon a finding that additional automatic sprinkler protection is provided that meets the spirit of this Appendix and provides at least the equivalent protection of that prescribed in this Appendix. 46 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 46 1902.5 Exit Stairwell Doors. All stairwell doors which are to be locked from the stairwell side shall automatically unlock, without unlatching, when the alarm system activates. 1902.6 Elevator Lobby Separation. All elevators on all floors shall open into elevator lobbies which are separated from the remainder of the building as is required for corridor construction in the Building Code. The Fire Chief may waive this requirement upon a finding that additional automatic sprinkler protection is provided that meets the spirit of this Appendix and provides at least the equivalent protection of that prescribed in this Appendix. 1902.7 Elevator Recall. All automatic elevators shall be equipped for emergency operation in conformance with the Building Code. 1902.8 Fire Alarm Systems. All high-rise buildings shall have an alarm system meeting the requirements of this section. All required fire alarm systems shall be designed to be heard clearly by all occupants within the building but in no case shall it be less than 60 dB, or 15 dB above ambient noise levels, as measured in the A scale, within all habitable areas of the building. All required alarm systems shall operate automatically by smoke or products of combustion detectors and by manual pull stations as approved by the chief. 1902.9 Fire Alarm Supervision. All fire alarm systems shall be connected to an approved central station or the local fire department dispatch office in conformance with the Fire Code as approved by the chief. 1902.10 Exit Illumination. Exits shall be illuminated at any time the building is occupied with lights having an intensity of not less than 1 foot-candle at floor level. Such lighting shall have an independent alternate source of supply such as an emergency battery pack. 1902.11 Emergency Plan. The management for all buildings shall establish and maintain a written fire and life safety emergency plan which has been approved by the chief. The chief shall develop written criteria and guidelines upon which all plans shall be based. 1902.12 Posting of Emergency Plan and Exit Plans. Copies of the emergency plan and exiting plans (including elevator and stairway placarding) shall be posted in locations approved by the chief. 1902.13 Fire Drills. The management of all buildings shall conduct fire drills for their staff and employees at least every 120 days. The fire department must be advised of such drills at least 24 hours in advance. A written record of 47 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 47 each drill shall be maintained in the building management office and made available to the fire department for review. 15.05 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE 15.05.10 Adoption of Chapters 3, 4, 5, 8, 25, and 56 of the International Fire Code. Chapters 3, 4, 5, 8, 25, and 56 of the International Fire Code, 2012 Edition, are adopted, as herein amended. One copy of the International Fire Code is on file and open to public inspection in the office of the city clerk. Three copies of the secondary codes set forth within the International Fire Code, and the amendments set forth in this chapter, are on file and open to public inspection in the fire department administrative office. Whenever the phrase “International Fire Code” appears in this code or in any ordinance of the city, such phrase shall be deemed and construed to refer to and apply to the “International Fire Code, 2009 Edition” and this chapter. 15.05.015 Section 304.1.2.1 added – Weed and Combustible Debris removal. Section 304.1.2.1 is added to the International Fire Code to read as follows: 304.1.2.1 Weed and Combustible Debris removal. The fire chief may cause the removal of weeds or combustible debris on properties in which further delay of such removal would promote a hazard. The chief may also at his option bill subject properties for any and all expenses related to the removal or as outlined in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 15.05.020 Section 308.3.5 deleted – Religious Ceremonies. Section 308.3.5 of the International Fire Code is deleted. 15.05.030 Sections 311.5 through 311.5.3 deleted – Vacant premises. Sections 311.5 through 311.5.3 of the International Fire Code are deleted. 15.05.035 Section 316.4 added – Roof guardrails at interior courts. Section 316.4 is added to the International Fire Code to read as follows: 316.4 Roof guardrails at interior courts. Roof openings into interior courts that are bounded on all sides by building walls shall be protected with guardrails. The top of the guardrail shall not be less than 42 inches in height above the adjacent roof surface that can be walked on. Intermediate rails shall be designed and spaced such that a 12-inch diameter sphere cannot pass through. Exception: Where the roof opening is greater than 600 square feet in area. 15.05.040 Section 404.2 amended – Fire safety and evacuation plan required. Section 404.2 of the International Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 48 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 48 404.2 Where Required. An approved fire safety and evacuation plan shall be prepared and maintained for the following occupancies and buildings. 1. Group A buildings having an occupant load of 100 or more persons. 2. Group B buildings having an occupant load of 500 or more persons, or 2 or more stories in height. 3. Group E: See §3.13 Title 19, CCR for regulations. 4. Group H. 5. Group I. See §3.09 Title 19, CCR for regulations. 6. Group R-1. See §3.09 Title 19, CCR for regulations. 7. Group R-2 college and university buildings. 8. Group M buildings having an occupant load of 500 or more persons. 9. Covered malls exceeding 50,000 square feet (4645 m2) in aggregate floor area. 10. Underground buildings. 15.05.050 Section 404.3.1 amended – Fire evacuation plans. Section 404.3.1 of the International Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 404.3.1 Fire Evacuation Plans. Fire evacuation plans shall include the following: 1. Emergency egress or escape routes and whether evacuation of the building is to be complete or, where approved, by selected floors or areas only. 2. Description of what the fire alarm, if required, sounds and looks like (audible and visual warning devices). 3. Procedures for employees who must remain to operate critical equipment before evacuating. 4. Procedures for accounting for employees and occupants after evacuation has been completed. 5. Identification and assignment of personnel responsible for rescue or emergency medical aid. 6. The preferred and any alternative means of notifying occupants of a fire or emergency. 7. The preferred and any alternative means of reporting fires and other emergencies to the fire department or designated emergency response organization. 8. Identification and assignment of personnel who can be contacted for further information or explanation of duties under the plan. 9. A description of the emergency voice/alarm communication system alert tone and preprogrammed voice messages, where provided. 15.05.060 Table 405.2 amended – Fire and evacuation drills. Table 405.2 of the International Fire Code is amended to read as follows: // // 49 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 49 TABLE 405.2 FIRE AND EVACUATION DRILL FREQUENCY AND PARTICIPATION GROUP OR OCCUPANCY FREQUENCY PARTICIPATION Group A Quarterly Employees Group Bb Annually Employees Group E See §3.13 Title 19, CCR Group I See §3.13 Title 19, CCR Group R-1 See §3.13 Title 19, CCR Group R-2c Four annually All occupants 1. The frequency shall be allowed to be modified in accordance with Section 408.3.2. b. Group B buildings having an occupant load of 500 or more persons. c. Applicable to Group R-2 college and university buildings in accordance with Section 408.3. 15.05.070 Sections 408.3.1 through 408.3.4 deleted. Sections 408.3.1 through 408.3.4 of the International Fire Code are deleted. 15.05.075 Sections 408.5.1 through 408.5.5 deleted. Sections 408.5.1 through 408.5.5 of the International Fire Code are deleted. 15.04.076 Sections 408.6 through 408.6.2 deleted. Sections 408.6 through 408.6.2 of the International Fire Code are deleted. 15.04.077 Sections 408.7 through 408.7.4 deleted. Sections 408.7 through 408.7.4 of the International Fire Code are deleted. 15.04.078 Sections 408.8 through 408.8.3 deleted. Sections 408.8 through 408.8.3 of the International Fire Code are deleted. 15.05.079 Section 408.9 amended – Group R-2 occupancies. Section 408.9 of the International Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 408.9 Group R-2 Occupancies. Group R-2 occupancies shall comply with the requirements of Sections 408.9.1 through 408.9.3 and Sections 401 through 406. Group R-2 college and university buildings shall comply with the requirements of Sections 408.9.1 through 408.9.6 and Sections 401 through 406. 50 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 50 15.05.080 Sections 408.9.4 through 408.9.5 added – First Emergency Evacuation Drill. Sections 408.9.4 through 408.9.5 are added to the International Fire Code to read as follows: 408.9.4 First Emergency Evacuation Drill. The first emergency evacuation drill of each school year shall be conducted within 10 days of the beginning of classes. 408.9.5 Time of Day. Emergency evacuation drills shall be conducted at different hours of the day or evening, during the changing of classes, when the school is at assembly, during the recess or gymnastic periods, or during other times to avoid distinction between drills and actual fires. 15.04.090 Sections 408.10 through 408.10.5 deleted. Sections 408.10 through 408.10.5 of the International Fire Code are deleted. 15.05.100 Section 408.11.1.2 amended – Plan Revisions. Section 408.11.1.2 of the International Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 408.11.1.2 Revisions. The lease plans shall be revised annually or as often as necessary to keep them current. 15.05.110 Section 503.1.1 amended – Buildings and facilities. Section 503.1.1 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 503.1.1 Buildings and facilities. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and Fire Department access road standards and shall extend within 150 feet 945,720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exception: When Group R, Division 3, or Group U occupancies are equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of Sections 503.1.1 and 503.2.1 may be modified by the fire code official. 15.05.120 Section 503.2.1 amended – Dimensions. Section 503.2.1 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 503.2.1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm), except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm). Exception: When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3, or Group U occupancies, the access road width may be modified by the fire code official. 51 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 51 15.05.130 Section 503.7 added – Traffic Calming Devices. Section 503.7 is added to the California Fire Code to read as follows: 503.7 Traffic Calming Devices. Traffic Calming Devices such as speed humps, traffic circles or other physical measures intended to control vehicle speed on fire apparatus access roads are prohibited unless approved by the fire code official. 15.05.140 Section 504.4 amended – Access Control Devices. Section 504.4 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 504.4 Access Control Devices. When access control devices including bars, grates, gates, electric or magnetic locks or similar devices, which would inhibit rapid fire department emergency access to the building, are installed, such devices shall be approved by the fire code official. All access control devices shall be provided with an approved means for deactivation or unlocking by the fire department. Access control devices shall also comply with Chapter 10 Egress. 15.05.150 Section 507.4 added – Roof guards at interior courts. Section 507.4 is added to Chapter 5 of the International Fire Code to read as follows: 507.4 Roof Guards At Interior Courts. Roof openings into interior courts that are bounded on all sides by building walls shall be protected with roof guards. The top of the roof guard shall not be less than 42 inches in height above the adjacent roof surface that can be walked on. Intermediate rails shall be designed and spaced such that a 12-inch diameter sphere cannot pass through. Exception: Interior courts with roof opening greater than 600 square feet in area. 15.05.160 Section 510.1 amended – Emergency responder radio coverage in buildings. Section 510.1 of the International Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 510.1 Emergency responder radio coverage in buildings. All buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communications system of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communications system. Emergency responder radio coverage systems shall be installed in accordance with Section 510 and Appendix J. 15.05.170 Section 510.1.1 added – Obstruction by New Buildings. Section 510.1 of the California Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 510.1.1 Obstruction by new buildings. When determined, a new structure 52 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 52 obstructing line of sight emergency radio communications to existing buildings or to any other locations, the developer of the structure shall provide and install the radio retransmission equipment necessary to restore communications capabilities. The equipment shall be located in an approved space or area within the new structure. 15.05.180 Section 806.1.1 amended – Display inside buildings. Section 510.1 of the International Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 806.1.1 Display inside buildings. The display of decorative vegetation, including Christmas trees, in new and existing buildings shall be in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, §3.08 and Sections 806.1 through 806.5 of this Code. 15.05.190 Section 5601.1 amended - Scope- Explosives and Fireworks Section 5601.1 of the International Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 5601.1 Scope- Explosives and Fireworks. For explosives requirements see Title 19 California Code of Regulations Chapter 10 and section 5601.1.1 of this chapter. For fireworks requirements see Title 19 California Code of Regulations Chapter 6 and section 5601.1.2 of this chapter. Exceptions: 1. The armed Forces of the United States, Coast Guard or National Guard. 2. Explosives in forms prescribed by the official United States Pharmacopoeia. 4. The use of explosive materials by federal, state and local regulatory, law enforcement and fire agencies acting in their official capacities. 5. Items preempted by federal regulations. 15.05.200 Sections 5601.1. through 5608.1.1 added – Explosives, fireworks, and rocketry. Sections 5601.1.1 through 5601.5.3.2.3 are added to the International Fire Code to read as follows: 5601.2 Explosives. The possession, manufacture, storage, sale, handling, and use of explosives are prohibited. Exceptions: 1. Possession, storage, handling and use of explosives for test and research purposes is allowed with permit and approval of the fire code official. 2. Possession, storage, handling and use of squibs, explosive nuts or bolts and similar small quantity explosive devices is allowed with permit and approval of the fire code official. 5601.3 Fireworks. The possession, manufacture, storage, sale, handling, and 53 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 53 use of fireworks, including those fireworks classified as Safe and Sane by the California State Fire Marshal, are prohibited. Exceptions: 1. Storage, handling and use of fireworks and pyrotechnic special effects outside of buildings when used for public or proximate audience displays, motion picture, television, theatrical and group entertainment productions and when in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. Storage, handling and use of pyrotechnic special effects fireworks inside of buildings when used for proximate audience displays or special effects in theatrical, television, motion picture and group entertainment productions when in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations and when in buildings equipped throughout with an approved fire sprinkler system. 5601.4 Rocketry. The storage, handling, and use of model rockets shall be in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations and as approved by the Fire Code Official. Add Sections 5601.5 through 5601.5.3.2.3 to read: 5601.5 Small Arms Ammunition-General. Indoor storage and display of black powder, smokeless propellants and small arms ammunition shall comply with Sections 5601.5.1 through 5601.5.4.2.3. 5601.5.1 Packages. Smokeless propellants shall be stored in approved shipping containers conforming to DOTn 49 CFR, Part 173. 5601.5.1.1 Repackaging. The bulk repackaging of smokeless propellants, black powder and small arms primers shall not be performed in retail establishments. 5601.5.1.2 Damaged packages. Damaged containers shall not be repackaged. Exception: Approved repackaging of damaged containers of smokeless propellant into containers of the same type and size as the original container. 5601.5.2 Storage in Group R occupancies. The storage of small arms ammunition in Group R occupancies shall comply with Sections 5601.5.2.1 through 5601.5.2.3. 5601.5.2.1 Smokeless propellants. Smokeless propellants intended for personal use in quantities not exceeding 20 pounds (9 kg) are permitted to be stored in Group R-3 occupancies where kept in original containers. Smokeless powder in quantities exceeding 20 pounds (9 kg) but not exceeding 50 pounds (23 kg) are permitted to be stored in Group R-3 occupancies where kept in a wooden box or cabinet having walls of at least 1 inch (25 mm) nominal thickness. 5601.5.2.2 Black powder. Black powder intended for personal use in quantities not exceeding 20 pounds (9 kg) are permitted to be stored in Group R-3 occupancies where kept in original 54 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 54 containers and stored in a wooden box or cabinet having walls of at least 1 inch (25 mm) nominal thickness 5601.5.2.3 Small arms primers. No more than 10,000 small arms primers shall be stored in Group R-3 occupancies. 5601.5.3 Display and storage in Group M occupancies. The display and storage of small arms ammunition in Group M occupancies shall comply with Sections 5601.5.3.1 through 5601.5.3.2.3. 5601.5.3.1 Display. The display of small arms ammunition in Group M occupancies shall comply with Sections 5601.5.3.1.1 through 5601.5.3.1.3. 5601.5.3.1.1 Smokeless propellant. No more than 20 pounds (9 kg) of smokeless propellants, each in containers of 1 pound (0.454 kg) or less capacity, shall be displayed in Group M occupancies. 5601.5.3.1.2 Black powder. No more than 1 pound (0.454 kg) of black powder shall be displayed in Group M occupancies. 5601.5.3.1.3 Small arms primers. No more than 10,000 small arms primers shall be displayed in Group M occupancies. 5601.5.3.2 Storage. The storage of small arms ammunition in Group M occupancies shall comply with Sections 5601.5.3.2.1 through 5601.5.3.2.3. 5601.5.3.2.1 Storage of Smokeless propellant. Commercial stocks of smokeless propellants not on display shall not exceed 100 pounds (45 kg). Quantities exceeding 20 pounds (9 kg), but not exceeding 100 pounds (45 kg) shall be stored in portable wooden boxes having walls of at least 1 inch (25 mm) nominal thickness. 5601.5.3.2.2 Black powder. Commercial stocks of black powder not on display shall not exceed 50 pounds (23 kg) and shall be stored in a type 4 indoor magazine. When black powder and smokeless propellants are stored together in the same magazine, the total quantity shall not exceed that permitted for black powder. 5601.5.3.2.3 Small arms primers. Commercial stocks of small arms primers not on display shall not exceed 750,000. Storage shall be arranged such that not more than 100,000 small arms primers are stored in any one pile and piles are at least 15 feet (4572 mm) apart. SECTION 2. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Fire Code, 2013 Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of 55 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 55 the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the California Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall become effective on the commencement of the thirty-first day after the day of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Human Resources ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services 56 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 56 EXHIBIT A Findings for Local Amendments to the 2013 California Fire Code The following local amendments to the 2013 California Fire Code make modifications as authorized by the California Health and Safety Code. In accordance with Section 18941.5 of said Code, Findings are hereby made to show that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions. PREAMBLE I. Findings of fact: A. Pursuant to Section 17958.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, the report contained herein is submitted as the “Findings of Fact” document with regard to the adoption of the California Fire Code, 2013 Edition, and amendments. Under this adopting ordinance, specific amendments have been established which are more restrictive in nature than those adopted by the State of California (State Building Code Standards, State Housing and Community Development Codes) commonly referred to as California Code of Regulations, Titles 19, 24 and 25. B. These amendments to the California Fire Code, 2013 Edition, have been recognized by the City of Palo Alto (“City”) as tools for addressing the fire problems, concerns and future direction by which the authority can establish and maintain an environment which will afford a level of fire and life safety to all who live and work within the City’s boundaries. C. Under the provisions of Section 17958.5 of the Health and Safety Code, local amendments shall be based upon the following: climatic, geological/geographical, and topographical conditions. The findings of fact contained herein shall address each of these situations and shall present the local situation which, either singularly or in combination, caused the established amendments to be adopted. 1. Climactic Conditions: The City, on an average, experiences an annual rainfall of 16" - 18". This rainfall can be expected between October and April of each year. However, during the summer months there is little, if any, measurable precipitation. During this dry period the temperatures are usually between 70-90 degrees with light to gusty westerly winds. These drying winds, combined with the natural vegetation which is dominant throughout the area, create a hazardous fuel condition which can cause, and has caused in the past, extensive grass and brush land fires. With more and more development encroaching into these wooded and grass covered areas, wind-driven fires could have severe consequences, as has been demonstrated on several occasions in Palo Alto and other areas of the state. Fires in structures can easily spread to the wildland as well as a fire in the wildland into a structure. 57 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 57 Because of the weather patterns, a normal rainfall cannot always be relied upon. This can result in water rationing and water allocation systems, as demonstrated by the drought years of 1986- 1991. Water shortages can also be expected in the future due to the current water storage capacities and increased consumption. The water supply for the Palo Alto fire department makes use of automatic fire sprinkler systems feasible as a means to reduce our dependency on large volumes of water for fire suppression. 2. Geological & Geographical Conditions Geographical Location. Palo Alto is located at the northern most part of Santa Clara County. Palo Alto is a major focus of the “Silicon Valley,” the center for an expanding and changing electronics industry, as well as pharmaceutical, biomedical, and genetic research. Seismic Location. Palo Alto is situated on alluvial solids between San Francisco Bay and the San Andreas Fault zone. The City’s location makes it particularly vulnerable to damage to taller and older structures caused by seismic events. The relatively young geological processes that have created the San Francisco Bay Area are still active today. Seismically, the city sits between two active earthquake faults (San Andreas and the Hayward/Calaveras), and numerous potentially active faults. Approximately 55% of the City’s land surface is in the high-to- moderate seismic hazard zones. Seismic and Fire Hazards. Fire following an earthquake has the potential of causing greater loss of life and damage than the earthquake itself. The majority of the City’s high-rise structures are located in seismic risk zones. Should a significant seismic event occur, Public Safety resources would have to be prioritized to mitigate the greatest threat, and may not be available for every structural fire. In such event, individual structures, including high-rise buildings, should be equipped to help in mitigating the risk of damage. Other variables may tend to intensify the situation: a. The extent of damage to the water system; b. The extent of isolation due to bridge and/or freeway overpass collapse; c. The extent of roadway damage and/or amount of debris blocking the roadways; d. Climatical conditions (hot, dry weather with high winds); e. Time of day will influence the amount of traffic on roadways and could intensify the risk to life during normal business hours; f. The availability of timely mutual aid or military assistance; g. Many high-rise structures are located near areas of high fire danger necessitating special 58 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 58 precautions. Transportation. Palo Alto is dissected by a major state highway (El Camino Real) and two major freeways (I-280 and U.S. 101), which potentially could negatively affect response times of fire suppression equipment. Soil Conditions. Palo Alto lies at the southern end of San Francisco Bay and is built atop the alluvial deposits that surround the margins of the Bay. The alluvium was created by the flooding of many streams emptying into the San Francisco Bay depression, and from intermittent sea water inundation that has occurred over the last 2 or 3 million years. The areas closest to the Bay are overlain by unconsolidated fine silty clay, known as Bay Mud which varies in thickness from a few feet to as much as 30 feet. Generally, the older more stable alluvium is to the south and the younger less stable material is to the north. Bedrock lies beneath the area at depths of generally 300' or more. 3. Topographical Conditions: The findings of fact for the topographical element, as would be expected, are closely associated with the geological/geographical element. With the elevation changes within the district, development is of course following the path of least resistance, creating a meandering pattern. This then does not lend itself to a good systematic street and road layout, which would promote easy traffic flow. It has, in fact, resulted in few major crosstown thoroughfares which tend to be heavily congested, primarily during commute hours and seasonal periods of the year. This creates barriers which reduce the response time of fire equipment and other emergency services. The topography of the district is being burdened by major structures. Employment areas are throughout the district. The people who work in these complexes have added to the traffic congestion throughout the city, thereby reducing the fire department’s response time capabilities. Inherent delays caused by the traffic patterns to many of these types of projects, make it necessary to mitigate this problem by requiring additional built-in automatic fire protection systems to provide early detection and initial control until the arrival of the fire department. The topography of the district in much of the commercial and residential zones lies within or near a flood plane. Periodically, heavy rains and high tides cause region-wide flooding which not only delays response but also increases demands on fire personnel. The fire code amendments increase safeguards and initialize early response to help compensate for these physical delays. As a result of the findings of facts which identify the various climatic, geological/geographical and topographical elements, those additional requirements as specified in the amendments to adopting ordinance for the California Fire Code 2013 Edition, by the City of Palo Alto area are considered reasonable and necessary modifications. The experience of several disastrous fires within the city in addition to Santa Clara, Monterey, San Mateo, Alameda and Contra Costa counties have demonstrated the need for other fire protection features, the most significant of which was located in the Oakland/Berkeley Hills in which over 3,000 homes were destroyed and 25 human lives were lost. While it is clearly understood that the adoption of 59 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 59 such regulations may not prevent the incidence of fire, the implementation of these various amendments to the Code may reduce the severity and potential of loss of life and property. II. Specific Findings for Local Amendments The majority of local amendments (those not specifically listed below) are made strictly to conform to other parts of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and for similar administrative purposes. Based upon the findings of fact described in section I, the City Council also makes the following specific findings regarding local climatic, geological, and topographic conditions related to local amendments to the California and International Fire Codes found in Chapters 15.04 and 15.05 of Title 15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”): 1. The local amendments contained in PAMC sections 15.04.030 through 15.04.070 and sections 15.04.325 through 15.04.441 relating to general conditions for hazardous materials are necessary modifications to the California Fire Code flammable and hazardous materials sections because they maintain consistency with the Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance which has been adopted county-wide since 1983. Requirements include safeguards such as monitoring, secondary containment, separation of non compatibles which prevent incidents should a seismic event, unauthorized release or accident occur. 2. The local amendment contained in PAMC section 15.05.015- Weed removal- is necessary to require weeds to be removed from properties when determined to be a hazard at the expense of the responsible party. Weeds can be a fire hazard that may also contribute to the uncontrolled spread of fire as a result of the climatic, geographical, and topographical conditions described in Findings 1, 2, and 3 above. 3. The local amendments contained in PAMC section 15.05.140 through 15.05.170 set forth measures to limit delays in response time and reduce hazards to firefighters. These measures are necessary to prevent exacerbation of response delays associated with the Climatic, Geographical and Topographical conditions listed in Findings 1, 2 and 3 above. 4. The local amendment contained in PAMC section 15.04.210- Immersion Heaters- is necessary as a fire control measure because it requires additional controls on process heating devices which are often activated when unattended. See Geological Findings 2. 5. The local amendments contained in PAMC 15.04.230 through 15.04.260 relating to fire sprinkler systems are necessary for faster control of fires in the dense populated area of our community to confine a fire to the area of origin rather than spread to neighboring structures. The modifications contained in these amendments provide additional fire extinguishing systems in new construction, major remodels, additions, and occupancy classification changes to help mitigate the problems identified in Findings 1, 2, and 3, above- Climatic, Geographical and Topographical. 60 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 60 6. The local amendment contained in PAMC section 15.04.270 - Floor control valves- is necessary to provide fire extinguishing control devices that allow systems to remain partially in service while repairs or maintenance are ongoing. See Findings 1 and 2 above- Climatic and Geographical. 7. The local amendment contained in Section 15.04.275- Single- and multiple-station smoke alarms- is necessary to alert occupants at the earliest possible stage of smoldering residential fires. This modification requires smoke detection provided in new construction, remodels, additions, rental housing and newly purchased homes to be photoelectric or dual sensor technology to allow greater likelihood of occupants safely escaping residential fires and notifying the fire department during the earliest possible stage of fire growth. This will help mitigate the problems identified in Findings 1, 2, and 3, above- Climatic, Geographical and Topographical. 8. The local amendments contained in PAMC sections 15.04.280 through 15.04.295 provide for additional fire and life safety measures during construction and demolition. See Findings 2 and 3, above- Geographical and Topographical. 9. The local amendments contained in PAMC 15.04.300– Definition of “continuous gas detection system” and sections 15.04.325, 15.04.352 and 15.04.450 through 15.04.502 regarding toxic gases incorporate requirements established by the Model Toxic Gas Ordinance and California Fire Code. Administrative and restrictive measures include changes in definitions, quantities regulated, and utilizes County consensus guidelines established by other regional agencies which share similar climatic, geological/geographical, and topographical conditions. See Findings 1, 2 and 3, above- Climatic, Geographical and Topographical. 10. The local amendment contained in PAMC sections 15.04.310 and 15.04.320- Fire Protection Water Supply System, requires an adequate water supply in areas used for storage of highly combustible organic waste materials. This requirement mitigates the added hazards and limited access conditions described in Findings 1 and 3, above- Climatic and Topographical. 11. The local amendments contained in PAMC section 15.04.510 - Storage and use of liquefied petroleum gas- place restrictions on liquid petroleum gas where natural gas is provided. These restrictions are appropriate given Palo Alto’s seismically active local geological conditions because they will reduce portable container releases in the event of seismic activity and mitigate the geological risk described in Finding 2, above- Geographical. 12. The local amendments contained in PAMC section 15.04.515 – Silane distribution systems automatic shutdown- place restrictions on silane distribution systems. These restrictions are appropriate given Palo Alto’s seismically active local geological conditions because they will reduce release volume in the event of seismic activity or unauthorized release and mitigate the geological risk described in Finding 2, above- Geographical. 13. The local amendments contained in PAMC sections 15.04.520 through 15.04.588 set forth protections for urban-wildland interface areas that are necessary to mitigate the additional fire risks in the Palo Alto foothills hazardous fire zone. The modifications contained 61 NOT YET APPROVED 131015 jb 0131145-A 61 in these amendments provide for additional precautions against fire risks and additional fire extinguishing systems necessitated by the conditions listed in Findings 1, 2, and 3, above- Climatic, Geographical and Topographical. 14. The local amendments contained in PAMC section 15.04.590- Life safety requirements for existing high rise buildings- are designed to provide additional fire and life safety features in existing high-rise buildings given the seismically sensitive geological conditions described in Findings 2 and 3, above- Geographical and Topographical. 15. The local amendments contained in PAMC section 15.05.035- Roofguards at interior courts provides for additional fire and life safety measures for firefighters on buildings with unconventional lightwells. See Findings 2 and 3, above- Geographical and Topographical. City of Palo Alto (ID # 4174) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/21/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Downtown Development CAP RFP Award Title: Approval of Contract for the Downtown Development CAP to Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners in the Amount Not to Exceed $200,000 (Continued from October 17, 2013) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute contract with Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners (Attachment A) in the amount of $200,000 for the Downtown Development Cap Study - Phase 1 project. Background In 1986, the City of Palo Alto conducted a Downtown Study, which examined parking, traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown area. As a result of the Study a downtown development cap policy (Downtown Development Cap) was adopted for a specified area. This policy restricted future non-residential development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was in existence or approved in the CD area as of May 1986 (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.040 and Comprehensive Plan Program L-8). The 1986 study requires that City Staff monitor and submit an annual report to the City Council regarding development activity, vacancy rates and commercial lease rates in order to evaluate the effectiveness of these regulations. The most recent City Council report, released on March 11, 2013, provided information relating to the 2011-12 time period. This report showed that the downtown area had fully recovered from the recession and that only 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development remains available (as of the end of 2012) before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet would be reached. Approximately 30,000 square feet of non-residential development has been approved since that time, such that the evaluation milestone has now been reached. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The City Council, on November 13, 2012, instructed staff to develop a scope of work for this evaluation and for the PTC to review and provide input on the scope of work prior to a Request for Proposals (RFP) being released. The Council’s direction to staff on November 13 related to Agenda Item 6, “Update of Parking Program and Review and Direction on Parking Policy Strategies”. Council did not direct staff to submit the RFP to the City Council after the PTC’s review. The Scope of Work was reviewed by the PTC on January 9, 2013. An informational report, “Downtown Development Cap Study Scope of Work and Request for Proposal” was sent to Council as an informational report on March 18, 2013. At the October 7, 2013 City Council hearing, the subject contract was scheduled on the consent calendar. The item was removed from the consent calendar and scheduled as an action item based on Council direction. The primary concerns and questions related whether the Arts & Innovation Site (27 University Avenue) is included in the study area. The issue is discussed in the Policy Implications section below. As previously described to City Council, the Downtown Development Cap study will be completed in two phases. Phase 1 will focus on data collection and projection analysis. The specific tasks identified for the Phase 1 scope of work include the following: Phase 1: Data Collection and Projections Analysis A. Review of Prior Downtown Study and Related Documents The selected consultant for the project will review the 1986 Downtown Study report and related materials, as well as subsequent monitoring reports, Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning regulations, and any other relevant documents. B. Existing Conditions Evaluation The selected consultant will be responsible for evaluating existing traffic and parking conditions in the Downtown and immediately surrounding areas. Existing level of service studies should be conducted for key intersections and roadway segments. In addition, the selected consultant should evaluate existing visitor (hourly) and permit parking conditions in the Downtown and surrounding areas. C. Projected Growth Impact Analysis Using the existing conditions report and an economic growth demand analysis as the foundation, the selected consultant should evaluate scenarios for potential development, and future level of service (LOS) of key intersections and roadway segments based on projected growth within the Downtown and surrounding areas. In addition, future commercial and nearby residential parking conditions should also be evaluated based on growth scenarios. The parking analysis should be completed for Downtown visitor and permit parking, as well as street parking and “intrusion” in the surrounding residential City of Palo Alto Page 3 neighborhoods. The projected traffic and parking conditions should be based on the existing development cap policies and zoning code regulations. The Phase 1 RFP is contained in Attachment B. Transportation, planning and economic consultant services are required to complete this study in a timely manner, as the work effort is substantial and well beyond staff’s work program capabilities. The study should also benefit from a consultant team’s knowledge of similar studies, issues, and solutions in other communities. As noted above, this proposed study has been broken down into two phases, and the attached RFP focuses on the first phase. Phase 2: Policy Analysis Although not the subject of this RFP, an RFP for a second phase of this study will be released subsequent to the completion of Phase 1. This scope of work for this second phase has not yet been completed, however it is expected that the effort will require a consultant team, working with staff, to make planning and transportation policy recommendations using the “Phase 1” findings, a more detailed economic analysis and community input. Staff will review those findings and input with Council, prior to finalizing the 2nd phase RFP. Therefore, consultants submitting proposals in response to the subject, Phase 1 RFP, must be qualified to submit a proposal for Phase 2 work in the future. Discussion The City received five proposals in response to the RFP solicitation for the Downtown Development Cap Study- Phase 1 project. These five firms were invited to participate in interviews and one selected for award of the contract consistent with the RFP. This staff report provides information needed by Council for approval of a contract with Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners. The solicitation and selection process is outlined below. Summary of Solicitation Process Proposal Description/Number Downtown Development Cap Study- Phase 1 Proposed Length of Contract: Six months (with additional six month renewal option) Total Days to Respond to RFP: 30 days Pre-proposal Meeting Date: April 30, 2013 Number of Proposals Received: Four City of Palo Alto Page 4 Proposals Received from: Location (City, State) Selected for oral interview? Dyett & Bhatia San Francisco, CA Yes RBF Consulting Marina, CA Yes Hexagon San Jose, CA Yes TKJM Pleasanton, CA Yes The proposals were judged by the following criteria: Team experience and resources; Project manager experience; Understanding of local community; Ability to complete Phase 2, and Cost The City released an (RFP) for the design of the Downtown Development Cap Study - Phase 1 on April 22, 2013. A pre-bidders teleconference was held on April 30, 2013 to help provide background regarding the projects. Four proposals were received in response to the RFP. An evaluation committee consisting of Planning and Transportation staff and a member of the Planning & Transportation Commission reviewed the proposals and participated in the interview process. The four firms were invited to participate in oral interviews held on July 18, 2013. Of the four consultant teams, the interview panel selected Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners for the project, in that they demonstrated their ability to conduct a thorough data collection and growth projection analysis, as well as an extensive public outreach process that is necessary for this phase of the project. Staff informed Dyett & Bhatia of the panel’s selection in early August. Preparation of the contract documents and confirmation of funding sources for the study was completed in late September. The contract with Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners is for a total amount of $200,000. Timeline City of Palo Alto Page 5 Immediately upon execution of a contract, staff will meet with the consultant to initiate the scope of work described in the attachments. Phase 1 of the project includes extensive public input and creation of a Downtown Stakeholders Task Force. In conjunction with staff, Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners will organize and lead meetings of the Downtown Stakeholders Task Force and community workshop meetings. It is expected that initial meetings will be focused on presentation of the existing conditions report and projected growth conditions analysis described above. Check-in meetings and hearings with the Planning and Transportation Commission, City Council and the community will be programed soon after project initiation. It is expected that Phase 1 will be completed in six months. Resource Impact Funding for the Downtown Development Cap Study - Phase 1 project is included in the Fiscal Year 2014 Operating Budget. The 2014 Adopted Operating Budget included $250,000 in the General Fund for this study and a downtown parking study. The timeline for the downtown parking study was accelerated, and that study was completed and in Fiscal Year 2013. As a result, the entire $250,000 is available for the Downtown Development Cap Study in Fiscal Year 2014. With a $200,000 cost for Phase 1 of the study, there is $50,000 remaining for the second phase of this study. No additional funds are needed at this time. Staff expects that costs for completing the policy analysis in Phase 2 would not exceed $50,000. Policy Implications The requirement to conduct this evaluation is specified in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: Program L-8: Limit new non-residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000 square feet, or 10% above the amount of development existing or approved as of May 1986. Reevaluate this limit when non-residential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area. In addition, other policies could be impacted as a result of this evaluation. This includes policies related to parking, traffic and land use (zoning) in the Downtown area. The 1986 study impacted policies in the Comprehensive Plan and text within the zoning ordinance. It is expected that this evaluation could result in revisions to both documents as well. The 1986 Downtown Study included a 12-point Public Parking Program that is outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Many of these measures have been implemented since the 1986 study, while some have not. For example, point #4 states the City should “discourage parking specifically in surrounding residential neighborhoods.” Although new parking garages have City of Palo Alto Page 6 increased Downtown parking supply since 1986, little has been done to limit business employees from parking in the surrounding neighborhoods. Arts & Innovation District (27 University site) The Arts and Innovation District, commonly referred to as the 27 University site, is immediately adjacent to the Downtown Development Cap area specified in the original study. The overall study actually comprised of two sub-areas: the primary study area and the peripheral study area. The primary study area is the Downtown Commercial area (“CD Zone”). The primary area study is area is what the original 1986 study, the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan Development Cap policies pertain to. A larger peripheral study area is also called out in the original study. Most of the peripheral study area is comprised of the surrounding commercial and residential neighborhoods (SOFA, Downtown North, etc.) The area did include the Urban Lane area and the transit station, but did not include much of the Arts and Innovation District site. The study measured the impact of potential development in the CD area on the surrounding neighborhoods. Although the entire Arts and Innovation District is not shown within the perimeter of the original “Downtown Development Cap” study area, it will be absolutely necessary that the Phase 1 “Projected Growth Impact Analysis” examine the potential impacts of an Arts and Innovation District development, in conjunction with other required analyses within the 1986 Downtown Cap study area. Adjacent developments will be equally weighted as they have similar potential to impact parking and traffic conditions. Therefore, the Arts and Innovation District not being included in the original 1986 study area and thus not within the Phase 1 “official” study area will not alter the actual Phase 1 analysis. The Arts and Innovation District is included within the Phase 1 analysis. All nearby and regional developments must be taken into consideration when conducting the traffic and parking projections. Environmental Review Environmental review is not required in order for the Council to approve the consultant contract as data collection by itself will not have an environmental effect. Therefore this phase of the study is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. All proposed policy changes, however, will need to be fully reviewed per the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The exact type of review will not be determined until the policy changes are proposed and associated impacts are identified. Attachments: Attachment A: Contract with Dyett & Bhatia, Urban & Regional Planners (PDF) Attachment B: Downtown Development Cap RFP (PDF) CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C14149978 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO At'W DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this day of September, 2013, ("Agreement") by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY"), and DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS, a Califomia corporation, located at 755 Samsome Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California, Telephone (415) 956-4300 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to evaluate existing and projected parking, traffic and land use conditions in the downtown Palo Alto, ("Project") and desires to engage a consultant to provide analysis in cOlmection with the Project ("Services"). B, CONSULTANT has repr,esented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and aU 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 Exhihit "An in accordance ,,)ith the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance ofall Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit "B" unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is ofthe essence ill 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 apart of this Agreement. AllY Services for which times for performance arc not specified in this Agreement shalIbecommenced and completed by CONSULTANTTiiareasonablyproiiipfandiliiieIym-a-n-"ne=r--- Professlonfll Scrvk.es Rev, No". 1,2011 based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY's agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shali 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 ofthe Services described in Exhibit "A", including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shali not exceed Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit "C-I", entitl",d "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, houriyrates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT's billing rates (set forth in Exhibit "C-I "). 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. CONSULTANTshali send all invoices to the City's project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. OUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT's supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, ifperrnitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and 2 ------------Professiollal-Serviceeo,C--- Rev. Nov. I, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENr BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyelt& Bhatia\C14149978 CONlRACT DEV CAP.doc 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, CONSULT ANT 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 ofa public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (I 0%) of the CITY's stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in perfonning the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed byor 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 experiel)ce 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 2. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section II above, CITY agrees that subconsuItants may be used to complete the Services. The su bconsuItants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: Nelson\Nygaard 116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA. 94105 (415) 284-1544 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 250 I Ninth Street, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA. 94710 (510) 845-9190 The Henne Group 116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 812 San Francisco, CA. 94105 (415) 348-1700 4 Professionlli Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCffiSOLTCIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER·eM FOLDERS\PLANNING· CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhalia\C14149918 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc 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 Rajeev Bhatia as the Principal-in-Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution ofthe Services and Sophie Martin as the project manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY's project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY's request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion ofthe Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City's project manager is Steven Turner, Planning & Community Environment Department, Planning Advanced Planning Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone (650)329-2155. 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 relinq uishes 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, CONSULT ANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an "lndemnified Party") from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any 5 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,201 J S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc 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 covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or ofthe 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 ofthe same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. IS.I. 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. IS.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratil1gs of A-:Vll or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in fu II force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. IS.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution ofthis Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insllfance 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 ofthe cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insllfance 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 ofthe CONSULTANT's receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensurin,g that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Purchasing Manager during the entire term ofthis Agreement. 5 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNING -CHRIS\CON'fRACTS\Dyelt & Bhatia\C 14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc 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 indemnificatior:t 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 ofthe 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 immed iately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19 .2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of . the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereofto CITY; but only in the event ofa 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, ifany, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension ortermination 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, ifthis Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT's services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise ofhislher discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination ofthis 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 _________________ l'osLOffice_Box_L0250 _____ _ 6 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH'SOLICITA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER·eM FOLDERS\PLANNING " CHRIs\CONfRACfS\Dyett & Bhatia\CI4149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc Palo A!to, 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 perfonnance ofthis Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer 'or employee of CITY; this provision willbe interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions ., .. ' of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. Ifthe 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 shaH 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. 7 Professional Serviees Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLIClTA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER·eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRTS\CONTRACTS\Dyelt & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REOUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City's Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONS~LTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, rccycling and disposal requirements ofthe 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 of30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by the City's Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of30% or greater post-consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. • Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in ""accordance with the City's EnVironmental Purchasing Policy including' but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verifY that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions ofthe Charter ofthe City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at anytime within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion ofthe 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 reasonab Ie 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. 8 Professional Services Rev, Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLIClTATlONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRlS\CONTRACTS\Oyett & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc 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 ofthis 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 l798.81.5(d) about a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security ofthe system or in the security ofthe Personallnformatioll. CONSULTANT shall not use Personallnformation for direct marketing purposes without City's express written consent. II II II II II II II 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 9 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S;\ASD\PURCH\SOLlCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRlS\CONTRACfS\Dyell & Bhalia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNERS City Manager t~'ffl< B4va Relv Bha110l1 (Sep 17, 21)13) RajeevBhatia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Principal/President Senior Asst. City Attorney Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": EXHIBIT "C-I ": EXHIBIT "D": SCOPE OF WORK SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE OF RATES INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 10 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURClfISOUCITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNING" CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett& Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc TASKl: EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF'SERVICES Project Start-up, Review of Prior Downtown Study and Related Materials & Community Engagement Plan Objeclive: Kick-off the planning project, conduct reconnaissance, and establish specific dales jar key milestone., and initial outreach activities. I-A Review Background Material. Prior to the kickoff meeting with staff, CITY shall provide the CONSULTANT with salient plans, programs and studies pertaining to the Cap Study. The CONSULTANT team shall review these reports, including: the 1986 Downtown Study report and related materials, monitoring reports, Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning regulations, recent development proposals, and other documents. 1-8 Kickoff Meeling with CITY Staff (Team). CONSULTANT shan meet with CITY for kickoff working session, whjchshall include three principal components: • Review scope of work, identify data sources, clarii}' roles and responsibilities, and establish communication protoeo!, • Review community outreach program, key groups to outreach, and key project milestones. • Brainstonn and discuss key questions and issues related to the Downtown Cap Study, based on staff knowledge and experience, and consultant team review of background material (Task A). • Finalized Schedule/Milestones: Provide a finalized schedule with dates for milestones following the kickoff meeting. l-C Finalized Community Engagement Plan (CONSUL TANT). Develop a Community Engagement Plan detailing who shall be engaged and when, along with engagement strategies, recognizing that Phase I of the Downtown Cap Study is an analysis rather than policy-making phase. Following staff review, the Engagement Plan shall be finalized. Meetings Products • Kick-Off Meeting with CITY • Finalized Scope of Work and Schedule • Community Engagement Plan TASK 2: Existing Conditions & Trends Evaluation Objective: Evaluate existing parking and traffic conditions, and development trends to provide a baseline of understanding/or other known issues that will need to be considered in the planning process. 2·A Prepare GIS Database. Based on information from the CITY and other sources, prepare a GIS database. At minimum, this database shall include: 2 Professional Services Rev. Nov.l, 2011 S:IASD\PURCII\SOLlClTATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNING· CHRISICONTRACTS\Dyctt & Bhatia\CI 4149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doo • Existing (on the ground) land use in the Planning Area. This shall be based on information from CITY, County Assessor's office, and focused fieldwork. • Development built since 1986 • Approved and proposed development, and publie improvement projects • Transfer of development rights • Buildings with historic designations • Roadway and parking infrastructure 2-B Evaluate Development Trends: Infomlation from secondary sources, and the GIS database, development trends in Downtown since 1986 shall be characterized. These shall include factors such as land use changes by square feet (office, retail, residential, ete.) and number of establishments (such as restaurants and stores). Trends shall be portrayed quantitatively as well as spatially/visually based on GIS analysis, so they can be correlated with parking analysis. 2-C Parking Evaluation: CITY has gathered an extensive amount of Downtown parking data over the past few years. On-street occupancy data for the entire peripheral study area (bounded by Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, Alma Street and PaloAlto Avenue) is available from spring 20 II. Some of the surveys also include parking occupancy in off-street facilities, including a breakdown of visitor and permit parking. Parking turnover data is currently being collected by CITY for the same study area. CONSULTANT shall include a small budget for necessary and complementary field surveys but shall primarily rely on the already collected data from the most recent, complete counts. All relevant CITY collected data shall be provided in GIS (or comparable) and table format for preparation of a detailed parking inventory database and related maps of all public on-street spaces and off-street parking facilities located within the study area. CONSULTANT may utilize any other related GIS layers and supplement with aerial images and existing land use information. The database and maps shall include the number of spaces and be categorized based on, among other items, regulations, facility type, geography and permits. Parking utilization r~tes and patterns shall then be analyzed to assess the capacity for the existing supply to meet current demand. The analysis shali: • Evaluate system-wide denland as well as subgroups such as· public parking lots, garages, permit spaces, and on-street spaces by block. • Tabulate data by user groups (hourly visitor parking and permit parking) to understand behaviors and trends among particular population subsets. • Chart the dynanlics of the supply and demand relationship throughout the day and throughout the study area by the different facility types and by user groups. Since the existing occupied and vacant commercial square footage is available for Downtown, the peak parking occupancy can be linked to the square footage in order to develop a current "shared" parking ratio for the area. Some commercial sites with privately owned parking may need to be excluded from this exercise if there is no capacity/occupancy data available for those sites. This task shall also include an identification of Downtown development over the past 10 years and estimated impacts ofthat development and trends over thattimeframe, including the application of parking exemptions for transfer of development rights and other code provisions. 3 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\A.SD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BiJYER~CM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978 CON1RACT DEV CAP.doc In addition, CONSULTANT shall identifY non-conforming buildings (from a use and/or parking standpoint) that have converted to higher intensity office uses over the past 5 years. A definition shall be developed ofthe parking "intrusion," "saturation," "deficit," or other term and how that is best applied to the study area and surrounding neighborhoods. 2-D Traffic Evaluation: CONSULTANT shall evaluate existing traffic and multi-modal circulation conditions in the Downtown and immediately surrounding areas, with a focus on assessing the overall level of access to and from Downtown land uses. Existing traffic level of service (LOS) analysis shall be conducted in close collaboration with CITY planning and transportation staff for key intersections and roadway segments. This task shall include: • Observations of existing circulation conditions with a particular emphasis on: • Motor vehicle queuing and delay factors relating to parking access (i.e, traffic delay related to motOl'ists circulating in search of available parking, as well as observed traffic patterns related to unique parking-related factors such as the locations of specific lots and/or parking intrusion into adjacent areas). • Multi-modal circulation conditions for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit uses, particularly focusing on ; delay. factors. and/or other circulation constraints potentially affected by motor vchiole parking locations and motor vehicle delay/queuing factors. • Review of existing traffic, pedestrian and bicycle volume count data and collection of new data at key locations. CONSULTANT shall augment existing data with new AM & PM Peak Period (7-9 am and 4-6 pm) turning movement, bicycle, and pedestrian volume counts at up to eight intersections. • Traffic operations assessment: Existing AM and PM Peak Hour LOS at up to 15 study intersections. • Multi-modal circulation assessment: Assessment of bicycle, pedestrian & transit travel patterns, delay factors, and circulation constraints relevant to downtown access and internal circulation. 2-E Prepare Working Papers: The analysis above shall be compiled in either one report, or up to three working papers: • Land Use and Development Trends • Parking and Traffic Evaluation 2-F Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting: A kickoff/check-in meeting with the PTC shall bc held. The timing of this meeting shall be determined in consultation with CITY. If held after completion of the working papers in Task 2-E, the working papers shall be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission, issues and implications discussed. 2-G Stakeholder Task Force: The working papers shall be presented to the Stakeholder Task Force for discussion. Key issues and implications shall be discussed and used to guide the analysis. The specific timing of the stakeholder presentation shall be decided at a check-in review with the Planning and Transportation Commission. 2-R Focus Groups: CONSULTANT shall conduct a series of focus groups with specific interests, such as the Downtown North, University South, and Professorville neighborhoods; the Downtown Business Improvement District; and the Chamber o[Commerce's Downtown Parking Committee. 4 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLlClT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bha!ia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc ",' '., ,. Meetings Products • Planning and TranspOltation • Working Papers or combined report on Commission Meeting # I Land Use & Development Trends, and • Stakeholder Task Force Meeting #1 Parking & Traffic Evaluation Focus Groups Meetings • Stakeholder Meetings Task Force • Meeting Summary Memorandum • Focus Groups Meetings Summary TASK 3: Growth Projeetions & Implications Objective: Based on development trend~, zoning capacity, and developmentfeasibility testingJorecast growth 'prospects for Downtown based 'on 'reinOvaf 6/ cap, to enable evaluation of implications of cap removal. Analyze traffic, parking, and (optional) urbanform implications. Present results to the community, taskforce, and decision-makers to get direction for Phase 2. Conduct Development "Capacity" Analysis. Based on the GIS database, CONSULTANT shall calculate available unused zoning capacity. This shall be based on sites with potential to change in the coming decade based on certain metrics (building intensity, improvement to land value ratio, historical designation, use, etc.) Existing development at the opportunity sites shall be compared against potential floor area limits, and amount of capacity available, TDR "sending" capacity and other parameters shall be outlined. Given that existing parameters of the CITY'S Zoning Code (for example, all parking ground level 01' above is counted in the floor area ratio) may result in a variety of outcomes, assumptions shall be made based on recent development trends. 3-A Conduct Market and Dcvelopment Feasibility Analysis: CONSULTANT shall work to develop a set of development projections (5, 10, and potentially 20-years) that assume continued use of transfer of development rights and other existing provisions but removal of the development cap. The formulation of future development scenarios shall be based on a detailed analysis of development capacity and feasibility in the Downtown based on market and financial considerations. Specifically, CONSULTANT shall evaluate the development feasibility of increased in-fill densification, consistent with existing code, based on the economic fundamentals facing developers, property owners, and tenants. This shall include both an analysis of market demand and supply trends for the land uses and tenants seeking to and currently allowed to locate Downtown as well as the development feasibility of various building prototypes (e.g. higher density residential, office, and vertical mixed use). The development feasibility analysis shall take into account both the amount and type of vacant and/or underutilized property and the likely buy-out costs associated with existing uses. Specifically, CONSULTANT shall utilize development cash-flow pro-forma models to assess the financial feasibility of new or redevelopment under a variety of circumstances related to product types, parcel sizes, existing uses, and market trends. This analysis shall feed into the formulation of realistic development scenarios and, in turn, inform study projections related to parking, traffic, and other impacts of interest to the CITY. 5 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1.2011 S:\t\SD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRJS\CONTRACTS\Dyett& Bhalia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc 3-B Conduct Traffic Analysis: CONSULTANT shall evaluate future LOS of key intersections and roadway segments based on the projected growth scenarios. The projected traffic conditions shall be based on the existing development cap policies and zoning code regulations. This task shall include: • Traffic Model. Review of traffic volume forecasts contained in CITY citywide traffic model. Forecasted 2020 Baseline traffic volume forecast (if available) Forecasted 2035 Baseline volume forecast • Trip Generation & Trip Assignment Calibration. Review of underlying trip generation rates and trip distribution/assignment assumptions contained in the citywide traffic model. Since Downtown land uses typically generate a different rate of vehicle traffic (and parking demand) than non-Downtown uses, detailed calibration of the model-based trip generation forecast may be needed to accurately forecast Downtown traffic growth. In addition, this review shan assess the extent to which current parking policies affect the trip distribution and assignment pattern for motor vehicles (i.e, path of travel for motorists when arriving in Downtown). • Future-year Traffic Forecasts. Preparation of updated traffic-volume forecasts at study intersections based on anticipated land use changes and calibrated trip generation rates for Downtown land uses. This shan be based on up to three land use scenarios (Future Baseline and two alternate growth' scenarios). • Traffic Operations. Assessment of anticipated changes to AM and PM Peak Hour traffic LOS at study intersections based on potential increased growth: Year 2035 Future Baseline LOS (based on calibrated downtown trip rates) -this scenario would be based on continuation of current policies under the growth cap Year 2035 LOS with Alternate Growth Scenarios -CONSULT ANT shall evaluate up to two (2) alternate growth scenarios. 3-C Bicycle, Pedestrian & Tr ansit Circulation: Assessment of anticipated changes to AM & PM Peak Hour bicycle, pedestrian & transit circulation patterns based on forecasted growth and future-year traffic conditions. This shan include a qualitative assessment of potential constraints to bicycle, pedestrian and transit circulation, and net effect on downtown access, 'due to increased traffic volumes andlor parking-related factors. 3-D Conduct Parking Analysis: CONSULTANT shall utilize the growth projections developed by the Team to analyze the potential parking demand from new development and changes of use expected in Downtown. In similar studies, projections using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) parking rates overstate demand. This may demonstrate that these projections are unrealistic for a mixed-use downtown environment like Palo Alto. In particular, mixed-use areas such as Downtown offer the opportunity to share parking spaces between various uses, thereby reducing the total number of spaces required compared to the same uses in stand-alone developments. This is a primary benefit with the CITY's proactive approach to build and provide public and shared parking facilities. CONSULTANT can therefore develop detailed projections of future demand based on a full analysis of supply, user demand characteristics, CITY regulations, and other market influences, drawing upon Urban Land Institute (ULI) methodologies. 6 Professional Services Rev.Nov.l.20!! S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhlltill\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc • Stakeholders Task Foree Meeting #2 • Downtov.'fl Development Capaeity Analysis • Open House/Community Workshop • Market and Development Feasibility • Planning & Transportation Commission Analysis Meeting #2 • Traffic and Parking Analyses • City Council Meeting • Stakeholders Task Force Meeting Summary Memorandum • 3D Computer Model TASK 4: Surveys on Parking Habits and Employment Density Objective: This work has three prrncipal components: • Sireet intercept interviews conducted within the downtown district (approximately 400 completes, survey length~5 minutes) , , . .., • A telephone survey of businesses located wilh a sample of buildings within the downtown district (number of completes for this together with item 3 below ranging from 200 to 350, dependent on number qf businesses located within the District; see detailed discussion later) • Afollow-up in-person interview conducted with businesses ijCONSULTANTwere nol able to locale or conduct via telephone (sur~ length 5 minutes) This task should start co11CUrrently with Task 2. Power Point style summary report of findings of the two surveys shall be prepared. 4-A Finalize Study Design: CONSULTANT shall meet with CITY to determine the final specifications of all phases of the research. All phases of the research shall be conducted simullaneously, but may be conducted one after the other if necessary. 4-B Street Intercept: Prepare Sampling Plan and 5-Minute Survey Instrument. After the initial planning meeting with the CITY, CONSULTANT shall prepare a sampling plan for the initial street intercept interviews. The sampling plan shall contain approximately four 12-hour Monday-Friday shifts (8 AM -8 PM), with teams of two interviewers working each shift. CONSULT ANT staff shall help to design the survey instrument It is estimated that this shall take no more than 5 minutes for each interview to administer in the field. 4-C Street Intercept: Hire and Train Interviewers: CONSULTANT shall hire and train an interviewing corps capable of going to selected locations and conducting on-the-street interviews. All interviewers shall be trained specifically on procedures as to how to approach potential respondents, and how best to engage them. They shall also be trained about the specific purpose of this project, as well as the specific questionnaire to be used for this study. 8 Professional Serv~ Rev, No\', J, 2011 S;\ASDIPURCH\SOUCITA TIONSICURRENT BUYER-eM FOWERSIPLANNING • (''HRISICONTRAcrSID)<it '" Bha]ia\C 14149918 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc 4-D Street Intercept: Conduet Interviews: Once CONSULTANT's interviewers have been hired and trained, a schedule shall be developed according to the sampling plan, and interviewers shall be senlto the chosen locations to conduct interviews. After each shift, interviewers shall bring the completed questionnaires back to CONSULTANT's offices, and the completed questio111laires shall be sorted and batched for data entry. A total of400 interviews shall be completed althe conclusion of this phase of the study. 4-D Street Intercept: Data Entry: After the questio111laires have been sorted and batched, they shall be key-entered using CONSULTANT's data entry system. Each questionnaire shall be completely entered TWICE by two different persons. In this way, mistakes that may be made by the first person shall be picked up and corrected by the second person. 4-E Street Intercept: Preparation of Final Dataset: After all questionnaires have been key-entered and verified, a final dataset and data map shall be prepared and delivered to the CITY in either EXCEL or SPSS. 4-F Street Intercept: Tabulation of Results, Conduct Statistical Analyses of Results, Prepare PowerPoint Summary Report of Findings, Present Findings: Once the dataset has been edited and cleaned, the results shall be tabulated into a banner cross-tabular report, and 'statistical analyses of the survey responses shall be conducted. A final PowerPointreport shall be prepared, and a presentation of results shall be made to the CITY. 4-G Business Study: DevelOp Sampling Plan and 5-Minute Survey Instrument: CONSULTANT shall meeting with CITY, to develop a random sampling plan of office buildings within the business district. Buildings in which the only commercial tenants are restaurants and retail tenants would not be sampled. The goal shall be to assess the number of workers in entire buildings in order to determine ratio of workers to building area with confidence The target number of interviews to complete shall depend on the CITY providing CONSULTANT with a reasonable estimate of the number of businesses in the district. CONSULTANT shall obtain this number from the CITY, and it is small enough, CONSULTANT may be able to complete as few as 200 interviews and have the results be accurate to within + 5% at the 95% level of confidence. If CONSULT ANT is not able to obtain a reasonable estimate from the CITY, or ifthe number of estimated businesses within the district is large enough (4,000 or more) CONSULTANT will need to complete between 350-370 interviews to achieve the same level of statistical significance. To assure that CONSULTANT is representing different types oftenants, buildings shall be classified into three size categories -small, medium, and large (the definition of which to be decided in this initial meeting), and a stratified sample shall be developed based on the approximate number of each type of building within the district. CONSULTANT shall design the survey instrument. It is estimated that this shall take no more than 5 minutes to administer in the field. 4-H Business Study: Purchasing and Loading of Telephone Sample: Based on the buildings that have been sampled, CONSULTANT shall purchase a telephone listing of all businesses located in these. CITY Does not expect that this shall be a complete listing, or that all businesses within each building shall be part of this sample. At minimum 70% of qualifYing businesses shall be contained in the sample. 9 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT A TIONS\CURRENT BUYER·CM FOLDERS\PLANNrNG -CHRlS\CONTRACTS\Dyetl & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEY CA P,doc 4-1 Business Study: Hire and Train Interviewers: CONSULTANT shall hire and train an interviewing corps capable of conducting telephone interviews with business respondents. All interviewers shall be trained specifically on procedures as to how to best assure that respondents cooperate, and how best to engage them. They shall also be trained about the specific purpose of this project, as well as the specific questionnaire to be used for this study. 4-J Business Study: Conduet Telephone Interviews. Once CONSULTANT's interviewers have been hired and trained, a schedule shall be developed so that interviews can be conducted during business hours Monday -Friday. Approximately 75% of the interviews CONSULTANT needs to complete shall be completed by telephonc. rfupon screening CONSULTANT determines that a business is not located in the indicated building or any other of the sampled building, CONSULTANT shall not interview that business. 4-K Business Study: Conduct In-Person Interviews of Businesses within Selected Buildings. After several attempts have been made to all businesses in the telephone sample, CONSULTANT's interviewers shall go to the selected businesses in the district and compile a list of businesses in the selected buildings that are not part of the telephone sample. Once this list is compiled, interviewers shall attempt to interview someone in each of these businesses, as well as businesses in which the CONSULTANT has not been able to complete an interview via telephone. 4-L Business Study: Data Entry: After the questionnaires have been sorted and batched, they shall be key-entered using CONSULTANT's data entry system. Each questionnaire shall be completely entered twice by two different persons, for the purpose of catching data input errors. The dataset shall then be merged with the results of the telephone business survey. 4-M Business Study: Preparation of Final Dataset. After all questionnaires have been key-entered and verified, a final dataset and data map shall be prepared and delivered to the CrTY in either EXCEL or SPSS. 4-N Business Study: Tabulation of Results, Conduct Statistical Analyses of Results, Prepare PowerPoint Summary Report of Findings, Present Findings. Once the dataset has been edited and cleaned, the results shall be tabulated into a banner crosstabular report, and statistical analyses of the survey responses shall be conducted. A final PowerPoint report shall be prepared, and a presentation of results shall be made to the CITY. 4-0 Assessment of Building Employment Intensity: CONSULTANT shall use information on workers and correspond this with floor area information for specific buildings in the GIS database based on information provided by the CITY or the County Assessor's Office to determine average floor area per employee, as well as potentially variation by building size or nature of business, to the extent this information is available. Meetings Prodncts • Staff Meeting on Survey Design • Powerpoint Report on Street Intercept • One Presentation on Findings • Powerpoint Report on Business Study • Printing: CONSULTANT shall provide one hard copy and one electronic copy (including in native file formats) of all products. Printing of additional copies shall be additional services. [0 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:'lASD\PURCH\sOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER·eM fOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACfS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP,doc • Meeting Attendance. Meeting attendance shall be as specified in the work tasks. Additional meeting attendance shall be additional services. • Consolidated Comments and Direction. CITY staff shall provide a single set of consolidated comments on review drafts of all documents. A single iteration of each product; correciion of CONSULTANT's errors shall not constitute additional services. 11 Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S;\ASD\PURCH\SOLICIT ATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PIANNING -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACf DEY CAP.doe 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 tenn 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 Task 1: Start-up, review of prior materials and Community engagement plan-start: Week 0; end: Week 4; Review background materials-4 weeks Draft Community Engagement Plan-3 weeks Task 2: Completion No. of DayslWeeks FromNTP 4 weeks Existing conditions and trends evaluation-start: Week 2; end: Week 10; Existing conditions, land use and development, ·8 weeks traffic evaluation working papers-8 weeks Task 3: Growth projections and implications-start: Week 4; end: Week 24; Traffic and parking analysis: 12 weeks Market and developmentfeasibility analysis: 14 weeks Downtown development capacity analysis: 16 weeks 3D computer model: 17 weeks Task 4: Surveys on parking habits and employment density-start: Week 3; end: Week 12; Draft survey, parking habits: 7 weeks Draft survey, employment density: 7 weeks 12 20 weeks 9 weeks Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER·eM FOLDERS\PLANNING -CHRlS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & Bhalia\C14149978' CONTRACT DEV CAP.doe 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-I 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 $200,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. 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 ofthe tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $200,000.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE Task I (Start Up, Review & Commun ity Engagement Plan) Task 2 (Existing Condition & Trends Evaluations) Task 3 (Growth Projections) Task 4 (Surveys on Parking Habits & Employment Density) Task 5 (Stakeholders Task Meetings) Task 6 (Focus Groups Meetings) Task 7 NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT $8,978.00 $41,672.00 $80,895.00 $33,130.00 $8,430.00 $7,740.00 " ______ -----'CPlanning & transRortation Commission, ____________________ _ 18 Protessional Services Rev Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOUCITA TlONS\CURRENT BUYER·eM FOLDERS\PLANNlNG· CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett & BhaLia\C 14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc City Council Meetings) Task (Community Workshop Open House Meetings) Sub-total Basic Services Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses Maximum Total Compensation REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES $7,570.00 $9,690.00 $198,105.00 $1,895.00 $200,000.00 The administrative, overhead, secreiarial time or secretarial o\,'ertime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto's policy for reimbursement oftravel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup infonnation. Any expense anticipated to be more than $1,895.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY's project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall prov ide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at IheCITY'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-I. 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 19 Profe~sional Services RevNov, 1,2011 S:\I\SD\PURCIDSOUCITA TIONS\CURRENT BUYER-eM FOLDERS\PlANNING -CHRlS\C0l"lTRACfS\Dyett & Bhatia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc Hourly Task I Rate Start Up, Review of Prior !Materials, & CommuniTy Engagement Pian Dyett & Bhatia Principal, Rajeev $ 200 2,400 Bhatia Associate Principal, $ 175 - Vivian Kahn Senior Associate, $ 135 2,160 Sophie Martin GIS Specialist $ 100 - Planner/Urban $ 100 - toesigner Project Associate $ 65 260 Direct Costs -Travel, Printing., 100 Mailing Sub-Total 4,920 Nelson\Nygaard Principal V $ 197 788 Principal IV $ 180 720 APP $ 125 1,000 Associate 1I $ 100 - llotero $ 50 - I Direct Cost I Sub-Totall 2,508 l[Economic and Planning Systems I Principal $ 250 1,000 I Vice $ 200 400 President EXHIBIT "C-l" HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE 'Task2 Task 3 Task 4 SUB- TOTAL Existing Surveys on Parlcing Conditions Growth & Trends Projections Habits and 0 Evaluation Employment Density 4,000 3,600 1,800 11,800 1,400 1,400 -2,800 5,400 6,480 2,430 16,470 5,000 5,000 -10,000 1,200 10,000 -11,200 780 1,235 -2,275 100 368 20 588 17,880 28,083 4,250 55,133 7,092 9,062 394 17,336 1,800 3,600 -6,120 6,750 10,750 250 18,750 1,200 2,800 100 4,100 1,200 - - 1,200 5,750 16 5,750 23,792 26,212 760 53,272 -10,000 -11,000 -12,000 -12,400 " . Meetings Planning & Stakeholders Focus Transportation Task Force (2) Groups (4) Commission! City Council (2) 2,400 2,400 2,400 - -- .2,700 4,320 2,160 --- 400 -- 260 260 390 100 100 100 5,860 7,080 5,050 - -- 720 360 720 250 250 250 --- - -- 50 50 1,020 660 970 1,000 -1,000 400 -400 S:IASDIPURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIPlANNING -CHRlS\CONTRACTSlDyctt & Bh.tia\CI4149978 CONl'RACT DEV CAP.doc ! ': TOTAL Community Workshop/ Open House (1) 1,600 20,600 -2,800 2,160 27,810 800 10,800 800 12,400 1,560 4,745 200 1,088 7,120 S 80,243 -17,336 720 8,640 250 19,750 -4,100 -1,200 50 5,900 1,020 $ 56,926 1,000 14,000 400 13,600 Professional Services Re:vNov. 1,20)] iResearch $ 115 --4,600 4,600 ----4,600 lInalvst - iEmployee $ 100.00 ---------0 ITvo~IV I Direet Cost 150 150 150 150 150 600 I Sub-Totall 1,550 -26';;00 18,150 1,5S0 1,5S0 1,5S0 $ 32,800 pc Henne Group lS,120 28,120 $ lS,lW ~A1.FEE. '78,978 41,672 80,1195 33,130 1'4,65~ .. <84430 "7,146 .rr , 7",JU ••.•.•• ·~,6~ l'f98~l~ , :'". :. I Direct costs in the project budget include reimbursable expeuses, includ!ng but nO"! limlled 10: air or auto travel, hQtel, parking, car "",tal, meals during out-of-tOWll trovel, printirig. mailing, and other similar expenses} shall be invoiced at DO mark-up I CONSULTk shall have the ability to reallocate budget between various consulting team """"hers and be\Ween tasks. provid~ the overall project budget does not change. 19 SIASDIPURCiOLlCITATIONSICURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERSIPlANNlNG -CHRlSICONn<ACTS\DyeJI & B_'C 14149978 CU'ITRACT DEV CAP.doc I Professional Services Rev Nov. 1,2011 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 MAINT AlN lNSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BEWW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A-:VI~ OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN TIlE STA TE OF CALIFORNIA. A WARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED BELOW, MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH YES YES YES YES YES YES OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY STATUTORY BODlL Y INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 GENERAL liABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 PROPERTY DAM AGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LIABILITY COMBlNED, BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 -EACH PERSON $1,00°1°00. $1,000,000 -EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 AUTOMOBILllLIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODlL Y INJURY AND PROPERTY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE COMBINED PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL DBT AIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FUU FOReEAND EFFECT THRDUGHOUT lHEENTIRETERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRmED, 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 WRITIEN 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. CONTACTORMUST 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. ------------------------- 18 Proressional Services Rev Nov. 1,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLlClTATIONS\CURRENT DUYER·CM FOLDERS\PLANNING· CHRIS\CONTRACTS\Dyett& BhHlia\CI4149978 CONTRACf DEY CAP,doc D. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE 1HAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER TIlE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY IUGHTS OF TIlE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT TIllS ENDORSEMENT, AND TIlE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE TIlE TOTAL LIABILITY OF TIlE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION I. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON·PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, TIlE 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 THENON·PAYMENTOF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WIUTTEN 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 19 Professional Services RevNov.i,2011 S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITA TIONS\CURRENT DUYER-eM FOLDERS\PLA.NNrNG -CHRIS\CONTRACTS\DyeU & Bhlltia\C14149978 CONTRACT DEV CAP.doc Planning & Community Environment Department Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 149978 for Professional Services Downtown Development Cap Evaluation Pre-proposal Meeting 2:30 p.m. April 30, 2013 RFP submittal deadline: 3:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 21, 2013 Contract Administrator: Chris Anastole (Email address) chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org CITY OF PALO ALTO PURCHASING/CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 250 HAMILTON AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94301 (650) 329-2271 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 149978 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TITLE: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CAP EVALUATION 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto is seeking proposals from qualified firms to provide professional services for the evaluation of existing and projected parking, traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown Palo Alto. The selected consultant must work closely with the City’s planning, transportation and economic development staff during the process, and must make presentations to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as well as various community groups as needed. The required services and performance conditions are described in the Scope of Work (or Services). 2. ATTACHMENTS The attachments below are included with this Request for Proposals (RFP) for your review and submittal (see asterisk): Attachment A – Proposer’s Information Form* Attachment B – Scope of Work/Services Attachment C – Sample Agreement for Professional Services Attachment D – Sample Table, Qualifications of Firm Relative to City’s Needs Attachment E – Cost Proposal Format Attachment F – Insurance Requirement The items identified with an asterisk (*) shall be filled out, signed by the appropriate representative of the company and returned with submittal. 3. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS 3.1 Pre-proposal Conference A pre-proposal teleconference will be held on, Tuesday, June 30, 2013 at 2:30 P.M. The call in number is (605) 475-4800. The Access Code is 707751* All prospective Proposers are strongly encouraged to call. 3.2 Examination of Proposal Documents The submission of a proposal shall be deemed a representation and certification by the Proposer that they: 1 3.2.1 Have carefully read and fully understand the information that was provided by the City to serve as the basis for submission of this proposal. 3.2.2 Have the capability to successfully undertake and complete the responsibilities and obligations of the proposal being submitted. 3.2.3 Represent that all information contained in the proposal is true and correct. 3.2.4 Did not, in any way, collude, conspire to agree, directly or indirectly, with any person, firm, corporation or other Proposer in regard to the amount, terms or conditions of this proposal. 3.2.5 Acknowledge that the City has the right to make any inquiry it deems appropriate to substantiate or supplement information supplied by Proposer, and Proposer hereby grants the City permission to make these inquiries, and to provide any and all related documentation in a timely manner. No request for modification of the proposal shall be considered after its submission on grounds that Proposer was not fully informed to any fact or condition. 3.3 Addenda/Clarifications Should discrepancies or omissions be found in this RFP or should there be a need to clarify this RFP, questions or comments regarding this RFP must be put in writing and received by the City no later than 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 07, 2013. Correspondence shall be e-mailed to Chris Anastole, Contract Administrator, at chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org. Responses from the City will be communicated in writing to all recipients of this RFP. Inquiries received after the date and time stated will not be accepted and will be returned to senders without response. All addenda shall become a part of this RFP and shall be acknowledged on the Proposer’s Form. The City shall not be responsible for nor be bound by any oral instructions, interpretations or explanations issued by the City or its representatives. 3.4 Submission of Proposals All proposals shall be submitted to: City of Palo Alto Purchasing and Contract Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue, Mail Stop MB Palo Alto, CA 94301 2 Proposals must be delivered no later than 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 21, 2013. All proposals received after that time will be returned to the Proposer unopened. The Proposer shall submit 6 copies of its proposal in a sealed envelope, addressed as noted above, bearing the Proposer’s name and address clearly marked, “RFP NO. 149978 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT CAP EVALUATION.” The use of double- sided paper with a minimum 30% post-consumer recycled content is strongly encouraged. Please do not submit proposals in binders. 3.4 Withdrawal of Proposals A Proposer may withdraw its proposal at any time before the expiration of the time for submission of proposals as provided in the RFP by delivering a written request for withdrawal signed by, or on behalf of, the Proposer. 3.5 Rights of the City of Palo Alto This RFP does not commit the City to enter into a contract, nor does it obligate the City to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submission of proposals or in anticipation of a contract. The City reserves the right to: Make the selection based on its sole discretion; Reject any and all proposals; Issue subsequent Requests for Proposals; Postpone opening for its own convenience; Remedy technical errors in the Request for Proposals process; Approve or disapprove the use of particular subconsultants; Negotiate with any, all or none of the Proposers; Accept other than the lowest offer; Waive informalities and irregularities in the Proposals and/or Enter into an agreement with another Proposer in the event the originally selected Proposer defaults or fails to execute an agreement with the City. An agreement shall not be binding or valid with the City unless and until it is executed by authorized representatives of the City and of the Proposer. 4. PROPOSED TENTATIVE TIMELINE The tentative RFP timeline is as follows: RFP Issued April 22, 2013 Pre-Proposal Meeting 2:30 P.M. Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3 Deadline for questions, clarifications 1:00 P.M. Tuesday, May 7, 2013 Proposals Due 3:00 P.M. Tuesday, May 21, 2013 Finalist Identified Week of May 27, 2013 Consultant Interviews Week of June 3, 2013 Consultant selection and contract preparation Week of June 10, 2013 Contract awarded Week of June 24,2013 Work commences July 2013 5. INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED (to be submitted in this order only) These instructions outline the guidelines governing the format and content of the proposal and the approach to be used in its development and presentation. The intent of the RFP is to encourage responses that clearly communicate the Proposer’s understanding of the City’s requirements and its approach to successfully provide the products and/or services on time and within budget. Only that information which is essential to an understanding and evaluation of the proposal should be submitted. Items not specifically and explicitly related to the RFP and proposal, e.g. brochures, marketing material, etc. will not be considered in the evaluation. All proposals shall address the following items in the order listed below and shall be numbered 1 through 8 in the proposal document. 5.1 Chapter 1 – Proposal Summary This Chapter shall discuss the highlights, key features and distinguishing points of the Proposal. A separate sheet shall include a list of individuals and contacts for this Proposal and how to communicate with them. Limit this Chapter to a total of three (3) pages including the separate sheet. 5.2 Chapter 2 – Profile on the Proposing Firm(s) This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Prime Proposer’s firm size as well as the proposed local organization structure. Include a discussion of the Prime Proposer firm’s financial stability, capacity and resources. Include all other firms participating in the Proposal, including similar information about the firms. Additionally, this section shall include a listing of any lawsuit or litigation and the result of that action resulting form (a) any public project undertaken by the Proposer or by its subcontractors where litigation is still pending or has occurred within the last five years or (b) any type of project where claims or settlements were paid by the consultant or its insurers within the last five years. 5.3 Chapter 3 – Qualifications of the Firm 4 This Chapter shall include a brief description of the Proposer’s and sub- Proposer’s qualifications and previous experience on similar or related projects and demonstrate your team’s understanding of the Palo Alto community and Downtown business operations (5 Page Max). Provide in a table format (see Sample Table, Attachment D) descriptions of pertinent project experience with other public municipalities and private sector that includes a summary of the work performed, the total project cost, the percentage of work the firm was responsible for, the period over which the work was completed, and the name, title, and phone number of client’s to be contacted for references. Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project. Provide a Statement of Qualifications that highlights the team’s experience in conduct of transportation (traffic) and parking analyses, planning analysis, and economic evaluations related to these issues. This experience should include completed work related to evaluating the impacts of existing and projected development conditions. Special attention should be given to the firm’s experience in balancing commercial district needs with quality of life issues in adjacent residential neighborhoods. In addition, the team’s experience related to zoning code review, and preparation or revisions to comprehensive plans, as well as its general planning experience should also be detailed. Finally, any experience in analyzing development thresholds should be included. Include recent project reference and project cost information. (3 Page Max) This chapter shall include information regarding any relationships with firms and/or individuals who may submit proposals in response to the RFPs being developed. 5.4 Chapter 4 – Work Plan or Proposal This Chapter shall present a well-conceived service plan. Include a full description of major tasks and subtasks. This section of the proposal shall establish that the Proposer understands the City’s objectives and work requirements and Proposer’s ability to satisfy those objectives and requirements. Succinctly describe the proposed approach for addressing the required services and the firm’s ability to meet the City’s schedule, outlining the approach that would be undertaken in providing the requested services. Detail the approach (task-by-task) and steps your team would take to complete the scope of work discussed within this request for proposals. 5.5 Chapter 5 – Proposed Innovations (Optional) 5 The Proposer may also suggest technical or procedural innovations that have been used successfully on other engagements and which may provide the City with better service delivery. In this Chapter discuss any ideas, innovative approaches, or specific new concepts included in the Proposal that would provide benefit to the City. 5.6 Chapter 6 – Project Staffing This Chapter shall discuss how the Proposer would propose to staff this project. Key project team members shall be identified by name, title and specific responsibilities on the project. Key personnel will be an important factor considered by the review committee. Changes in key personnel may be cause for rejection of the proposal. Include a flow chart that highlights the internal team’s reporting structure and the relation of team members and subconsultants. Highlight the Project Manager’s experience and qualifications and Quality Assurance programs to be used as part of the project. (2 Page Max) Include the resumes of the Project Principal and Project Manager (2 Page Max) 5.7 Chapter 7 – Proposal Exceptions This Chapter shall discuss any exceptions or requested changes that Proposer has to the City’s RFP conditions, requirements and sample contract. If there are no exceptions noted, it is assumed the Proposer will accept all conditions and requirements identified in the Attachment C – “Sample Agreement for Services.” Items not excepted will not be open to later negotiation. 5.8 Chapter 8 – Proposal Costs Sheet and Rates (Optional to provide in separate sealed envelope) The fee information is relevant to a determination of whether the fee is fair and reasonable in light of the services to be provided. Provision of this information assists the City in determining the firm’s understanding of the project, and provides staff with tools to negotiate the cost, provide in a table (See Table, Attachment E). Consultant shall provide the following information Direct labor rates for proposed staff; Overhead rate and breakdown of overhead elements; 6 Subconsultant billing rates and mark-up percentage for ODC’s (other direct costs); and identify all reimbursable expenses. Most recent complete financial instrument that would establish Proposer’s ability to complete the obligations of the contract resulting from this solicitation. (optional) This Chapter shall include the proposed costs to provide the services desired. Include any other cost and price information, plus a not-to-exceed amount, that would be contained in a potential agreement with the City. The hourly rates may be used for pricing the cost of additional services outlined in the Scope of Work. PLEASE NOTE: The City of Palo Alto does not pay for services before it receives them. Therefore, do not propose contract terms that call for upfront payments or deposits. 6. CONTRACT TYPE AND METHOD OF PAYMENT It is anticipated that the agreement resulting from this solicitation, if awarded, will be a not-to-exceed budget per task form of contract. A Sample Agreement of Services is provided as Attachment C. The method of payment to the successful Proposer shall be on a per task basis with a maximum “not to exceed” fee as set by the Proposer in the proposal or as negotiated between the Proposer and the City as being the maximum cost to perform all work. This figure shall include direct costs and overhead, such as, but limited to, transportation, communications, subsistence and materials and any subcontracted items of work. Progress payments will be based on a percentage of project completed. Proposers shall be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including Insurance Requirements in Attachment F. If a Proposer desires to take exception to the Agreement, Proposer shall provide the following information in Chapter 7 of their submittal package. Please include the following: Proposer shall clearly identify each proposed change to the Agreement, including all relevant Attachments. Proposer shall furnish the reasons for, as well as specific recommendations, for alternative language. The above factors will be taken into account in evaluating proposals. Proposals that take substantial exceptions to the proposed Agreement may be determined by the City, at its sole discretion, to be unacceptable and no longer considered for award. Insurance Requirements 7 The selected Proposer(s), at Proposer’s sole cost and expense and for the full term of the Agreement or any extension thereof, shall obtain and maintain, at a minimum, all of the insurance requirements outlined in Attachment F. All policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders shall be subject to the approval of the Risk Manager of the City of Palo Alto as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver if so approved in writing by the Risk Manager. The selected Proposer agrees to provide the City with a copy of said policies, certificates and/or endorsement upon award of contract. 7. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS City staff will evaluate the proposals provided based on the following criteria: 7.1 Quality and completeness of proposal; 7.2 Quality, performance and effectiveness of the solution, goods and/or services to be provided by the Proposer; 7.3 Proposers experience, including the experience of staff to be assigned to the project, the engagements of similar scope and complexity; 7.4 Cost to the city; 7.5 Proposer’s financial stability; 7.6 Proposer’s ability to perform the work within the time specified; 7.7 Proposer’s prior record of performance with city or others; 7.8 Proposer’s ability to provide future maintenance, repairs parts and/or services; and 7.9 Proposer’s compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies (including city council policies), guidelines and orders governing prior or existing contracts performed by the contractor. The selection committee will make a recommendation to the awarding authority. The acceptance of the proposal will be evidenced by written Notice of Award from the City’s Purchasing/Contract Administration Division to the successful Proposer. 8. ORAL INTERVIEWS Proposers may be required to participate in an oral interview. The oral interview will be a panel comprised of members of the selection committee. Proposers may only ask questions that are intended to clarify the questions that they are being asked to respond. Each Proposer’s time slot for oral interviews will be determined randomly. Proposers who are selected shall make every effort to attend. If representatives of the City experience difficulty on the part of any Proposer in scheduling a time for the oral interview, it may result in disqualification from further consideration. 8 9. PUBLIC NATURE OF MATERIALS Responses to this RFP become the exclusive property of the City of Palo Alto. At such time as the Administrative Services Department recommends to form to the City Manager or to the City Council, as applicable, all proposals received in response to this RFP becomes a matter of public record and shall be regarded as public records, with the exception of those elements in each proposal which are defined by the Proposer as business or trade secrets and plainly marked as “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary”. The City shall not in any way be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any such proposal or portions thereof, if they are not plainly marked as “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary” or if disclosure is required under the Public Records Act. Any proposal which contains language purporting to render all or significant portions of the proposal “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary” shall be regarded as non-responsive. Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential trade secret information may be protected from disclosure, the City of Palo Alto may not accept or approve that the information that a Proposer submits is a trade secret. If a request is made for information marked “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary,” the City shall provide the Proposer who submitted the information with reasonable notice to allow the Proposer to seek protection from disclosure by a court of competent jurisdiction. 9 10. COLLUSION By submitting a proposal, each Proposer represents and warrants that its proposal is genuine and not a sham or collusive or made in the interest of or on behalf of any person not named therein; that the Proposer has not directly induced or solicited any other person to submit a sham proposal or any other person to refrain from submitting a proposal; and that the Proposer has not in any manner sought collusion to secure any improper advantage over any other person submitting a proposal. 11. DISQUALIFICATION Factors such as, but not limited to, any of the following may be considered just cause to disqualify a proposal without further consideration: 11.1 Evidence of collusion, directly or indirectly, among Proposers in regard to the amount, terms or conditions of this proposal; 11.2 Any attempt to improperly influence any member of the evaluation team; 11.3 Existence of any lawsuit, unresolved contractual claim or dispute between Proposer and the City; 11.4 Evidence of incorrect information submitted as part of the proposal; 11.5 Evidence of Proposer’s inability to successfully complete the responsibilities and obligation of the proposal; and 11.6 Proposer’s default under any previous agreement with the City, which results in termination of the Agreement. 12. NON-CONFORMING PROPOSAL A proposal shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions of these RFP instructions and specifications. Any alteration, omission, addition, variance, or limitation of, from or to a proposal may be sufficient grounds for non- acceptance of the proposal, at the sole discretion of the City. 13. GRATUITIES No person shall offer, give or agree to give any City employee any gratuity, discount or offer of employment in connection with the award of contract by the city. No city employee shall solicit, demand, accept or agree to accept from any other person a gratuity, discount or offer of employment in connection with a city contract. 14. FIRMS OR PERSONS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL 10 11 In order to avoid any conflict of interest or perception of a conflict or interest, Proposer(s) selected to provide professional services under this RFP will be subject to the following requirements: 14.1 The Proposer(s) who works on the procurement will be precluded from submitting proposals or bids as a prime contractor or subcontractor in the ultimate procurement. 14.2 The Proposer(s) may not have interest in any potential Proposer for the ultimate procurement. ~ End of Section ~ Attachment A Proposer’s Information Form PROPOSER (please print): Name: __________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ Telephone: _______________________ Fax: ______________________________ Contact person, title, email, telephone and fax number: __________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Proposer, if selected, intends to carry on the business as (check one): Individual Joint Venture Partnership Corporation When incorporated? ______________ In what state? _______________ When authorized to do business in California? _______ Other (explain):____________________________________________________ ADDENDA To assure that all Proposers have received each addendum, check the appropriate box(es) below. Failure to acknowledge receipt of an addendum/addenda may be considered an irregularity in the Proposal: Addendum number(s) received: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; Or, _____ _____No Addendum/Addenda Were Received (check and initial). PROPOSER’S SIGNATURE No proposal shall be accepted which has not been signed in ink in the appropriate space below: City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 By signing below, the submission of a proposal shall be deemed a representation and certification by the Proposer that they have investigated all aspects of the RFP, that they are aware of the applicable facts pertaining to the RFP process, its procedures and requirements, and they have read and understand the RFP. No request for modification of the proposal shall be considered after its submission on the grounds that the Proposer was not fully informed as to any fact or condition. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 Attachment A – Proposer Information continued… 1. If Proposer is INDIVIDUAL, sign here Date:______________ _____________________________________ Proposer’s Signature _____________________________________ Proposer’s typed name and title 2. If Proposer is PARTNERSHIP or JOINT VENTURE; at least two (2) Partners shall sign here: ________________________________________________ Partnership or Joint Venture Name (type or print) Date:______________ _____________________________________ Member of the Partnership or Joint Venture signature Date:______________ _____________________________________ Member of the Partnership or Joint Venture signature 3. If Proposer is a CORPORATION, the duly authorized officer shall sign as follows: The undersigned certify that he/she is respectively: _________________________________ and ___________________________ Signature Title Of the corporation named below; that they are designated to sign the Proposal Cost Form by resolution (attach a certified copy, with corporate seal, if applicable, notarized as to its authenticity or Secretary’s certificate of authorization) for and on behalf of the below named CORPORATION, and that they are authorized to execute same for and on behalf of said CORPORATION. ______________________________________ Corporation Name (type or print) By:______________________________________ Date: _________________ Title:__________________________________________ Attachment B – Scope Purpose: The City of Palo Alto is requesting proposals from qualified and experienced transportation and planning consultant firms to evaluate existing and projected parking, traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown Palo Alto. The overall evaluation must also contain a sound economic analysis focused on growth demands related to various downtown land uses. The analysis should be done within the context of the existing development cap (Downtown Development Cap) in the Commercial Downtown (CD) area of Palo Alto, with a particular emphasis on growth in Downtown and associated impacts on parking and traffic. In 1986, the City adopted the Downtown Development Cap, primarily due to traffic and parking concerns, along with incentives for future development and redevelopment. These policies were applied to the CD area and restricted future non-residential development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was in existence or approved in May 1986. Residential development was purposely excluded from the development to encourage people in order to encourage future residents to live in close proximity to jobs. CD development regulations were to be reevaluated when new, non-residential development reached 235,000 square feet. This evaluation milestone has recently been reached with the submittal of several development applications. A Parking Assessment District (PAD) was also established prior to the 1986 study and remains in effect today, though it has been expanded during the interim. This RFP is for first phase of the Downtown Development Cap evaluation, primarily focused on gathering data, and evaluating existing and projected conditions. In the future, an RFP for the “second phase” of this study will be released, to seek transportation and planning (Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, etc.) policy recommendations using the “Phase 1” findings as the foundation. Background: As the result of a 1986 Downtown Study, the Downtown Area was rezoned to Commercial Downtown (CD). This rezoning created Floor Area Ratios (FARs) and other zoning regulations that were generally more restrictive than the previous zoning, especially as it related to commercial properties adjacent to residential neighborhoods. In addition to the new zoning regulations, a CD development cap policy (Downtown Development Cap) was adopted. This policy restricted future non-residential development to a total of 350,000 square feet above what was in existence or approved in the CD area as of May 1986. CD development regulations were to be reevaluated when new development reached 235,000 square feet. Residential development was purposely excluded from the development to encourage people in order to encourage future residents to live in close proximity to jobs. There were a number of other specific policies related to growth in the CD area as well. The measures that resulted from the 1986 Downtown Study are attached to this RFP. Citywide growth limits, and growth limits in other districts were also established at that time. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 The 1986 Downtown Study required that City Staff monitor and submit an annual report to the City Council regarding development activity, vacancy rates and commercial lease rates in order to evaluate the effectiveness of these regulations. The most recent City Council report (Attachment 2), released on March 11, 2013, provided information related to the 2011-12 time period. This report showed that the downtown area had fully recovered from the recession and that only 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development remains available (as of the end of 2012) before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet would be reached. Some developments have been approved since that time, such that the evaluation milestone has now been reached. Parking Parking intrusion into adjacent residential neighborhoods and parking permit supply are both major concerns. These concerns are not new, but there has been an increasing amount of attention focused on parking impacts with the improving economy. Parking was a key focus of the 1986 study. For example, as a result of the study, a parking policy was adopted that specified that new development should not increase the parking deficit beyond the 1986 deficit. Since that time parking garages have been built which have reduced the deficit, though concerns remain. These impacts may be exacerbated by zoning code assumptions which may not be consistent with modern planning and transportation engineering practices, such as the number of employees assumed on a per square foot basis in tech companies, particularly “start-ups.” Staff has also recently initiated a study of potential parking garage feasibility on five sites in the downtown area, which should inform the Downtown Development Cap study as well. A Downtown Parking Assessment District was first formed in 1978, and has been subsequently restructured several times. The Downtown Parking Assessment District, which is financially supported by downtown property owners via bond financing, paid for the construction of several downtown garages. Maintenance and operation costs of garages are funded through permit fees. Bonds financing restrictions, however, limit the way in which these garages can be utilized. After the formation of assessment district and the preparation of the 1986 Downtown Study, the zoning code was amended to allow several “exemptions” to parking requirements, including a 1:1 FAR exemption, 200 square foot minor parking exemption and a “Transfer of Development Rights” program, which allows square footage bonuses and parking exemptions to be transferred to other properties in certain cases. Traffic Traffic is another concern. Several policies were adopted in the 1986 plan, and numerous transportation improvements have been implemented in the CD and surrounding areas since that time. Transportation improvements include enhancements to the automobile, bicycle and pedestrian networks. In addition, the City has required Transportation Demand Management policies for a few recent downtown developments and businesses. The proximity of Downtown and Stanford to the Palo Alto Downtown Caltrain station and other transit services, along with the transportation initiatives of several firms and Stanford have contributed to the Downtown Caltrain station having the highest ridership City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 at any Caltrain station other than at the San Francisco terminus. In addition, the City of Palo Alto has a top-rated bicycle network, and continues to adopt policies and programs and to enhance facilities to improve this network. Nonetheless, traffic congestion remains a major concern in the area, and is one of the primary aspects of the Downtown Development Cap evaluation and subsequent recommendations. Planning and Zoning In addition to parking and traffic policies, there are several planning related policies that are tied to the Downtown Development Cap. For example, a Ground Floor Combining District was created within the CD area, which encourages pedestrian uses, and limits business to retail eating and drinking uses. Office uses, which can typically attract higher rents, are allowed on upper floors and at the perimeter of the CD area. CD zoning also encourages seismic and historic upgrades to buildings by allowing property owners who make these improvements to expand beyond normal FAR limitations and/or to add floor area without providing parking. The property owners may also transfer (sell) those development rights to another property in the CD area. The City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, including the Transportation and Land Use elements. Currently the document refers to and bases several policies on the 1986 Downtown Study. In addition, there are several ongoing efforts related to parking management, including the parking garage study and consideration of several other parking programs such as attendant parking and residential permit parking, all of which will be under study simultaneous with the Downtown Cap study. Finally, some potential proposed developments would be located just outside the CD area (“Peripheral Impact Area” on the map). Although these developments are not directly related to the original Downtown Development Cap, traffic and parking related to these developments may impact the Downtown area and should be addressed or referenced as well. Scope of Work: The City of Palo Alto is requesting proposals from qualified and well-experienced transportation and planning firms to evaluate existing and projected parking, traffic and land use conditions in the Downtown Palo Alto. The selected consultant must work closely with the City’s planning, transportation and economic development staff during the process, and must make presentations to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as well as various community groups as needed. This RFP is for the first phase of a study that will contain two phases. An RFP for the “second phase” will be sent out at a future date. This “Phase 1” proposal should include the following components: 1. Review of Prior Downtown Study and Related Documents The selected consultant for the project will review the 1986 Downtown Study report and related materials, as well as subsequent monitoring reports, Comprehensive Plan policies, zoning regulations, and any other relevant documents Given the City is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan, particular importance should be paid to Comprehensive Plan policies, and recent Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 discussions on the various Plan elements. A thorough review of the 1986 Downtown Study and associated environmental documents is also critical, as it provides the context for many of the adopted Comp Plan policies. 2. Existing Conditions Evaluation The selected consultant will be responsible for evaluating existing traffic and parking conditions in the Downtown and immediately surrounding areas. Existing level of service studies should be conducted for key intersections and roadway segments. The selected consultant should work closely with the planning and transportation staff during the existing conditions process to ensure the correct intersections and roadway segments are be evaluated. In addition, the selected consultant should evaluate existing visitor (hourly) and permit parking conditions in the Downtown and surrounding areas. At a minimum, studies should include: Existing traffic counts and level of service for identified intersections. Existing on-street and off-street parking spaces, capacity and occupancy, based on staff’s continuing efforts and adjusted as needed to reflect the needs of the Downtown Development Cap Study. Identification of downtown development over the past 10 years and estimated impacts of that development and trends over that timeframe, including the application of parking exemptions for transfer of development rights and other code provisions. Identification of non-conforming buildings (from a use and/or parking standpoint) that have converted to higher intensity office uses over the past 5 years. A definition of the parking “intrusion,” “saturation,” “deficit,” or other term and how that is best applied to the study area and surrounding neighborhoods. 3. Projected Growth Impact Analysis Using the existing conditions report as the foundation, the selected consultant should evaluate scenarios for potential development, and future level of service (LOS) of key intersections and roadway segments based on projected growth. In addition, future commercial and nearby residential parking conditions should also be evaluated based on growth scenarios. The parking analysis should be completed for the Downtown visitor and permit parking, as well as street parking in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The projected traffic and parking conditions should be based on the existing development cap policies and zoning code regulations. At a minimum, studies should include: A five-year and ten-year scenario of potential ranges of development, assuming the continued use of transfer of development rights and other existing provisions. Estimated changes to levels of service at key intersections based on potential increased growth. Estimated parking demand required by increased growth under each scenario and the likely impact of the demand on available parking in residential neighborhoods. The likely impact of parking reductions based on the proximity of new development to Caltrain and other transit, bicycling and walking facilities, based on surveys of existing employee ridership for Downtown businesses and Stanford. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 Public Outreach and Participation It is expected that Phase 1 of the Downtown Development Cap study will be the focus of a series of public meetings over a 6-month period. It is also expected that the public participation process will be guided by the formation and periodic meeting of a Downtown Cap Stakeholders Task Force. Public outreach may include, at a minimum: Periodic meetings with the Downtown Cap Stakeholder Task Force. This group would be comprised of downtown neighborhood representatives, downtown property owners, downtown business owners, and other interested individuals or organizations. Others may be included as recommended by the City Council. It is expected that there would be 11-15 committee members and they would meet approximately 3 times during the first phase of this study. 1-2 Larger community meetings with the broad Downtown community, including businesses, residents, and others. Meetings or focus groups with specific interests, such as the Downtown North, University South, and Professorville neighborhoods, the Downtown Business Improvement District, and/or the Chamber of Commerce’s Downtown Parking Committee. At least 1-2 meetings with the Planning and Transportation Commission. At least 1-2 meetings with the City Council. The proposal should outline a suggested proposal for public involvement, including the Downtown Cap Stakeholder Task Force process, but staff expects that a minimum of three (3) Downtown Cap Stakeholder Committee meetings, and 1-2 Planning and Transportation Commission and/or Council meetings should be included, as well at least 1 general community meeting and early and regular consultation with the interest groups outlined above. An early scoping meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission should be used to refine the desired public outreach approach. Phase 2: Policy Analysis Although not the subject of this RFP, an RFP for a second phase of this study will be released subsequent to the completion of Phase 1. This scope of work for this second phase has not yet been completed, however it is expected that the effort will require a consultant team to make planning and transportation policy recommendations using the “Phase 1” findings, an economic analysis and community input. Therefore, consultants submitting proposals in response to the subject, Phase 1 RFP, must be qualified to submit a proposal for Phase 2 work in the future. Pricing on Proposals should be honored for up to 4 months to allow the city an opportunity to complete the award of a consultant agreement through the City Council. EXHIBITS TO THE SCOPE: EXHIBIT A: 1986 Downtown Study Results Summary EXHIBIT B: Map of Downtown Commercial (CD) District and Peripheral Study Area EXHIBIT C: List of Approved Non-Residential Projects (1986-2012) City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 EXHIBIT D: Parking Deficit from 09/01/1986 to 08/21/2013 EXHIBIT E: Commercial Downtown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category EXHIBIT F: Downtown Monitoring Report for 2011-12 EXHIBIT G: Map of Study Area ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT Attachment C – Sample Agreement CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this day of , , (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and , a , located at ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in Exhibit “A” in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. The performance of all Services shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for work performed under an authorized Task Order and the City may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT OR The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit “B” unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Dollars ($ ). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Dollars ($ ).The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, CONSULTANT shall submit estimates of probable construction costs at each phase of design submittal. If the total estimated construction cost at any submittal exceeds ten percent (10%) of the CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the PROJECT design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Project budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. 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. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign as the to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and as the project to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City’s project manager is , Department, Division, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: . The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. [Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its 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. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT 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. 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. City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT 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 City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT 24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 25. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 25.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 25.2. In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 25.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys’ fees paid to third parties. 25.4. This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 25.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 25.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect. 25.7. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this Agreement and will be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, City shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT ATTACHMENT “C” SAMPLE AGREEMENT City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 SAMPLE AGREEMENT breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 Attachment D SAMPLE TABLE FORMAT QUALIFICATIONS OF FIRM RELATIVE TO CITY’S NEEDS Project Name Client Description of work performed Total Project Cost Percentage of work firm as responsible for Period work was completed Client contact information* Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project: Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project: Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project: Did your firm meet the project schedule (Circle one) : Yes No Give a brief statement of the firm’s adherence to the schedule and budget for the project: *Include name, title and phone number. Attachment E SAMPLE COST PROPOSAL FORMAT – RFP (The City is looking for a submittal in this format – content should match cost for scope of services required) Scope Labor Categories (e.g., Consultant, Sr. Consultant, etc.) Est. Hours Hourly Rate Extended Rate $ $ $ $ Task 1 $ $ TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, TASK 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ Task 2 $ $ TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, TASK 2 $ $ $ $ $ $ Task 3 $ $ TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED, TASK 3 $ $ TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED (TASKS 1 – 3) $ $ City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 Attachment “F” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Rev. 11/07 City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 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: MINIMUM LIMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY Attachment “F” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Rev. 11/07 City of Palo Alto – RFP 149978 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. DOWNTOWN STUDY RESULTS SUMMARY (July 1986) The following are the primary measures adopted as a result of the study: 1. A new Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district, including three sub districts (CD-C, CD-S and CD-N), was created and applied to most of the Downtown area previously zoned Community Commercial (CC) or Service Commercial (CS). The basic provisions of the CD district include floor area ratios (FARs) that are more restrictive than in the previous CC and CS zones, limits to project size and to the overall amount of future development, and special development regulations for sites adjacent to residential zones. 2. Growth limits were applied to the CD district restricting future development to a total of 350,000 square feet beyond what was existing or approved in May 1986 and providing for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when new development reaches 235,000 square feet. In addition, 100,000 square feet of the total new floor area was reserved for projects demonstrating special public benefits and 75,000 square feet for projects which qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions. 3. Exemptions to the floor area ratio restrictions of the CD zone were established for certain building expansions involving historic structures, seismic rehabilitation, provision of required handicapped access, or one-time additions of 200 square feet or less. 4. New parking regulations were established for the University Avenue Parking Assessment District that requires new non- residential development to provide parking at a rate of one space per 250 square feet of floor area. Exemptions to this requirement are provided for certain increases in floor area related to provision of handicapped access, seismic or historic rehabilitation, one-time minor additions (200 square feet or less) and development of vacant land previously assessed for parking. The regulations also permit, in certain instances, off-site parking and parking fees in lieu of on-site parking. 5. Performance measures were established that specify that new development in the Downtown should not increase the total parking deficit beyond that expected from development that was existing or approved through May, 1986 (1600 spaces) and that call for re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations when the unmet parking demand, resulting from exemptions, reaches one half (225 parking spaces) of the minimum 450 parking spaces deemed necessary for construction of a new public parking structure. Staff was directed to monitor the parking deficit. 6. A new Ground Floor (GF) Combining District was created and applied to the area along University Avenue and portions of the major side streets between Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, in order to restrict the amount of ground floor area devoted to uses other than retail, eating and drinking or personal service. 7. Staff was directed to monitor the Downtown area in terms of development activity, vacancy rates, sales tax revenues, and commercial lease rates to facilitate evaluation of the effectiveness of the new regulations. 8. Staff was directed to undertake a site and feasibility study to evaluate an additional public parking structure elsewhere in the Downtown, to consider development of a parking facility on public lots S, L and F, and to explore the possibility of leasing or purchasing privately-owned vacant lots suitable as parking structure sites. 9. Policies and regulations were adopted which encourage Planned Community (PC) zoning for parking structures and limit underground parking to two levels below grade, unless there is proof that regular pumping of subsurface water will not be necessary. 10. A Twelve-Point Parking Program was adopted to increase the efficiency of existing parking. 11. Traffic policies were adopted which prohibit new traffic signals on portions of Alma Street and Middlefield Road, and prohibit a direct connection from Sand Hill Road to Palo Alto/Alma Street. In addition, new signs were approved directing through traffic off of University Avenue and onto Hamilton and Lytton Avenues. 12. Staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) were directed to consider the possibility of an Urban Design Plan for Downtown and to develop design guidelines for commercial structures in neighborhood transition areas and for driveways which cross pedestrian walkways. 13. A temporary Design and Amenities Committee was created and charged with developing an incentive program (including FAR increases of up to 1.5) to encourage private development to provide a variety of public amenities in the Downtown area. 14. Staff was directed to study possible restrictions on the splitting and merging of parcels as well as the establishment of minimum lot sizes in the new CD district. Page 1 CD NON-RESIDENTIAL CHANGE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE 09/01/86 TO 08/31/12 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non-Residential Floor Area 520 Ramona Street A CDCGFP 11/20/84 - 400 +400 220 University Avenue CDCGFP 2/5/87 - 65 +65 151 Homer Avenue CDSP 3/17/88 - - -9,750 314 Lytton Avenue CDCP 5/5/88 - - -713 247-275 Alma Street CDNP 8/4/88 - - +1,150 700 Emerson Street CDSP 9/15/88 - - +4,000 431 Florence Street CDCP 9/15/88 - 2,500 +2,500 156 University Avenue CDCGFP 12/15/88 - 4,958 +4,958 401 Florence Street CDCP 3/2/89 - 2,407 +2,407 619 Cowper Street CDCP 5/6/89 - - +2,208 250 University Avenue PC-3872 5/15/89 11,000B 300 +20,300 550 University Avenue CDCP 6/1/89 - - -371 Page 2 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non-Residential Floor Area 529 Bryant Street PC-3974 5/3/90 2,491C 2,491 +2,491 305 Lytton Avenue CDCP 9/28/90 - 200 +200 550 Lytton AvenueDE CDCP 10/22/90 - - +4,845 531 Cowper Street PC-4052 5/21/91 9,000 475 +9,475 540 Bryant Street CDCGFP 3/24/92 - 404 +404 530/534 Bryant Street CDCGFP 4/15/93 - 432 +432 555 Waverley Street/425 Hamilton AvenueE CDCP 9/21/93 - - +2,064 201 University Avenue CDCGFP 11/18/93 - 2,450 +2,450 Page 3 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non/Residential Floor Area 518 Bryant Street CDCGFP 3/3/94 - 180 +180 245 Lytton Avenue CDCP 7/21/94 - - -21,320 400 Emerson StreetEF PC-4238 9/19/94 - 200 +4,715 443 Emerson Street CDCGFP 1/5/95 - 26 +26 420 Emerson Street CDCP 3/16/95 - 125 +125 340 University Avenue CDCGFP 4/6/95 - - -402 281 University Avenue CDCGFP 4/20/95 - - -2,500 456 University Avenue CDCGFP 5/18/95 - 7,486 +7,486 536 Ramona Street CDCGFP 7/11/95 - 134 +134 725/753 Alma Street PC-4283 7/17/95 - - -1,038 552 Emerson Street CDCGFP 7/18/95 - 177 +177 483 University Avenue G PC-4296 10/2/95 3,467C 2,789 +7,289 424 University Avenue CDCGFP 9/21/95 - 2,803 +2,803 Page 4 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in non/Residential Floor Area 901/909 Alma Street E,F PC-4389 8/1/96 - - +4,425 171 University Avenue CD-C(GF)(P) 9/19/96 - 1,853 +1,853 401 High Street CD-C(P) 10/3/96 - 350 +350 430 Kipling Street D,H CD-C(P) 10/22/96 - 200 +1,412 460-476 University Avenue CD-C(GF)(P) 3/20/97 - 1,775 +1,775 400 Emerson Street D PC-4238 3/21/97 - - +2,227 275 Alma Street CD-N(P) 7/8/97 - 200 +3,207 390 Lytton Avenue PC-4436 7/14/97 8,420C 689 +17,815 411 High Street H CDCP 12/18/97 - 2,771 +2,771 530 Ramona CDCGFP 05/20/99 - 2852 +2852 705 Alma St CDSP 09/21/99 - 2814 +2814 200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10/21/99 - 10913 +10913 550 Lytton Ave CDCP 08/11/00 - - +93 Page 5 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in Non Residential Floor Area 437 Kipling St CDCGFP 02/01/01 - - +945 701 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +434 723 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +400 880 - 884 Emerson St CDSP 05/29/01 - - +312 539 Alma St CDCGFP 10/23/01 - 2,500 +2,500 270 University Ave CDCGFP 11/01/01 - 2,642 +2,642 901 High St. E, F CDSP 12/12/02 - - +12,063 800 High St. I PC-4779 02/03/03 - - -15,700 164 Hamilton Ave CDCP 01/13/05 - - -2,799 335 University Ave CDCGFP 08/10/05 - 4,500J +5,249 382 University Ave CDCGFP 07/27/06 - 194 +194 102 University Ave CDCGFP 10/10/2006 - - +8 325 Lytton Ave CDCP 5/2006 - - +17,515 Page 6 Project Address Zoning Date Approved Public Benefit Bonus Non Residential Square Footage Seismic, Historic, or Minor Bonus Square Footage Net change in Non Residential Floor Area 310 University Ave CDCGFP 07/31/2008 - 7,481 +7,481 317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 01/2008 - 2,500 +3,290 564 University Ave CDCP 7/2008 - 2,500 +4,475 278 University CDCGFP 11/2008 - - +137 265 Lytton CDCP 7/2010 - 3,712 +21,151 340 University CDCP 12/2010 - - -1,360 524 Hamilton CDCP 2/2011 - 5,200 +9,345 630 Ramona CDCP 6/2011 - 437 +437 668 Ramona CDCP 7/2011 - 4,940 +4,940 661 Bryant CDCP 2/2011 - 1,906 0 335-355 Alma CDCP 8/11 9,700 - 49,863 Totals 1986-2012 44,078 93,931 223,219 A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86), but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.” As a result, the project is counted among the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986 B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit instead of required 44 private spaces C: Project exceeded square footage otherwise allowed by zoning Page 7 D: Project converted residential space to non-residential space. Net non-residential space counts toward the 350,000 square foot limit E: Project included covered parking that counts as floor area but not counted 350,000 square foot limit F: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared parking facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space. G. In addition, project paid in-lieu fee for loss of 2 on-site parking spaces H: In addition, projects paid in-lieu fee for loss of 4 on-site spaces I: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP J: Transfer of Development Right (TDR) agreement with 230 and 232 Homer Avenue. 5000 total sq ft of TDR but only 4,500 sq. ft used for Non Residential Floor Area. Page 1 CD PARKING DEFICIT FROM 9/1/86 to 8/31/2012 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 1986 deficit 1,601 520 Ramona StreetA CDCGFP +400 2 0 0 +2 1,603 220 University Avenue CDCGFP +65 0 0 0 0 1,603 151 Homer Avenue CDSP -9,750 0 11 0 -50 1,553 314 Lytton Avenue CDCP -713 0 0 0 -3 1,550 247-275 Alma Street CDNP +1,150 5 5 0 0 1,550 700 Emerson Street CDSP +4,000 16 16 0 0 1,550 431 Florence St CDCP +2,500 10 0 10 +10 1,560 Page 2 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 156 University Avenue CDCGFP +4,958 20 0 20 +20 1,580 401 Florence Street CDCP +2,407 10 0 10 +10 1,590 619 Cowper Street CDCP +2,208 9 9 0 0 1,590 250 University Avenue PC-3872 +20,300 103 131B 0 -28 1,562 550 University Avenue CDCP -371 0 0 0 -1 1,561 529 Bryant Street PC-3974 +2,491 10 0 10 +10 1,571 520 Webster StreetC PC-3499 0 0 163 0 -163 1,408 305 Lytton Ave CDCP +200 1 0 1 +1 1,409 550 Lytton Avenue CDCP +4,845 19 19 0 0 1,409 Downtown Extensive restriping by Transportation Division of on and off/street parking -96 1,313 Page 3 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 531 Cowper Street PC-4052 +9,475 38 0 2 +38 1,351 540 Bryant Street CDCGFP +404 2 0 2 +2 1,353 530/534 Bryant Street CDCGFP +432 2 0 2 +2 1,355 555 Waverley Street/425 Hamilton AvenueD CDCP +2,064 8 0 0 +8 1,363 201 University Avenue CDCGFP +2,450 10 0 10 +10 1,373 518 Bryant Street CDCGFP +180 1 0 1 +1 1,374 245 Lytton Ave CDCP -21,320 90 149 0 -59 1,315 400 Emerson Street PC-4238 +4,715 18 5 1 +14 1,329 443 Emerson Street CDCGFP +26 0 0 0 0 1,329 Page 4 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 420 Emerson Street CDCP +125 1 0 1 +1 1,336 340 University Avenue CDCGFP -402 0 0 0 -2 1,334 281 University Avenue CDCGFP -2,500 0 0 0 -10 1,324 456 University Avenue CDCGFP +7,486 30 0 30 +30 1,354 536 Ramona Street CDCGFP +134 1 0 1 +1 1,355 725-753 Alma Street PC-4283 -1,038 7 7 0 -11 1,344 552 Emerson Street CDCGFP +177 1 0 1 +1 1,345 483 University Avenue PC-4296 +7,289 29 -2E 11 +31 1,376 424 University Avenue CDCGFP +2,803 11 0 11 +11 1,387 901/909 Alma PC-4389 +4,425 18 18 0 0 1,387 Page 5 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT StreetD 171 University Avenue CDCGFP +1,853 7 0 7 +7 1,394 401 High Street CDCP +350 1 0 1 +1 1,395 430 Kipling Street CDCP +1,412 5 -4E 1 +10 1,405 460/476 University Avenue CDCGFP +1,775 7 0 7 +7 1,412 400 Emerson Street PC-4238 +2,227 9 0 0 +9 1,421 275 Alma StreetF CDNP +3,207 0 0 1 +1 1,422 390 Lytton Avenue PC-4436 +17,815 74 50 3 +27 1,449 411 High Street CDCP +2,771 0 -4E 11 +15 1,464 530 Ramona CDCGFP 2852 11 0 11 +11 1475 Page 6 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 705 Alma St CDSP 2814 11 0 11 +11 1486 200 Hamilton Ave CDCP 10,913 44 3E 35 +41 1527 550 Lytton Ave CDCP 93 0 0 0 0 1527 528 High St PF 0 0 138 G 0 -138 1389 445 Bryant PF 0 0 575 G 0 -575 814 437 Kipling St CDCGFP 945 4 0E 2 +4 818 701 Emerson St CDSP 434 2 1 1 +1 819 723 Emerson St CDSP 400 2 2 0 0 819 880 / 884 Emerson St CDSP 312 2 5 0 -3 816 Page 7 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 539 Alma St CDCGFP 2,500 10 0 10 +10 826 270 University Ave CDCGFP 2,642 11 0E 11 +11 837 SUBTOTAL 86-02 106,930 672 1297 236 -764 837 901 High St. CDSP 12,063 59D 60 0 -1 836 800 High St. H PC-4779 -15,700 0 63 0 -63 773 164 Hamilton Ave CDCP -2499 0 0 0 0 773 335 University AveI CDCGFP 5,249 0 0 0 0 773 Page 8 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 382 University Ave CDCGFP 194 0 0 1 +1 774 102 University Ave CDCGFP 8 0 0 0 0 774 310 University Ave CDCGFP 7,481 30 0 30 +30 804 317-323 University Ave CDCGFP 3,290 0 0 0 0 804 564 University Ave CDCP 4,475 10 0 10 +10 814 325 Lytton Ave CDCP 17,515 110 6 0 -6 808 265 Lytton CDCP 21,151 106 52 0 +54 860 278 University CDCGFP +137 1 0 1 +1 861 340 University CDCP -1,360 861 524 Hamilton CDCP +9,345 31 8 23 +23 884 Page 9 PROJECT ADDRESS ZONING NET CHANGE IN NON/ RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA ADDED PARKING REQUIRED NET ADDED PARKING SPACES PARKING EXEMPTIONS PER 18.52.060 OF PAMC NET DEFICIT CHANGE TOTAL CUMULATIVE DEFICIT 630 Ramona CDCP +437 2 0 2 +2 886 668 Ramona CDCP +4,940 20 0 20 +20 906 661 Bryant CDCP 0 0 0 0 0 906 Downtown Extensive restriping by Transportation Division of on and off/street parking -32 874 180 Hamilton Avenue CDCP 0 0 0 5 +5 879 355 Alma Street CDCP +49,863 166 144 22 +22 901 TOTAL 223,219 1,077 1,816 350 676 901 A: Project approved during the Downtown Moratorium (9/84 to 9/86, but was not included in the Downtown EIR’s “pipeline projects.”) As a result, the project is counted among the CD District’s nonresidential development approvals since the enactment of the Downtown Study Policies in 1986 B: Through Assessment District project provided additional 64 public parking spaces as part of public benefit C: Addition of 2 levels of parking to Cowper/Webster garage D: Project was approved pursuant to PAMC Sections 18.83.120 or 18.83.130 which allow for a reduction in the number required parking spaces for shared parking facilities, joint use parking facilities, or substitution of 8 bike parking spaces for one vehicle space. Page 10 E. Project removed existing on-site spaces or met required parking by paying in-lieu fee F: Site had existing parking sufficient to allow expansion G: Construction of 2 city parking lots. 528 High completed on Aug. 2003 and 445 Bryant completed on Nov. 2003 H: Part of the SOFA 2 CAP I: As per PAMC 18.87.055, the TDR area transferred to the site does not increase the number of automobile parking spaces required for the additional floor area. Commercial Downtown (CD) and SOFA 2 CAP Floor Area by Use Category Use Category Area (October 1986) Area (October 2012) Area Change, percentage 1. Offices 1,100,000 1,400,000 27% % 2. Retail 500,000 625,000 25.00% 3. Eating & Drinking 150,000 275,000 83.33% 4. Financial Services 200,000 200,000 0.00% 5. Business Services 150,000 175,000 16.67% 6. Basement Storage 175,000 100,000 -42.86% 7. Hotels 100,000 150,000 50.00% 8. Personal Services 75,000 125,000 66.67% 9. Utility Facility 150,000 100,000 -33.33% 10. Public Facilities 50,000 75,000 50.00% 11. Automotive Services 150,000 50,000 -66.67% 12. Recreation/Private Club 25,000 50,000 100.00% 13. Theaters 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 14. Warehousing & Distribution 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 15. Manufacturing 50,000 0 -100.00% 16. Religious Institutions 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 17. Multi-Family Residential 250,000 400,000 50.00% 18. Single Family Residential 50,000 25,000 -50.00% 19. Vacant & Under Construction 150,000 50,000 -66.66% 20. Vacant & For Sale 0 0 21. Vacant & Available 150,000 100,000 -33.33% Total 3,625,000 3,875,000 5.52% ADJUSTED TOTAL: (Deduct residential uses, religious institutions, vacant & for sale and vacant & under construction.) 3,125,000 3,350,000 (Rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet) * The above table is rounded to the nearest 25,000 square feet and was based on a table originally prepared in 1986. Over the years, because of the rounding to 25,000 square foot increments, the table has had a greater margin of error. Staff attempted to update the table from the beginning in 1998; therefore the numbers may not compare directly to tables prepared prior to the 1998 report. City of Palo Alto (ID # 3462) City Council Informational Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 3/11/2013 March 11, 2013 Page 1 of 9 (ID # 3462) Title: Downtown Monitoring Report 2011-2012 Subject: Downtown Monitoring Report 2011-2012 From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation This is an informational report and no Council action is required. Executive Summary The annual Commercial Downtown (CD) Monitoring Report tracks total non-residential growth in the commercial downtown area (CD-C and CD-C(GF)(P)zones) and office and retail vacancy rates in CD-C and CD-C (GF)(P) zones. Through mid-December of 2012, there was a 2.8 percent vacancy rate within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 1.6 percent overall vacancy rate in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. In this monitoring cycle, approximately 49,860 square feet of space was approved or added to the total downtown non-residential square footage. An additional 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development can be accommodated before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached. Background Annual monitoring of available space in Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area was established in 1998 by Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9. These programs require reporting of non-residential development activity and trends within the CD zone district. Staff regularly has tracked vacancy rates, changes in floor area and parking in the CD district resulting from approved development to comply with the Comprehensive Plan programs and to determine the ground floor vacancy rate in the CD zone district. The zoning code included an exception process to allow office development on the first floor if the ground floor vacancy rate exceeds 5%. In 2009, the City Council adopted zoning ordinance amendments to enhance protection of retail uses in downtown commercial districts to ensure that retail uses are retained and viability enhanced during the economic downturn and beyond. The ordinance also eliminated an exception process triggered when the GF vacancy rate is found to be greater than 5% during the annual monitoring. A map of the districts subject to the amendments was included in the Council report (CMR 20:09), available on the City’s website. March 11, 2013 Page 2 of 9 (ID # 3462) Staff completed field visits for this 2011-2012 monitoring period in mid-December 2012. Telephone interviews and email exchanges with local real estate leasing agents were also compiled at the same time to determine current vacancy rates and prevailing rents. This report also includes cumulative data on developments in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zone from January 1987 through August 31, 2012 and has specific data on vacancy information and rental rates through December 2012. Discussion The economic conditions of the Palo Alto downtown area are continuing to improve since last year. Currently there is a 2.8 percent vacancy within the Ground Floor Overlay District and a 1.6 percent overall vacancy in the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning district. This is a noticeable drop of 2 percent vacancy in the Ground Floor Overlay District from last year. This number is close to the 2006-2007 period vacancy rate, before the economic downturn. The retail rental rates ranged from $3.00 to $6.50 per square foot based on the location, and office rental rates ranged from $4.00 to $7.00 per square foot during this reporting period. Office rental rates have increased marginally from last year and retail rental rates have remained steady through the 2011-2012 monitoring period. The following table shows the approximate total vacant square foot and percentage of vacancy from 2006. TABLE 1: Total Vacancy in CD-C & CD-C (GF) (P) Zones in Downtown Palo Alto Year Total CD-C Vacant (SQFT) % of CD-C Vacancy Total CD-C (GF) (P) Vacant (SQFT) % of CD-C (GF) (P) Vacancy 2006-2007 88,368 2.63 18,330 2.94 2007-2008 120,004 3.60 26,294 4.21 2008-2009 212,189 6.39 56,109 8.99 2009-2010 85,271 2.56 37,888 6.91 2010-2011 66,226 2.0 26, 290 4.8 2011-2012 52,368 1.6 15,550 2.8 Source: City of Palo Alto’s Planning Department. Non-Residential Development Activity The 1986 Downtown Study (and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance) incorporated a growth limit of 350,000 square feet of additional floor area above the total floor area existing in 1986, and provided for a re-evaluation of the CD regulations when net new development reaches 235,000 square feet. Since 1986, a total of 223,210 square feet of non-residential floor March 11, 2013 Page 3 of 9 (ID # 3462) area has been added in the Downtown CD-C zoned area. In the past two monitoring cycles from 2009-2011, approximately 34,650 square feet of net new commercial floor area was added with a few major contributing projects such as 524 Hamilton Avenue and 265 Lytton Avenue. In this current cycle, 2011-2012, approximately 49,860 square feet of net new commercial floor area has been added through one major project, 335-355 Alma Street. Based on this recent monitoring, an additional 11,790 square feet of new non-residential development remains for development before the re-evaluation limit of 235,000 square feet growth limit is reached. Staff notes that the 135 Hamilton Avenue project was recently approved (though parking issues haven’t been resolved), which would increase the total by approximately 20,000 square feet, to about 245,000 square feet, in excess of the re-evaluation threshold. Staff has developed a scope of work for the new Development Cap Study and will initiate work in the next couple of months. TABLE 2: Total Non-Residential SQFT Added in Downtown Palo Alto since 2006. Year Total Non-Residential SQFT Added in CD-C Total Non-Residential SQFT Left to Reach the Re-evaluation Limit* 2006-2007 195 129,055 2007-2008 7,480 121,575 2008-2009 25,280 96, 295 2009-2010 21,150 75, 145 2010-2011 13,500 61,645 2011-2012 49,860* 11,790 Source: City of Palo Alto’s Planning Department *Projects filed as of August 2012. Below is a list of significant projects in the downtown CD-C zone area that added more than 5,000 square feet since 2006. 325 Lytton Ave--17,515 square feet 310 University Ave--7,481 square feet 265 Lytton Ave—21,151 square feet 524 Hamilton Avenue—9,345 square feet 355 Alma Street—49,860 square feet Demonstrating Special Public Benefits The Downtown Study reserved 100,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot growth limit to be used for projects demonstrating special public benefits. Since 1986, eleven projects in the March 11, 2013 Page 4 of 9 (ID # 3462) Downtown area have been developed under the Planned Community zoning that requires a finding of public benefit. Six of the projects exceeded the non-residential floor area that would otherwise be allowed under zoning by a total of 66,915 square feet. The total changes in square footage of these projects are shown in the fourth column of Attachment C. The remaining five projects were mixed-use projects that did not exceed allowable non-residential floor areas. All of the projects either provided parking or paid a fee in-lieu of providing parking. Only one project; 355 Alma Street, in this current cycle added square feet demonstrating public benefit and provided in-lieu fees for parking. Projects Qualifying for Seismic, Historic or Minor Expansion Exemptions The Downtown Study designated 75,000 square feet of the 350,000 square foot cap for projects that qualify for seismic, historic or minor expansion exemptions in order to encourage these upgrades. Since 1986, 93,931 square feet have been added in this category. Two projects, 524 Hamilton Avenue and 668 Ramona, used close to 5000 square feet of Transfer Development Rights (TDR) square footage. This year’s only approved project, 335-355 Alma Street, did not add any square feet in this category. These projects are shown in the fifth column of Attachment C. Parking Inventory The 1986 Downtown Study set performance measures that established that new commercial development in the Downtown should not increase the total parking deficit beyond that was existing or approved through May 1986, or 1,601 spaces. This base “deficit” number was determined by counting the number of commercially bound vehicles (employees, customers, etc.) parked in residential neighborhoods. Increases or reductions to the deficit are determined by comparing the total number of commercial parking spaces constructed in the downtown area with the amount of new commercial square footage constructed. In general, for every 250 square feet of commercial development, an additional parking space should be constructed. There are certain projects that qualify for exemptions to parking requirements, which add to the deficit. Conversely, parking improvements that are independent of development reduce the deficit. As noted above, certain projects are exempt from providing parking or a portion thereof, which increases the deficit. The City tracks these exemptions, and at the end of the 2003 monitoring period, the City determined a re-evaluation of the parking exemption regulations would be undertaken when the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions reaches a cumulative 450 spaces. Currently, the unmet parking demand resulting from exemptions is 350 parking spaces. In 2003, the City opened two new parking structures located at 528 High Street and 445 Bryant Street. This added a total of 713 net new parking spaces. Other improvements that have occurred since 1986 include a 2-floor addition to the Cowper/Webster Garage and significant restriping of on-street parking spaces by the City’s Transportation Division. Per the methodology prescribed in the 1986 downtown study, the total cumulative parking deficit has been “reduced” from 1,601 in 1986 to 901 in 2012. Attachment D is a chart that details the CD March 11, 2013 Page 5 of 9 (ID # 3462) (Commercial Downtown) parking deficit. Although defined as a deficit reduction, there is a general understanding that commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods has increased since that time. Staff believes that the parking intrusion is not accurately depicted in Attachment D, as it likely doesn’t include factors such as a) increased employee density downtown, b) conversions of existing retail or underused office space to more intensive office uses, c) conversions of prior residential hotel uses to true hotel uses, and d) parking in neighborhoods from areas other than the downtown business, such as for Caltrain commuters, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and/or Stanford. A better estimate of parking intrusion will be developed as part of the Downtown Development Cap Study. Recently, staff has been directed by City Council to undertake a site and feasibility study to evaluate the possibility of construction of additional public parking structures in and around the Downtown area, and to consider expansion of existing parking capacity through the use of attendant parking at existing structures. In addition, City Council directed staff to conduct a re- evaluation of the 1986 Downtown Development Cap Study. This study examined parking, traffic and land use conditions of the Downtown area and restricting future non-residential development to a total of 350,000 square feet in the Downtown CD-C zone area. The proposed re-evaluation study will also include analysis of existing and projected traffic, parking capacity, and the impacts from application of parking exemptions under transfer of development rights and other code provisions. Vacancy Rate for Ground Floor (GF) Combining District The Ground Floor Combining District (GF) was created to encourage active pedestrian uses in the Downtown area such as retail, eating and drinking and personal services. There is approximately 548,675 square feet of total Ground Floor area in the CD-C (GF) (P) zoning district after the adoption of the amended ordinance in December 2009. Staff surveyed downtown CD-C (GF) (P) zoned areas to assess vacancy in the second week of December 2012. Staff also consulted local real-estate agents and other databases and compiled a list of only five properties in the CD-C (GF) (P) area, which met the requirements for vacancy. The total vacancy amounted to 15,550 square feet. TABLE 3: Vacant Property Listings for Only Ground Floor (GF) Spaces in CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District. (As of December 14, 2012) Address Vacant Square Feet 575 High 4,437 174 University 2,300 March 11, 2013 Page 6 of 9 (ID # 3462) 355 University 3,694 429-447 University 3,300 436-440 University 1,818 Source: City of Palo Alto’s Planning Department This results in a GF vacancy rate of approximately 2.8 percent this year; 2 percent less than previous year’s vacancy rate. FIGURE1. Vacancy Rates in CD-C and CD-C (GF)(P) Zones Since 2006 Source: City of Palo Alto’s Planning Department Vacancy Rate for Entire CD District The entire CD area contains approximately 3,850,000 gross square feet of floor area, including approximately 330,000 square feet within the SOFA CAP Phase 2 area. About 525,000 square March 11, 2013 Page 7 of 9 (ID # 3462) feet is used for religious or residential purposes or is vacant and not available for occupancy. Thus, the net square footage of available commercial space is approximately 3,325,000 square feet. Staff conducted a field survey in mid-December 2012 and communicated with local real estate agents during same time to assess overall vacancies in the downtown area. In this monitoring cycle there was a total vacancy of 52,368 square feet. This vacancy equals a rate of 1.6 percent compared to 2.0 percent in last year’s monitoring report. The overall CD-C vacancy rate has reduced considerably since the 2008-2009 period, close to a drop of 5 percent. Table 4 was compiled based on staff conducted fieldwork, researches of different real estate websites and responses received from local downtown real estate agents. TABLE 4: Vacant Property Listings for Rest of Commercial Downtown (CD). (As of December 14, 2012)) Includes Upper Floor Office Space in CD-C (GF) (P) Combining District and all floors of CD-C (P) District Address Zoning District Vacant Square Feet 526 Bryant CD-C (GF)(P) 5,753 542 Emerson CD-C(GF) (P) 1,850 385 Forest CD-C (GF)(P) 2,038 201-225 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P) 8,660 205 Hamilton CD-C (GF)(P) 9,857 437 Lytton CD-C (P) 1,204 550 Lytton CD-C (P) 2,662 355 University CD-C (GF)(P) 4,795 CD – Commercial Downtown, (C) – Commercial, GF – Ground Floor Combining District, P - Pedestrian Overlay March 11, 2013 Page 8 of 9 (ID # 3462) Trends in Use Composition The primary observation of change in the use composition of Downtown was, in this cycle about 48,360 square feet of new non-residential use was added through the 355 Alma Street project. Since the enactment of new CD zoning regulations in 1986, the total floor area devoted to higher-intensity commercial uses such as office, retail, eating/ drinking and housing has increased, while the total floor area in lower-intensity commercial uses like manufacturing, warehousing and business services has decreased (see Attachment E). Retail Rents Retail rental rates have marginally increased since last year’s monitoring report. According to the data gathered during December 2012 staff survey of commercial real estate agents offering properties for lease in Downtown, rents for retail space are generally ranging from $3.00 to $6.00 per square foot triple net (i.e. rent plus tenant assumption of insurance, janitorial services and taxes). The lower end of this range is generally for spaces in older buildings and away from University Avenue. Retail rental rates on core downtown University Avenue goes up to $5.00 to $6.50. For some vacant properties outside the downtown core, rental rates are lower and listed as negotiable. Office Rents Based on the information gathered from commercial real estate agents listing properties for lease in Downtown, rents for Class A Downtown office space (i.e. newer and/or larger buildings on University Avenue and Lytton Avenues) and Class B office space (i.e. older and/or smaller buildings further from University Avenue) are ranging from $3.75 to $7.00 per square foot triple net, more or less similar to last year’s monitoring cycle. Timeline This is an annual report. Resource Impact This report has no impact on resources, though the implications of reduced vacancy rates have positive impacts on the City’s property and sales tax receipts. Policy Implications This report on the Commercial Downtown (CD) zoning area is mandated by Comprehensive Plan Programs L-8 and L-9 and by the Downtown Study approved by the City Council on July 14, 1986. Environmental Review This is an informational report only and is exempted from CEQA review. March 11, 2013 Page 9 of 9 (ID # 3462) Courtesy Copies: Planning and Transportation Commission Architectural Review Board Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Palo Alto Board of Realtors Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association Downtown North Neighborhood Association Professorville Neighborhood University Park Neighborhood Association Attachments: : Attachment A: Downtown Study Summary (PDF) : Attachment B: Map of Downtown CD(C) District (PDF) : Attachment C: Non-Residential Square Footage (PDF) : Attachment D: Parking Changes (PDF) : Attachment E: Changes by Land Use Category (PDF) text texttext Downtown ParkingAssessment District Professorville Historic District RamonaStreetHistoricDistrict PF PC-1992 OR CS CC R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 RM-15 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-1(10000) R-1(10000)PF R-2 PC-2967PC-3266 PF PFPF RM-15 PF CN R-1 PC-3902 PC-3707 PC-4283 PF RT-35 PC-4389 CS CS PC-4465 CS CD-C(P) R-1(10000) RM-30 AMF(MUO) DHS R-2 CD-S(P)AMF PC-4612 R-1 PF CC PF 4426 CC RM-30 PF PF CD-N(1)(P) RM-30 PC-4063 PC-3872 PF PF PC-2130 PFCD-C (P) PC-4374 PF PF PF CD-C(P) CD-C(P) CD-N (P) PF PC-3111 PC-3007 PC-3974 PF PF PC-4262 PC-4243 PC-4238 PC-4195 RM-15 RMD(NP) RM-40 PC-3429 CD-N (P) CD-C(GF)(P) RM-40 CD-C (P) CD-C (P) PFAMF DHS DHS PF PC-4611 CC(L) PC-4053 RMD(NP) RMD(NP) RM-30 PF PC-2049 PC-3102 R-2 RM-15 R-1 RM-30 PC-4339 RM-30 RM-30 PF PC-4052PF PC- 2545 R-2 RM-40 PC-2145 RM-30 PC-2968 PC-3995 R-2 PF R-1 R-1 PC-3753 PC-4782 CS RT-50 CD-S(P) RT-50 RT-35 RT-35 R-2 RT-50 RT-50 PC-4779 RM-30 CD-C(P) PC-2649 PC-4296 RM-15 PC-4173 PC-4436 PC-3437 RM-15 RM-30PC-4048 PC- 2836 PC-2152 PF R-1 R-2 RM-15RM-30 R-1(10000) PC-3571 PF R-2 RM-30 R-2 R-2 RM-15 R R-1 CommuniGarden Palo AltoMedicalFoundation CityHall DowntownLibrary SeniorCenter FireSta.No.1 AddisonElementarySchool Children'sLibrary Palo AltoHigh School MainLibrary CulturalCenter HooverHospital JuniorMuseumandZoo WalterHaysElementarySchool Fire StationNo. 3 Elizabeth GambleGarden Center Lucie SternCenter ElPaloAltoPark El CaminoPark LyttonPlaza Cogswell Plaza ScottPark KelloggPark RinconadaPark JohnsonPark HopkinsPark EleanorPardeePark BowlingGreen WilliamsPark Quarry Road Welch Road Arboretum Road Somerset Place Martin Avenue Tevis Place Kirby Place Center Drive Pitman Avenue Arcadia Place Pitman Avenue Kings Lane Linco ln Avenue Forest Avenue Dana Avenue nter D riv e U n West C rescent Drive Hamilton Avenue Ashby Drive Island D rive Dana Avenue n t D r i ve Southwood Drive E d g e w o o d Drive Newell Road Louisa Court De Soto Da Waverley StreetPoe Street Palo Alto Avenue Kipling Street Ruthven Avenue Hawthorne AvenueLane 33 Cowper Street Tasso Street PaloAltoAvenue Everett Avenue Webster Street Hawthorne Avenue Lytton Avenue Everett Court Byron Street Middlefield Road Middlefield Road Fulton Street Seneca Street Fife Avenue Guinda Street Hamilton Avenue Forest Avenue Forest Avenue Fulton Street PaloAl t o Av enue Lytton Avenue Palo Al t o Avenue Seneca Street Hale Street Forest Court University Avenue Hamilton Court Hamilton Avenue Hale Street C h a u cer S treet Palo AltoA Street M Ma Palm S University Avenue E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Webster Street Kellogg Avenue Lincoln Avenue Melville Avenue Fulton Street Byron Street Middlefield Road Melville Aven ue Cowper Street Webster Street Coleridge Avenue Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Hopkins Avenue Harriet Street Harriet Street Community Lane Wilson Street Lincoln Avenue Regent Place Kent Place Lowell Avenue Middlefield Road E m b a rc a d e r o R o a d Tennyson Avenue Byron Street Fulton Street Guinda Street Harker Avenue Ceda r Street Hopkins Avenue Pine Street Newell Road Parkinson Avenue Seale Avenue Mark Twain StNewell Road No P Walter H ays D rive Walnut Drive Greenwood Avenue Hutchinson Avenue Channing Avenue Sharon Court Newell Road Erstwild Court Newell Place High StreetHomer Avenue Channing Avenue Alma Street Lane A West Lane 8 West Addison Avenue Emerson Street Ramona Street High StreetLane B West Emerson Street Lincoln Avenue Waverley Street Gilman Street Bryant Street Forest Avenue Downing Lane Homer Avenue Waverley Street Kingsley Avenue Lane B East Ramona Street Addison Avenue Lane D West Scott Street Bryant StreetLane D East Lincoln Avenue Kingsley Avenue Lane 59 East Addison Avenue Kipling Street Channing Avenue Cowper StreetHamilton Avenue Tasso Street University Avenue Webster Street Lane 39 Webster Street Lane 56 (Private) Byron Street Forest Avenue Whitman Court Lincoln Avenue Kellogg Avenue Melville Avenue Kingsley Avenue Waverley Street Bryant Street Cowper Street Middlefield Road Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue Cowper Street Churchill Avenue Tasso Street Kingsley Avenue Byron Street Guinda Street Fulton Street Homer Avenue Guinda Street Boyce Avenue Addiso n Avenue Channing Avenue Coleridge Avenue Lowell Avenue Waverley Street Bry Waverley Street nue Cowper Street gton Avenue Seale Avenue Tasso Street Tennyson Avenue Cowper Street Santa Rita Avenue Webster StreetEmbarcadero R o a d Kellogg Avenue Melville Avenue Alma Street MariposaA Coleridge Avenue venue Churchill Avenue Emerson Street Quarry Road Mitchell Lane Palm Drive (Stanford) Alma StreetEl Camino Real Hawthorne Avenue High Street Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue High Street El Ca mino Real Alma Street Hamilton AvenueUniversity Avenue W ells Avenue Emerson Street Ramona Street Emerson Street PaloAltoAvenue Bryant Street Ramona Street Lane 15 East Bryant Court Forest Avenue Lane 5 East Urban Lane Bryant Street Paulsen Lane Lane 12 West E n cina A v e n u e Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Lane 6 East Centennial Walk Lane 11 West Lane 21 Florence Street Lane 20 East Lane 20 West Kipling Street Lane 30 WOODLAND AVE CONCORDLEXINGTON T PL CLELAND CT WOODLAND CREEK DR DR CAMBRIDGE AVE HARVARD AVE LN ALMA ST CORNELL AVE ALTO LN AVE EL CAMINO REAL CREEK RD PARK SHERWOOD WAVERLEY ST BURGESS RD E. CLAREMONT CREEK PL EAST DR PL MANOR LINFIELD WILL OW WY WOOD SHER WAVERLEY PLCLAREMONT WY CREEK RD DR WY E. CREEK DR WAVERLEY DR ST PL WILLOW PARKING LAUREL S T WILLOW RDCT WAVERLEY KENT PL ST BAYWOOD LINFIELD DR HOMEWOOD PL RN AVE AVE CLOVER LN CO This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Primary Study Area (CD Zones) City Jurisdictional Limits Parking Assessment Districts Zone Designation Boundaries abc Zone Designation Labels Peripheral Study Area 0'780' Pa l o A l t o D o w n t o w n an d Su r r o u n d i n g N e i g h b o r h o o d s CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE 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 2013 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2013-03-11 17:32:47CD Peripheral Study Area--Aaron (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb)